2009 Emails ______________________________________________________ 2750. 2009-01-01 14:01:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:01:06 -0000 from: "Scott Betts" to: Dear Sir, I would be interested in some sort of response to the following question: So far I haven't found any sources which can empirically verify the causal causal connection between Carbon dioxide and temperature Given 80 millions tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, (22 million tons of carbon) what, in your understanding in terms of the climate, its sensitivity, and the proportion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to all c02, and in turn, to the whole atmosphere does this represent, and what does it do to the temperature? As I understand it the following factors should be taken into account 1) all c02 is 0.038% of the atmosphere, 2) that some 3% of that fraction is annually anthropogenic 3) c02 delays outgoing heat at 15microns in the spectroscopic absortion range 4) outgoing radiation is between 0 and 1% of the heat budget, 5) c02 moves bewtween air and oceans, soils and other sinks quite quickly. 6) There are 3067 gigatons of c02 in the atmosphere 7) the first 50ppm of c02 delays that fractional (5% of 0-1% heat budget) heat transfer into space, and anything additional only increases the metric range of this delay, and not the heat absorption, due to its logarithmic absorption factor. 8) only the carbon particle, and not the 2 oxygen particles have this effect. 9) given natural variability, over 98% of carbon dioxide fluctuations are naturally occurring. 10) At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. (oceans), and finally 11) that oceans and vegetation absorbs c02 exponentially and not logarithmically. Sincerely Scott Betts 4671. 2009-01-03 21:31:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:31:27 -0000 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: FW: Temperatures in 2009 to: "Johns, Tim" , "Smith, Doug" Tim and Doug Please see McCrackens email. We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. Any guidance welcome Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum Subject: Temperatures in 2009 Dear Phil and Chris-- Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. Best, Mike MacCracken Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009. The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying rate of warming, said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature, said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office Hadley Center. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops. The transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. For additional information see: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c older-than-in-Iceland.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html 2276. 2009-01-05 12:44:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jan 5 12:44:34 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: IPCC forecasts vs nave benchmark to: "Folland, Chris" Chris, Sounds good. Autumn fine. Cheers Phil At 12:10 05/01/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil Thanks very much. I could give a talk on the global forecasting paper and indicate the light it throws on the causes of a lack of recent global warming. I could combine this with the work we have done rthat shows that the current quasi-hiatus in warming for a decade is still consistent with 21st century model projections. Probably later this autumn? Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) <[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 05 January 2009 11:56 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: IPCC forecasts vs nave benchmark Chris, Have a good trip to OZ. Just before Christmas I recommended that you be continued as an Honorary Prof. I don't see why this shouldn't get approved. It won't be my fault if it is! There isn't a maximum number we can have. I said you'd be coming up at some point in the year to give another talk. Maybe when you have a near complete draft of the global T forecasting paper that would make a good idea. Cheers Phil At 19:31 02/01/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil Thanks. I have not heard of Scott Armstrong. He clearly works in the economics field. Int J Forecasting is such a journal. I suspect all of his work has been with economics statistical forecasting. Many of his principles, (can guess some and many doubtless are indeed relevant to the statistical aspects of the global annual forecasting methods) would not apply to dynamical predictions in the same way I have hardly read a worse paper. Its so bad in such fundamental ways, I dont know where to start. The only concern I have at present about the current IPCC results is that the evidence grows slowly that 0.03C a year warming in the next decade may be too fast despite our decadal forecast. On the other hand (and this is important) we can expect to see the biggest changes in HadCRUT to date between versions 3 and 4 - depending somewhat on the availability of the forthcoming reprocessed (A)ATSR) SST data 1991-2010 and of course on post 1945 bias corrections to SST which are likely to be complex and non trivial. Hopefully my global forecaasting paper when done (will send you a draft in due course before submission) will be a mite better! But I am now concentrating on work related to developments of the Baines and Folland (2007, J CLIM) paper for presentations in Australia in Feb. The OZs are paying most of this trip so I'd better do a good job. Includes a presentation at the SH Met and Ocean Conf in Melbourne. So global temp forecasting paper on hold till after I get back (away 4 Feb - 28 Feb with some holiday - Pat is coming). By the way, would it help to have an update of my "long" CV regarding my Professorship? - which I hope can be renewed in Aug 2009? I keep this CV up reasonably to date in the form of a Personal Portfolio and an external papers list. Cheers Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: 02 January 2009 15:49 To: Folland, Chris Subject: Fwd: IPCC forecasts vs nave benchmark Chris, I got this email over the Christmas break. Back in CRU today I picked up all paper from the website and it is attached. I initially thought it might be useful to you when you write up your global temperature forecasting technique. How wrong I was! I didn't believe it was possible to make so many mistakes in a paper and get it published - but it seems that it is quite easy! Anyway - Scott Armstrong is apparently very well know in statistical forecasting and has a series of rules, exemplified in his book from 2001. He may know something about his field, but it is clear he doesn't know anything about the climate system! I suspect these authors will make a big splash in certain media outlets when this paper comes out. Cheers Phil Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:32:09 +1300 From: Kesten Green Subject: IPCC forecasts vs nave benchmark To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AclqTdq8KopVY0uFR7OLOoP5ME2MQg== 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: 15056011 - 837a072efee1 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15056011&m=837a072efee1&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15056011&m=837a072efee1&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15056011&m=837a072efee1&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Professor Jones, Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon, and I compare the accuracy of the IPCC's forecasts with those from a nave benchmark model in our new paper "Benchmark forecasts for climate change". The paper has been accepted for publication, but we still have two weeks to make further changes. We are particularly keen to learn about anything that might be obscure or incorrect in what we have written. Climate change is an important forecasting problem because fear of dangerous manmade global warming has led to major public policy expenditures. Our paper is located at [8]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. [9]forecastingprinciples.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1794. 2009-01-05 16:46:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:46:16 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request - Impact of adjustments to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Dave, this one is just for Phil, I think. I have little to do with HadCRUT3 data and certainly have no information concerning the adjustment of raw weather station data. By the way, the request appears to originate from a "Bishop Hill" email address, which is also a blog (not so well read as Climate Audit) that spreads misinformation about climate science (e.g. that Phil has been accused by Doug Keenan of fabricating claims made in one of Phil's papers!): Tim At 16:32 05/01/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >An EIR request from Mr. Montford that I'm forwarding to you at the >suggestion of Michael McGarvie. >Deadline for response is 30 January. > >If you think it useful, we can meet to discuss the approach to this >request - Michael can ask his PA to set up the meeting. Please note >that all correspondence from us on this request will be immediately >posted on the web at the 'whatdotheyknow' website/service. > >Please note that EIR has many of the same exemptions as FOIA but does >differ in some significant aspects (e.g. there is no 'appropriate limit' >within the EIR). Should you have any concerns regarding the release of >this information (assuming we have it), I will then address them in >light of the provisions of the EIR.... > >Cheers, Dave > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bishop Hill [mailto:request-5369-1dae80e3@whatdotheyknow.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:33 AM >To: David Keith Palmer >Subject: Freedom of Information request - Impact of adjustments > > Dear Sir or Madam, > > I am interested in the HADCRUT3 global temperature index. > Specifically, I would like to know the impact of adjustments to the > data over time as these affect the global mean surface temperature. > > I imagine that such an assessment must be done as a part of the > regular preparation of the index and presumably would take the form > of a chart of the index calculated with and without the > adjustments, although anything along these lines would meet my > needs. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I'm trying to compare the two extremes > - raw data from the weather stations at one end, and the final > HADCRUT3 GMST at the other. > > Yours faithfully, > > Andrew Montford > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be > published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: > http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers > > Is foi@uea.ac.uk the wrong address for Freedom of Information > requests to University of East Anglia? If so please contact us > using this form: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1229. 2009-01-06 10:03:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:03:10 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request - Impact of adjustments to: Tim Osborn , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Michael, I think there is no need to meet to respond to this one. The only information I can provide is in the most recent scientific paper on HadCRUT3. The paper is 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. We can't put this paper up on the website as this breaks AGU regulations. You also can't email it as it is too large. There is a link to the final version before it went to AGU on this CRU web page. [1] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ There are two links in fact - one back to AGU and one to a pdf of the paper. See if you can locate it Dave. It is the first of the references listed. What the requester needs to look at is Figure 4 and the accompanying text. They probably will not realise the significance of the Figure. What it shows is a histogram of all the station homogeneity adjustments. The distribution is Gaussian with a near zero mean, so global temperature series with and without these adjustments would be indistinguishable. The effects of other uncertainties are discussed in the paper. Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469. Bias adjustments to the SST component in HadCRUT3 are shown in Figure 8. Bottom line is that they should read the scientific literature we give details of on the web page! This has been the simplest request to deal with. It has still taken 10 minutes to write this email. The issue might be that they will make further requests as they may not understand what is said in the papers! Happy to go through a draft response. Cheers Phil At 16:46 05/01/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: Dave, this one is just for Phil, I think. I have little to do with HadCRUT3 data and certainly have no information concerning the adjustment of raw weather station data. By the way, the request appears to originate from a "Bishop Hill" email address, which is also a blog (not so well read as Climate Audit) that spreads misinformation about climate science (e.g. that Phil has been accused by Doug Keenan of fabricating claims made in one of Phil's papers!): <[2] http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/this-should-be-fun.html> Tim At 16:32 05/01/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, An EIR request from Mr. Montford that I'm forwarding to you at the suggestion of Michael McGarvie. Deadline for response is 30 January. If you think it useful, we can meet to discuss the approach to this request - Michael can ask his PA to set up the meeting. Please note that all correspondence from us on this request will be immediately posted on the web at the 'whatdotheyknow' website/service. Please note that EIR has many of the same exemptions as FOIA but does differ in some significant aspects (e.g. there is no 'appropriate limit' within the EIR). Should you have any concerns regarding the release of this information (assuming we have it), I will then address them in light of the provisions of the EIR.... Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bishop Hill [[3] mailto:request-5369-1dae80e3@whatdotheyknow.com] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:33 AM To: David Keith Palmer Subject: Freedom of Information request - Impact of adjustments Dear Sir or Madam, I am interested in the HADCRUT3 global temperature index. Specifically, I would like to know the impact of adjustments to the data over time as these affect the global mean surface temperature. I imagine that such an assessment must be done as a part of the regular preparation of the index and presumably would take the form of a chart of the index calculated with and without the adjustments, although anything along these lines would meet my needs. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm trying to compare the two extremes - raw data from the weather stations at one end, and the final HADCRUT3 GMST at the other. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford ------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: [4]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers Is foi@uea.ac.uk the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to University of East Anglia? If so please contact us using this form: [5]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4195. 2009-01-06 10:04:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:57 -0000 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 to: "Phil Jones" Phil Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more general studies show relationships between the population or size of cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban warming in some cases? And why this might be so? Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: 05 January 2009 17:02 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Chris, Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather. Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought. Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather, and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month. Cheers Phil At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them. > >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here as >well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been better, >allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30! > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 >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: 05 January 2009 16:18 >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Tim, Chris, > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > record, 1998! > Still a way to go before 2014. > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > Chris - I presume the Met Office > continually monitor the weather forecasts. > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > days (in Norfolk) > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg > C for the LWC. > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > The paper > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > and Rothamsted). > > Cheers > Phil > > > >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug > > > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario > >(for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models > >shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us > >in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a > >new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions > >reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by > >a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 > >emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 > >scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The > >A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than > >the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most > >likely to be "realistic". > > > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite > >marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first > >few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, > >reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence > >in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although > >much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in > >the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please > >don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, > >not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We > >think the different short term warming responses are largely > >attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. > > > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing > >similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a > >multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes > >similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might > >well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment > >fine print to that extent). > > > >Cheers, > >Tim > > > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > > > Tim and Doug > > > > > > Please see McCrackens email. > > > > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In > > a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net > > warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the > > method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent > > warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless > > perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys > > are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > > > > > Any guidance welcome > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Prof. Chris Folland > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June > > > 2008) > > > > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > > > 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: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > > > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot > > of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have > > done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how > > much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from > > China and India (I know that at least some plants are using > > desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry > > that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going > > to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to > > tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to > > pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better > > inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US > > EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were > > not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not > > having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated > > in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but > > it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > > > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air > > quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put > > the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems > > quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low > > albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe > > one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies > > the sulfate cooling influence. > > > > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and > > quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to > > enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > > > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. > > > > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past > > decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also > > do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a > > quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, > > the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the > > models are no good, etc. > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > > > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > > > > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > > > > > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > > > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will > > be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global > > temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4C above the 1961-1990 > > average of 14 C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate > > model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the > > long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record > > temperatures after 2009. The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not > > break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming, said Dr. Phil > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. > > Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence > > on global surface temperature, said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met > > Office Hadley Center. > > > Further warming to record levels is likely > > once a moderate El Nino develops. The transition from a La Nina > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > > > > > For additional information see: > > > http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set > > -t > > o-be-c > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230. > > > ht > > > ml > > > > > > > >-- > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling > > Met Office Hadley Centre > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday > > Thursday-Friday > > > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google > > Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 451. 2009-01-06 10:50:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Pat Berge , Cherry Murray , George Miller , Anjuli Bamzai , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Doug Rotman , Peter Thorne , 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 date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:50:56 -0800 (PST) from: Stephen H Schneider subject: Re: [Fwd: data request] to: santer1@llnl.gov "Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience--but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution--with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred--so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago. This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work--and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics--like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how credible scientific replication should proceed. Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent--to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value in public policy"--what you resort to when you can't win the intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS. Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used. Cheers, Steve PS Please do not copy or forward this email. Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Santer" To: "Peter Thorne" , "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" Cc: "David C. Bader" , "Bill Goldstein" , "Pat Berge" , "Cherry Murray" , "George Miller" , "Anjuli Bamzai" , "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Doug Rotman" Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:23:41 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [Fwd: data request] Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology paper (and other interested parties), I am forwarding an email I received this morning from a Mr. Geoff Smith. The email concerns the climate model data used in our recently-published International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Mr. Smith has requested that I provide him with these climate model datasets. This request has been made to Dr. Anna Palmisano at DOE Headquarters and to Dr. George Miller, the Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I have spent the last two months of my scientific career dealing with multiple requests for these model datasets under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have been able to do little or no productive research during this time. This is of deep concern to me. From the beginning, my position on this matter has been clear and consistent. The primary climate model data used in our IJoC paper are part of the so-called "CMIP-3" (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) archive at LLNL, and are freely available to any scientific researcher. The primary observational (satellite and radiosonde) datasets used in our IJoC paper are also freely available. The algorithms used for calculating "synthetic" Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data (to facilitate comparison with actual satellite temperatures) have been documented in several peer-reviewed publications. The bottom line is that any interested scientist has all the scientific information necessary to replicate the calculations performed in our IJoC paper, and to check whether the conclusions reached in that paper were sound. Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Stephen McIntyre (Mr. McIntyre is the initiator of the FOIA requests to the U.S. DOE and NOAA, and the operator of the "ClimateAudit.com" blog) is interested in full replication of our calculations, starting from the primary climate model and observational data. Instead, they are demanding the value-added quantities we have derived from the primary datasets (i.e., the synthetic MSU temperatures). I would like a clear ruling from DOE lawyers - ideally from both the NNSA and DOE Office of Science branches - on the legality of such data requests. They are troubling, for a number of reasons. 1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to FOIA requests. At LLNL's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat content changes, and so-called "cloud simulator" products suitable for comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type, altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial. 2. Mr. Smith asserts that "there is no valid intellectual property justification for withholding this data". I believe this argument is incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper - and the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above - are integral components of both PCMDI's ongoing research, and of proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these datasets? 3. There is a real danger that such FOIA requests could (and are already) being used as a tool for harassing scientists rather than for valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests to DOE and NOAA are but the latest in a series of such requests. In the past, Mr. McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the U.K. Climatic Research Unit, and the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville. Now he is focusing his attention on me. The common denominator is that Mr. McIntyre's attention is directed towards studies claiming to show evidence of large-scale surface warming, and/or a prominent human "fingerprint" in that warming. These serial FOIA requests interfere with our ability to do our job. Mr. Smith's email mentions the Royal Meteorological Society's data archiving policies (the Royal Meteorological Society are the publishers of the International Journal of Climatology). Recently, Prof. Glenn McGregor (the Chief Editor of the IJoC) provided Mr. McIntyre with the following clarification: "In response to your question about data policy my position as Chief Editor is that the above paper has been subject to strict peer review, supporting information has been provided by the authors in good faith which is accessible online (attached FYI) and the original data from which temperature trends were calculated are freely available. It is not the policy of the International Journal of Climatology to require that data sets used in analyses be made available as a condition of publication." As many of you may know, I have decided to publicly release the synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre's FOIA request (together with additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested by Mr. McIntyre). These datasets have been through internal review and release procedures, and will be published shortly on PCMDI's website, together with a technical document which describes how synthetic MSU temperatures were calculated. I agreed to this publication process primarily because I want to spend the next few years of my career doing research. I have no desire to be "taken out" as scientist, and to be involved in years of litigation. The public release of the MSU data used in our IJoC paper may or may not resolve these problems. If Mr. McIntyre's past performance is a guide to the future, further FOIA requests will follow. I would like to know that I have the full support of LLNL management and the U.S. Dept. of Energy in dealing with these unwarranted and intrusive requests. I do not intend to reply to Mr. Smith's email. Sincerely, Ben Santer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 552. 2009-01-06 14:55:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 6 14:55:43 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 to: "Folland, Chris" Chris, City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water bodies as well. I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th century. I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it. Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and on Horseguards Parade! The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably. It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics. They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability! Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as it was the last one on your list. Cheers Phil At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote: Phil Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more general studies show relationships between the population or size of cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban warming in some cases? And why this might be so? Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 Chris, Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather. Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought. Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather, and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month. Cheers Phil At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them. > >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here as >well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been better, >allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30! > >Chris > > >Prof. Chris Folland >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) > >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United >Kingdom >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 >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 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > > > Tim, Chris, > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office > press release with Doug's paper that said something like - > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on > record, 1998! > Still a way to go before 2014. > > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. > > Chris - I presume the Met Office > continually monitor the weather forecasts. > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20 > days (in Norfolk) > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. > > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg > C for the LWC. > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. > The paper > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park > and Rothamsted). > > Cheers > Phil > > > >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote: > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug > > > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario > >(for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models > >shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us > >in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a > >new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions > >reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by > >a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 > >emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 > >scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The > >A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than > >the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most > >likely to be "realistic". > > > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite > >marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first > >few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, > >reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence > >in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although > >much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in > >the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please > >don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, > >not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We > >think the different short term warming responses are largely > >attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories. > > > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing > >similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a > >multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes > >similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might > >well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment > >fine print to that extent). > > > >Cheers, > >Tim > > > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote: > > > Tim and Doug > > > > > > Please see McCrackens email. > > > > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4 > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In > > a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net > > warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the > > method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent > > warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless > > perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys > > are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009. > > > > > > Any guidance welcome > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Prof. Chris Folland > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June > > > 2008) > > > > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 > > > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 > > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072) > > > <[5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. > > > Professor of School of Environmental > > Sciences, University of East Anglia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike MacCracken [[6]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009 > > > > > > Dear Phil and Chris-- > > > > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot > > of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have > > done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how > > much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from > > China and India (I know that at least some plants are using > > desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry > > that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going > > to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to > > tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to > > pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better > > inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US > > EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were > > not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not > > having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated > > in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but > > it would really help to know what is being emitted). > > > > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air > > quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put > > the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems > > quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low > > albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe > > one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies > > the sulfate cooling influence. > > > > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and > > quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to > > enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. > > > Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. > > > > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past > > decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also > > do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a > > quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, > > the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the > > models are no good, etc. > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. > > > > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. > > > > > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > > > > > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record > > > > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will > > be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global > > temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4C above the 1961-1990 > > average of 14 C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate > > model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the > > long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record > > temperatures after 2009. The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not > > break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming, said Dr. Phil > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. > > Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence > > on global surface temperature, said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met > > Office Hadley Center. > > > Further warming to record levels is likely > > once a moderate El Nino develops. The transition from a La Nina > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. > > > > > > For additional information see: > > > [7]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 > > > > > [8]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set > > -t > > o-be-c > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html > > > [9]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs > > > [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230. > > > ht > > > ml > > > > > > > >-- > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling > > Met Office Hadley Centre > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [11]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday > > Thursday-Friday > > > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google > > Earth [12]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3769. 2009-01-07 10:01:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dith Stone , Phil Jones , Gabi Hegerl , Peter Stott , Toru Nozawa , Alexey Karpechko , Michael Wehner date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:01:17 +0200 (SAST) from: Dith Stone subject: Re: Fwd: Information for reviewing Nature Geoscience manuscript to: Nathan Gillett Hi Nathan and co., So they went ahead and submitted. I see three main comments on this: - Your one about how it is unsurprising that weather indices provide extra information. I note that they seem to have judiciously chosen coefficients in d and e (not f and g though) that give the best result: in fact they admit doing so. - Perhaps most importantly, Mariani et alii do not address the question of whether something is affecting the weather indices. This could be NAT and ANT forcing. Or it could be Arctic temperatures, because their correlation does not demonstrate causation (I assume they would claim that climate models (e.g. barotropic) demostrate the direction, but they're claiming we should ditch the climate models.) Neither c, d, nor e preclude a and b. - What model for significance testing are they using? They say that ALL_mean's r^2 is significant at the 10% level, but then dismiss it by saying that they don't actually believe their statistical model. Ours implicitly takes account of such possibilities as encapsulated in N years of dynamic climate model simulations. Other notes: - Why shouldn't five year means give a realistic picture of variability? They use five year means anyway, so I can only assume they are okay with it. - The relevance of our study is of course skewed toward areas with or near to stations. This is an issue in terms of interpreting "temperature variations" as "total polar warming". So if your interest is in uniformly spatially averaged temperature then there may be an issue. For the Arctic though, most people live in and care about the well sampled bits (no cares about the North Pole) so the spatial bias is in effect a perfectly plausible population/GDP weighting. For Antarctica this is a bit of a stretch. But as we state in the paper we are attributing "changes" in polar temperatures, and then assuming that this lets us interpet "changes" as "warming". Welcome to 2009! DA On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Nathan Gillett wrote: > Hi all,Mariani et al. went ahead and submitted their response to Nature > Geoscience, so we've now been asked to formulate a response to the paper > (up to 500 words, no figures) by Jan 15th. I attach a PDF of the Mariani > et al. paper, and a response which I have quickly drafted. I doubt > whether this will get far with the referees, but we should make sure we > properly address all the points raised. Comments or suggestions would be > welcome. > > All the best for the New Year, > > Nathan > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: 2009/1/5 > Subject: Information for reviewing Nature Geoscience manuscript > NGS-2008-12-01244 > To: nathan.gillett@ec.gc.ca > > > Dear Nathan, > > The enclosed manuscript entitled "POLAR WARMING ATTRIBUTION STILL > PREMATURE" has been submitted to our Correspondence section as a comment > on your recent paper published in Nature Geoscience. Before proceeding > further, we would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the > letter. > > The authors have attached your point-by-point response to their concerns, > but we would prefer to send a stand-alone response to our referees. > > Please could you make your response as brief as you can, and refrain as > far as possible from reiterating points already made in your paper? (The > response should be under 500 words in length and must not contain new > data, or any figures or tables.) > > When we receive your response it is possible that we shall send the > exchange to independent referees for advice. If the referees recommend > publication of this exchange, you will then have the opportunity to > revise your response. We will let you know our decision about publication > in due course. (Further details about this procedure can be found on > http://www.nature.com/ngeo/guide_authors.html) > > I am sure you appreciate that we would like to make a decision about > publication as soon as possible, so if we do not hear from you within 10 > days of receipt of this we shall assume that you do not wish to comment > and will make a decision about publication without a reply from you. In > this event, we shall not be able to consider publication of any response > from you. > > To access the manuscript, instructions and review form, please click on > the link below. > [see attached file] > > > From there, simply follow the link to manuscript number > NGS-2008-12-01244. The first time that you enter the system, please click > on the 'Referee Instructions' link and then scroll down to the section > marked 'Correspondence: Criticised Authors'. *Please read this section > first* as it contains information that should answer any > questions/uncertainties you might have about using the system. > > The review form will rapidly allow you to provide your reply 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 http://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 log in. > > 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 > > > This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System > NY-610A-NPG&MTS > > > > -- > **************************************************************************** > 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 > > **************************************************************************** > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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: http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/~daithi -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 778. 2009-01-08 14:50:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 8 14:50:24 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 to: "Folland, Chris" Chris, I sent it. He says he'll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn't as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured him they were not. The SPM may be, but not the chapters. From other things in his email though, he won't be convinced. Cheers Phil At 14:37 08/01/2009, you wrote: Phil I have not been in work for some days as I mainly work at home. So I have not seen the letter. Please go ahead as you think best. Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 08 January 2009 09:15 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009 > Chris, Maybe you'll get or have got a letter from a (probably retired) nuclear physicist living in Warrington. It relates to the 2009 temperature forecast. I'm going to send him a quick reply pointing to the IPCC AR4 website and a CRU page which has some of the papers accessible. He seems to get his information from blog sites! He claims that it is unworthy therefore to possibly stress some perhaps, vulnerable members of the UK population with such immoderate stories. I'll also send him the full press release. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 373. 2009-01-09 04:43:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:43:23 -0500 from: "Teresa Richards" subject: Lobbying in the EU workshop - March 30th and 31st to: "Colleague " If you do not intend to participate, please click the following link or paste it into your browser: http://guest.cvent.com/i.aspx?3Z,P1,1F72EAE2-D28B-43AF-AA4A-B8DDA8E698A8 To unsubscribe from all future Epsilon event announcements, you can unsubscribe at the foot of the email. Lobbying in the EU: How to represent and defend your interests in Brussels^TM 30th & 31st March 2009, Le Châtelain All Suite Hotel, Brussels [1]www.lobbying-eu.com Attending the Lobbying in the EU: How to represent and defend your interests in BrusselsTM workshop is the most effective Brussels based event for developing your understanding of the workings of the EU. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Endorsed by the Society for European Affairs Professionals ([2]www.seap.be) this event will contribute greatly to helping you better understand the European decision-making procedures and the practical realities of representing and defending your interests in Brussels. The workshop is run over a day and a 1/2 and is organised in partnership with Grayling Global. Day 1 of the event explores the theoretical aspects of lobbying. It will focus upon the key co-decision procedure and lobbying best practice. Real-life case studies will be presented and a lobbying methodology will be provided to delegates. The afternoon will finish with a 3-course evening dinner with guest speaker Bill Newton Dunn MEP, who will explain, among other things, the do's and don'ts of lobbying with parliamentarians. On Day 2 delegates will have the opportunity to put into practice the theory and knowledge they have gained through the use of a real-life lobbying simulation exercise. There will also be a discussion with a member of the European Commission, who will discuss the practicalities of lobbying in the 2008-2009 political climate and explain how you should go about lobbying the European Commission. EARLY BIRD RATES currently available, must register by Monday 16th February to receive rates stated below: Corporate rate - 745* Reduced rate - 525 (non-profit oorganisations)* *Rates include workshop, presentations, event materials, 3-course meal (day 1), networking lunch (day 2) and several refreshment breaks. Visit [3]www.lobbying-eu.com for a complete agenda and further information relating to the workshop. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Workshop facilitated by: Mr. Russell Patten, Chief Executive, Grayling Global in Brussels. Also, a former President of the British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium. Confirmed speakers include (more to come shortly): Mr. Bill Newton Dunn, Member, European Parliament Mr. Derek Taylor, Energy Advisor, DG TREN, European Commission -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Registration and contact information: [4]Click here to register online using our secure online registration For further information please visit [5]www.lobbying-eu.com, email [6]Teresa Richards or call Teresa directly on +44 (0) 2920 783 023 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from all future Epsilon event announcements please click the link below or paste it into your browser. http://guest.cvent.com/i.aspx?8D,P1,1F72EAE2-D28B-43AF-AA4A-B8DDA8E698A8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Epsilon Events Ltd 2 - 4 Second Floor, High St. Arcade Chambers, Cardiff, CF10 1BE, UK www.epsilonevents.com ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [7]cvent.com - Reach the Response [79a5d940-a9c2-4412-95bd-7600f8896cc8.gifx] 2254. 2009-01-09 08:41:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:41:55 -0500 from: David Easterling subject: paper to: Phil Jones Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id n09DfWar002348 Hi Phil, Michael Wehner and I have written a very short paper in response to all this garbage about the climate "cooling" since 1998 (attached). We wrote it for either Science or Nature, but Science balked at it claiming it is too specialized (what a crock) and should go to a specialty journal. We feel they are gun-shy about publishing controversial papers due to some lawsuit a contrarian filed against them. I would like to get it into Nature as a short contribution but its not clear to me how to do it since it is not a Letter and it looks like most of these kinds of papers are solicited by Nature. Do you have any connections there such as the editor in charge of climate and can help out here? Maybe its not newsworthy enough, but we sure get enough grief from lots of places due to the bloggers, etc. and I feel it is very timely. Cheers, Dave -- David R. Easterling, Ph.D Chief, Scientific Services Division NOAAs National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 V: +1 828 271 4675 F: +1 828 271 4328 David.Easterling@noaa.gov Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\decadal-cooling-Easterling-Wehner.pdf" 4383. 2009-01-09 18:07:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:07:33 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Invitation to participate in the Wigley Symposium to: "Richels, Richard" Dear Rich, As you may know, Tom Wigley recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Tom remains affiliated with NCAR, but increasingly will be shifting his base of operations to Australia and the University of Adelaide. In an illustrious scientific career spanning over 45 years, Tom has made major contributions to our understanding of past, present, and future environmental (particularly climatic) change. His contributions are unique in terms of both scope and impact. They have been made in such diverse areas as aqueous geochemistry, plume rise theory, the origin of life, dendroclimatology, the construction and analysis of observed surface temperature datasets, climate change detection and attribution, the development and application of energy balance models, integrated assessment, climate impacts, CO2 and climate stabilization, and geoengineering. He also has made significant scientific contributions to all four IPCC reports, and to a number of other national and international assessments of various aspects of climate science. Professor Phil Jones and I are organizing a one-day "Wigley Symposium" to honor Tom. This is an opportunity to thank Tom for advancing and enriching our field. It is also an opportunity to celebrate his past accomplishments, to look forward to new ones, and to wish him well for the future. We hope you will be able to attend the Symposium, which will take place at NCAR on June 19, 2009, immediately following the annual NCAR Community Climate System Modeling Workshop in Breckenridge. With assistance from Tom, Phil Jones and I have drafted a program for the Symposium (see attachment). The intent is to have a series of 14 thirty-minute lectures on various aspects of climate science and the other areas where Tom has worked. Ideally, each talk should incorporate some discussion of Tom's contributions. At this stage, we'd like to inquire whether you would be available to attend the Wigley Symposium on June 19th and present a talk entitled: "The challenge of stabilizing climate" You obviously have full freedom to come up with a more creative and/or intriguing title! We'd be grateful if you could let us know by January 31 or sooner whether you will be able to attend and give a talk at the Symposium. With best regards, Ben Santer and Phil Jones (P.S.: There will be some funding to cover the cost of a Symposium dinner on the evening of June 19th. Save in exceptional cases, however, most Symposium participants will have to pay their own travel and accommodation expenses). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\Wigley_Agenda53.doc" 1524. 2009-01-12 12:25:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: C G Kilsby date: Mon Jan 12 12:25:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript to: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz Glenn, I'm afraid these two reviews will definitely discourage me from submitting more papers to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized the novelty of this paper. The WG is fairly new and we are certainly not re-inventing the wheel! We didn't do an in-depth literature review because of space. If you were still in the UK, you'd see this whole UKCIP08 package (now to be called UKCP09) including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May). To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the reviewers only work at sites with data. The WG in the paper works anywhere in the UK. We've had the WG Report which will form part of the UKCP09 package formally reviewed very favourably by three experts in the field. You've missed a good paper for IJC here! Your reviewers have not read it carefully enough - nor understood what it was about. Maybe the latter is my fault, attempting to explain too much in a single paper, but I would have hoped for something more constructive. You can ignore this email if you want. I won't be submitting this paper to IJC again. On the other paper of mine you rejected a couple of months ago, I'm going to re-submit that somewhere else now. These reviews were constructive, especially the positive one - that you chose to ignore. At least the reviewers understood what the paper was about. Cheers Phil At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote: 12-Jan-2009 Dear Prof. Jones Manuscript # JOC-08-0245 entitled "Perturbing a Weather Generator using factors developed from Regional Climate Model simulations" 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. In view of the comments of the referee(s) your manuscript has been denied publication in the International Journal of Climatology. Thank you for considering the International Journal of Climatology for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future manuscripts. Sincerely, Prof. Glenn McGregor Editor, International Journal of Climatology g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz NOTE FROM EDITOR I have taken the above decision as there appears to be a number of problems with the paper including a deficient review of the literature, few innovative aspects and a lack of analysis rigour. Sorry I could not be more positive. =========================== Referee(s)' Comments to Author: Referee: 1 Comments to the Author The paper describes how to link a weather generator, which was developed and published by the authors, with predictions from the regional climate model to provide end-users with daily climate scenarios for impact assessments as a part of the UKCIP08 project. This manuscript has major flaws. 1. The problem of linking WG with the output of global or regional climate models (GCM/RegCM) to generate daily climate scenarios required by process-based impact models is not new. Wilks (1992) described the method of linking the WGEN weather generator based on a Markov chain model for precipitation with climate predictions derived from GCM. In Barrow et al (1996), a methodology of linking the LARS-WG weather generator based on series approach with HadCM2 was described and used in the European project on the assessment of climate change on agriculture in Europe. From 2002, high resolution daily site-specific climate scenarios based on LARS-WG and HadRM3 (UKCIP02) predictions were available for the academic community to study impact of climate change in the UK (Semenov, 2007). A similar work has been done for the Met&Rol generator in Check Republic (Dubrovsky et al, 2004). None of this works has been cited, and their manuscript authors are trying to rediscoverEthe wheel. 2. The methodology of assessing the performance of WG is well established. Statistical tests are used to compare probability distributions of observed and simulated weather variables (e.g. the K-S test), the t-test and f-test are used to compare observed and simulated means and variances, the extreme values theory is used to assess how well WG reproduces weather extreme events (Semenov et al, 1998, Qian et al 2004, 2008; Kesley et al, 2005; Semenov, 2008). In this paper, authors used a visualEcomparison to compare observed and simulated means by plotting data points on a graph. This is unacceptable, because no objective conclusions can be derived from such comparison. Proper statistical tests must be used instead. I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any other refereed journals. The manuscript did not contribute to the area of research, and the methodology used for comparison is naiveEand unaccepted in scientific publications. ============================== Referee: 2 Comments to the Author All comments to the Author are found in the attached file. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5110. 2009-01-13 08:16:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:16:50 +1300 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript to: Phil Thanks for your response and willingness for me to get a third opinion. I will get onto this straight away as soon as I am back from walking the dog Best for the remaining period of work on UKCIP and your travels Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk To: Glenn McGregor Sent: Tue Jan 13 08:10:25 2009 Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript Glenn, At home now. I won't be able to do anything for a few weeks, as we have to get the UKCP09 stuff done and some travel, so it can't do any harm. So go ahead. I do realize you can't read everything. I suspect one of the reviewers may have been Semenov. If so he is potentially biased, as his group didn't win the tender for the work! I don't think either reviewer realized the context of the work - this may be my fault. Cheers Phil > Dear Phil > > Thanks for your response to the decision on the WG paper. > > I am willing to admit that I may have got it wrong as far as the decision > goes but you must understand my position. As I am not able to read every > paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the > reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. > > Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, is > to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 weeks. > If you would not like me to pursue this option then please let me know. > > Needless to say I am very conscious of the fact that you personally have > given wonderful service to IJoC and I would hope that this incident does > not damage the long term relationship you have with the journal. > > Best > Glenn > > ________________________________ > > From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Tue 13/01/2009 01:25 > To: Glenn McGregor > Cc: C G Kilsby > Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > > > > Glenn, > I'm afraid these two reviews will definitely > discourage me from submitting more papers > to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized > the novelty of this paper. The WG > is fairly new and we are certainly not > re-inventing the wheel! We didn't do an > in-depth literature review because of space. If you were still > in the UK, you'd see this whole UKCIP08 package (now to be called > UKCP09) > including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May). > To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the reviewers > only > work at sites with data. The WG in the paper works anywhere in the UK. > We've had the WG Report which will form part of the UKCP09 package > formally reviewed very favourably by three experts in the field. > You've missed a good paper for IJC here! Your reviewers have not > read it > carefully enough - nor understood what it was about. Maybe the latter is > my > fault, attempting to explain too much in a > single paper, but I would have hoped > for something more constructive. > > You can ignore this email if you want. I won't be submitting this > paper > to IJC again. > > On the other paper of mine you rejected a couple of months ago, I'm > going to re-submit that somewhere else now. These reviews were > constructive, > especially the positive one - that you chose to > ignore. At least the reviewers > understood what the paper was about. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote: >>12-Jan-2009 >> >>Dear Prof. Jones >> >>Manuscript # JOC-08-0245 entitled "Perturbing a >>Weather Generator using factors developed from >>Regional Climate Model simulations" 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. >> >>In view of the comments of the referee(s) your >>manuscript has been denied publication in the >>International Journal of Climatology. >> >>Thank you for considering the International >>Journal of Climatology for the publication of >>your research. I hope the outcome of this >>specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future >> manuscripts. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Prof. Glenn McGregor >>Editor, International Journal of Climatology >>g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz >> >>NOTE FROM EDITOR >>I have taken the above decision as there appears >>to be a number of problems with the paper >>including a deficient review of the literature, >>few innovative aspects and a lack of analysis >>rigour. Sorry I could not be more positive. >>=========================== >> >>Referee(s)' Comments to Author: >> >>Referee: 1 >>Comments to the Author >>The paper describes how to link a weather >>generator, which was developed and published by >>the authors, with predictions from the regional >>climate model to provide end-users with daily >>climate scenarios for impact assessments as a >>part of the UKCIP08 project. This manuscript has major flaws. >>1. The problem of linking WG with the output of >>global or regional climate models (GCM/RegCM) to >>generate daily climate scenarios required by >>process-based impact models is not new. Wilks >>(1992) described the method of linking the WGEN >>weather generator based on a Markov chain model >>for precipitation with climate predictions >>derived from GCM. In Barrow et al (1996), a >>methodology of linking the LARS-WG weather >>generator based on series approach with HadCM2 >>was described and used in the European project >>on the assessment of climate change on >>agriculture in Europe. From 2002, high >>resolution daily site-specific climate scenarios >>based on LARS-WG and HadRM3 (UKCIP02) >>predictions were available for the academic >>community to study impact of climate change in >>the UK (Semenov, 2007). A similar work has been >>done for the Met&Rol generator in Check Republic >>(Dubrovsky et al, 2004). None of this works has >>been cited, and their manuscript authors are trying to "rediscoverEthe >> wheel. >> >>2. The methodology of assessing the performance >>of WG is well established. Statistical tests are >>used to compare probability distributions of >>observed and simulated weather variables (e.g. >>the K-S test), the t-test and f-test are used to >>compare observed and simulated means and >>variances, the extreme values theory is used to >>assess how well WG reproduces weather extreme >>events (Semenov et al, 1998, Qian et al 2004, >>2008; Kesley et al, 2005; Semenov, 2008). In >>this paper, authors used a "visualEcomparison >>to compare observed and simulated means by >>plotting data points on a graph. This is >>unacceptable, because no objective conclusions >>can be derived from such comparison. Proper >>statistical tests must be used instead. >>I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is >>well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any >>other refereed journals. The manuscript did not >>contribute to the area of research, and the >>methodology used for comparison is "naiveEand >>unaccepted in scientific publications. >>============================== >> >>Referee: 2 >>Comments to the Author >>All comments to the Author are found in the attached file. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 5094. 2009-01-13 18:23:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:23:29 -0800 from: Nathan Gillett subject: Review request for JClim to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith, Hope you're doing well and things are good in CRU. I've recently become an editor at JClim, and we've been sent a manuscript describing a new method of reconstructing temperature by Bingley and Huybers based on paelo and instrumental data. You obviously have a lot of expertise in this area, so I was wondering whether you'd be able to review this? It's a two-part manuscript, so it represents more time than a usual review, but if you don't have time to review both parts, a review of the first part only would still be useful - I imagine things are busy now that term has started. You should get a formal review request shortly. I hope things are going well - I should be back in CRU for a visit before the EGU, so it will be good to catch up with everyone then, Cheers, Nathan -- **************************************************************************** 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: [1]Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca **************************************************************************** 2179. 2009-01-14 10:07:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:07:05 -0500 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: EGU2009 - Abstract Withdrawal in your Session CL10 to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks, sounds good. Will let touch base again when I hear from EGU about the scheduling of the session. talk to you later, mike On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Sounds good. Seems like 36 left. They have extended input till the end of today, I think. Anyway this gives you 12 slots if the same as last year. If you go for 4 30min slots this means you lose 4 15min slots. Maybe you can negotiate 4 30min slots and 8 others at 15 mins. This would be 16 slots in total. So go for 2 sessions of 2 hours each, or 3 of 90 mins. Argue not to get the first slot at 08:00 or 08:30. Your 4 for longer ones fine. Looking down without look at the abstracts the following would be good as oral: Mann et al (!), Wahl, Latif, Abrantes, Junclaus and the COMSIMM team, Barriopedro and Graham (he has spoken before). The one with the team is a big EU project. Just noticed Stenchikov - no idea how he presents, but his written papers good. Cheers Phil At 14:34 14/01/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil, yep not only got it but I've already posted it on my website ;) hoping we'll have a revised version of that SLP reconstruction paper that Zhang sent you some time ago within the next month or two. even w/ the withdrawals we got a whopping 40 submissions to the session (see attached). I think we should be able to argue for 4 invited talks. In fact, I promised that many (oops): Hegerl, Gonzalez- Rouco, Pfister, and Goosse. Let me know if that sounds ok to you? talk later, mike On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, 5 more just withdrew. Never used to get these in years gone by. Hope you have the Holocene pdf. I sent it several hours ago. It appeared on the journal website either early today or yesterday when I was away. Let me know if you've not got it. Probably means no-ne else has - but Keith/Tim have. It is less than 3Mb. Cheers Phil At 13:56 14/01/2009, you wrote: hey Phil, hope you enjoyed the holidays. yes, I'm getting all of these. but despite these strange withdrawals, we have record numbers in the session this time. too bad you won't make it this year. looking forward to seeing the Holocene article out soon. I hope all is well w/ you in the near year. talk to you later, mike On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume you're also getting these. The Holocene article should be out very soon. Cheers Phil To: [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: EGU2009 - Abstract Withdrawal in your Session CL10 Reply-to: [2]egu2009@copernicus.org From: [3]egu2009@copernicus.org X-Mailer: Copernicus Office Administrator X-Co-Tag: b581badfc5f6d03a4460aac987fc6094 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:04:22 +0100 (CET) X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.10 () [Hold at 5.00] RDNS_NONE,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 15643000 - 2a9e4918743a X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Prof Jones, With regret we have to inform you that the following Abstract was withdrawn from your Session CL10: EGU2009-7442 To what extent are the instrumental temperature time series represented by isotope records of Alpine ice cores ? by P. Bohleber et al. Contact: Pascal Bohleber, [4]Pascal.Bohleber@iup.uni-heidelberg.de In case that any questions may arise, please do not hesitate to contact us! With kind regards, Katja Gänger Copernicus Meetings [5]egu2009@copernicus.org on behalf of the Programme Committee Chair Prof. Phil 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 website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Prof. Phil 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 website: [12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Hi Phil, yep not only got it but I've already posted it on my website ;) hoping we'll have a revised version of that SLP reconstruction paper that Zhang sent you some time ago within the next month or two. even w/ the withdrawals we got a whopping 40 submissions to the session (see attached). I think we should be able to argue for 4 invited talks. In fact, I promised that many (oops): Hegerl, Gonzalez-Rouco, Pfister, and Goosse. Let me know if that sounds ok to you? talk later, mike On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, 5 more just withdrew. Never used to get these in years gone by. Hope you have the Holocene pdf. I sent it several hours ago. It appeared on the journal website either early today or yesterday when I was away. Let me know if you've not got it. Probably means no-ne else has - but Keith/Tim have. It is less than 3Mb. Cheers Phil At 13:56 14/01/2009, you wrote: hey Phil, hope you enjoyed the holidays. yes, I'm getting all of these. but despite these strange withdrawals, we have record numbers in the session this time. too bad you won't make it this year. looking forward to seeing the Holocene article out soon. I hope all is well w/ you in the near year. talk to you later, mike On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume you're also getting these. The Holocene article should be out very soon. Cheers Phil To: [14]p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: EGU2009 - Abstract Withdrawal in your Session CL10 Reply-to: [15]egu2009@copernicus.org From: [16]egu2009@copernicus.org X-Mailer: Copernicus Office Administrator X-Co-Tag: b581badfc5f6d03a4460aac987fc6094 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:04:22 +0100 (CET) X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.10 () [Hold at 5.00] RDNS_NONE,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 15643000 - 2a9e4918743a X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [17]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15643000&m=2a9e4918743a&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [18]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15643000&m=2a9e4918743a&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [19]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15643000&m=2a9e4918743a&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Prof Jones, With regret we have to inform you that the following Abstract was withdrawn from your Session CL10: EGU2009-7442 To what extent are the instrumental temperature time series represented by isotope records of Alpine ice cores ? by P. Bohleber et al. Contact: Pascal Bohleber, [20]Pascal.Bohleber@iup.uni-heidelberg.de In case that any questions may arise, please do not hesitate to contact us! With kind regards, Katja Gänger Copernicus Meetings [21]egu2009@copernicus.org on behalf of the Programme Committee Chair Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [22]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: [23]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [24]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [25]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [26]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: [27]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [28]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [29]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 [30]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: [31]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [32]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [33]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 2288. 2009-01-14 10:19:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:19:42 +1300 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript to: Phil Thanks for the useful suggestion Glad the UKCP09 meet went well Glenn -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:29 a.m. To: Glenn McGregor Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript Glenn, Just got back from the UKCP09 meeting in Reading. WG reasonably well received. Really helps to have some results. Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were a Brit - then they's know something about the context. Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell. Rob is now at Loughboro (has left the EA - back to academia). Nigel is now at Reading. We can easily add in a review og WGs. Cheers Phil Phil > > Thanks for your response and willingness for me to get a third opinion. > > I will get onto this straight away as soon as I am back from walking the > dog > > Best for the remaining period of work on UKCIP and your travels > > Glenn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk > To: Glenn McGregor > Sent: Tue Jan 13 08:10:25 2009 > Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > > Glenn, > At home now. I won't be able to do anything for a > few weeks, as we have to get the UKCP09 stuff done > and some travel, so it can't do any harm. So go ahead. > > I do realize you can't read everything. > > I suspect one of the reviewers may have been Semenov. > If so he is potentially biased, as his group didn't > win the tender for the work! > > I don't think either reviewer realized the context of the work - > this may be my fault. > > Cheers > Phil > > >> Dear Phil >> >> Thanks for your response to the decision on the WG paper. >> >> I am willing to admit that I may have got it wrong as far as the >> decision >> goes but you must understand my position. As I am not able to read >> every >> paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the >> reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. >> >> Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, >> is >> to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 >> weeks. >> If you would not like me to pursue this option then please let me know. >> >> Needless to say I am very conscious of the fact that you personally >> have >> given wonderful service to IJoC and I would hope that this incident >> does >> not damage the long term relationship you have with the journal. >> >> Best >> Glenn >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tue 13/01/2009 01:25 >> To: Glenn McGregor >> Cc: C G Kilsby >> Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript >> >> >> >> Glenn, >> I'm afraid these two reviews will definitely >> discourage me from submitting more papers >> to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized >> the novelty of this paper. The WG >> is fairly new and we are certainly not >> re-inventing the wheel! We didn't do an >> in-depth literature review because of space. If you were still >> in the UK, you'd see this whole UKCIP08 package (now to be called >> UKCP09) >> including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May). >> To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the >> reviewers >> only >> work at sites with data. The WG in the paper works anywhere in the >> UK. >> We've had the WG Report which will form part of the UKCP09 package >> formally reviewed very favourably by three experts in the field. >> You've missed a good paper for IJC here! Your reviewers have not >> read it >> carefully enough - nor understood what it was about. Maybe the latter >> is >> my >> fault, attempting to explain too much in a >> single paper, but I would have hoped >> for something more constructive. >> >> You can ignore this email if you want. I won't be submitting this >> paper >> to IJC again. >> >> On the other paper of mine you rejected a couple of months ago, >> I'm >> going to re-submit that somewhere else now. These reviews were >> constructive, >> especially the positive one - that you chose to >> ignore. At least the reviewers >> understood what the paper was about. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote: >>>12-Jan-2009 >>> >>>Dear Prof. Jones >>> >>>Manuscript # JOC-08-0245 entitled "Perturbing a >>>Weather Generator using factors developed from >>>Regional Climate Model simulations" 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. >>> >>>In view of the comments of the referee(s) your >>>manuscript has been denied publication in the >>>International Journal of Climatology. >>> >>>Thank you for considering the International >>>Journal of Climatology for the publication of >>>your research. I hope the outcome of this >>>specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future >>> manuscripts. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Prof. Glenn McGregor >>>Editor, International Journal of Climatology >>>g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz >>> >>>NOTE FROM EDITOR >>>I have taken the above decision as there appears >>>to be a number of problems with the paper >>>including a deficient review of the literature, >>>few innovative aspects and a lack of analysis >>>rigour. Sorry I could not be more positive. >>>=========================== >>> >>>Referee(s)' Comments to Author: >>> >>>Referee: 1 >>>Comments to the Author >>>The paper describes how to link a weather >>>generator, which was developed and published by >>>the authors, with predictions from the regional >>>climate model to provide end-users with daily >>>climate scenarios for impact assessments as a >>>part of the UKCIP08 project. This manuscript has major flaws. >>>1. The problem of linking WG with the output of >>>global or regional climate models (GCM/RegCM) to >>>generate daily climate scenarios required by >>>process-based impact models is not new. Wilks >>>(1992) described the method of linking the WGEN >>>weather generator based on a Markov chain model >>>for precipitation with climate predictions >>>derived from GCM. In Barrow et al (1996), a >>>methodology of linking the LARS-WG weather >>>generator based on series approach with HadCM2 >>>was described and used in the European project >>>on the assessment of climate change on >>>agriculture in Europe. From 2002, high >>>resolution daily site-specific climate scenarios >>>based on LARS-WG and HadRM3 (UKCIP02) >>>predictions were available for the academic >>>community to study impact of climate change in >>>the UK (Semenov, 2007). A similar work has been >>>done for the Met&Rol generator in Check Republic >>>(Dubrovsky et al, 2004). None of this works has >>>been cited, and their manuscript authors are trying to >>> "rediscoverEthe >>> wheel. >>> >>>2. The methodology of assessing the performance >>>of WG is well established. Statistical tests are >>>used to compare probability distributions of >>>observed and simulated weather variables (e.g. >>>the K-S test), the t-test and f-test are used to >>>compare observed and simulated means and >>>variances, the extreme values theory is used to >>>assess how well WG reproduces weather extreme >>>events (Semenov et al, 1998, Qian et al 2004, >>>2008; Kesley et al, 2005; Semenov, 2008). In >>>this paper, authors used a "visualEcomparison >>>to compare observed and simulated means by >>>plotting data points on a graph. This is >>>unacceptable, because no objective conclusions >>>can be derived from such comparison. Proper >>>statistical tests must be used instead. >>>I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is >>>well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any >>>other refereed journals. The manuscript did not >>>contribute to the area of research, and the >>>methodology used for comparison is "naiveEand >>>unaccepted in scientific publications. >>>============================== >>> >>>Referee: 2 >>>Comments to the Author >>>All comments to the Author are found in the attached file. >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > > > 1691. 2009-01-14 17:19:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jan 14 17:19:58 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: ... and finally.... to: wigley@ucar.edu Tom, No reference to anything of his. Even the reference to Wegman is to criticize it. The Appendix is the bit we discussed ages ago - with Caspar. Cheers Phil At 15:46 14/01/2009, you wrote: Thanks Phil. I'll read it on the plane going back to Oz. I noticed no ref to McIntyre in the ref list, so I wonder whether his red noise criticism is covered. Tom. +++++++++++++++ > >> Have found the attached on the journal website today - had an inkling >> it > > would be out soon! > > Interesting to see how long it takes the skeptics to find this. > > Haven't sent any more of the invites out yet. Will leave that to you > Ben, > as teaching a bit at the moment and marking essays and exam scripts. > > Two nice responses so far. I talked to Bob Watson yesterday. He says it > depends on the date - which I told him. He said he'd like to come and > really enjoyed a similar thing he'd gone to for Dan Albritton. He was > really pleased we (you Ben mostly) were putting it together. > > He then proceeded to tell to give me and several others all the details > of > the Obama scientific team, which he thought incredible. > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3727. 2009-01-15 17:05:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 15 17:05:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: PHILIP JONES TO DENVER 19-24JAN/ETKT] to: Tara Torres Tara, I've just been online on the KLM site to make sure they will allow me to check in online on Monday - this makes it easier for the following day. All looked fine for the outward flights to Denver. The return leg has me starting in Detroit - in other words there doesn't seem to be a record of the flight from Denver to Detroit on 24 Jan at 11.28a on NW1226. I'm sure it is OK and I can sort things out when in the US. If you have a moment can you have a look. I was using my KLM Frequent Flyer number to look, so not looking at a NW site. I have been on the ESTA site for the security thing and got my confirmation number. Cheers Phil At 16:35 17/11/2008, you wrote: Prof. Philip Jones Climate Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Watton Road, Norwich Norfolk NR4 7TJ UNITED KINGDOM Dear Prof. Jones: An electronic airline ticket has been issued for your travel to Boulder, CO, to attend the IDAG Meeting, 21-23 January 2008. Your electronic confirmation number is KCZGW0. Please make sure to read all notes listed on your itinerary. If you did not forward me your frequent flyer membership number, be sure to have it with you at check-in. If you are not a member of a frequent flyer program, ask the ticket agent how to join at check-in. Reservations for you have been made at the Millennium Harvest House Hotel, which is located at 1345 28th Street (Tel: (1) 303-443-3850). The government rate is $105.00 single rate per night, and your room billed directly to UCAR. Your confirmation number is will be send at a later date. Should you need to cancel your reservation, please do so 24 hours in advance. UCAR Travel Policy requires that travelers complete and sign a UCAR Travel Voucher, having attached their airline passenger receipt or a copy of the airline tickets as well as all applicable original receipts, and submit the documentation to UCAR within two (2) weeks of the trip end ([1]http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/policies/index.html). An accurate accounting of the travel cost cannot be made until your voucher is submitted. Delinquent Travel Vouchers could have a negative impact on additional, scientific travel to be covered by UCAR. If you make any changes to your itinerary, please inform me of them immediately and include these with your voucher form. If you have any questions, please contact me at UCAR-JOSS. I can be reached by telephone at 303-497-8694, or by fax at 303-497-8633, or by email at [2]. Have a good trip. Sincerely, Tara Torres Joint Office for Science Support (JOSS) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PHILIP JONES TO DENVER 19-24JAN/ETKT Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:29:25 -0700 From: Brent Robertson [3] To: [4]TARA@UCAR.EDU JONES/PHILIP DOUGLAS TV118117.406123 17Nov08 09:29am Booking locator: KCZGW0 Fare: $1216.33 20Jan09 06:30am Tuesday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 8806 Class:M From: Norwich EN, UK 20Jan09 06:30am Tuesday To: Amsterdam, Netherland 20Jan09 08:35am Tuesday Meal: None Equip: Fokker Jet Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 OPERATED BY KLM CITYHOPPER/KLM Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES SEATING IS AIRPORT CHECK IN ONLY. SEATS ARE BEING MONITORED BY SEAT CHECKER. Flight Duration: 1 hour(s) and 5 minutes 20Jan09 10:20am Tuesday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 41 Class:M Seat:23C From: Amsterdam, Netherland 20Jan09 10:20am Tuesday To: Minneapolis St Pl MN, 20Jan09 12:30pm Tuesday Meal: None Equip: Airbus A330 Jet Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 Depart - Arrive - MSP TERMINAL L Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES Flight Duration: 9 hour(s) and 10 minutes 20Jan09 02:35pm Tuesday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 1548 Class:M Seat:06C From: Minneapolis St Pl MN, 20Jan09 02:35pm Tuesday To: Denver CO, USA 20Jan09 03:40pm Tuesday Meal: None Equip: Airbus A320 Jet Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 Depart - MSP TERMINAL L Arrive - Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES Flight Duration: 2 hour(s) and 5 minutes 24Jan09 11:28am Saturday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 1226 Class:M Seat:12D From: Denver CO, USA 24Jan09 11:28am Saturday To: Detroit Metro MI, USA 24Jan09 04:14pm Saturday Meal: FOOD TO PURCHASE Equip: Airbus A320 Jet Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 Depart - Arrive - DTW TERMINAL EM Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES Flight Duration: 2 hour(s) and 46 minutes 24Jan09 05:35pm Saturday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 68 Class:M Seat:23B From: Detroit Metro MI, USA 24Jan09 05:35pm Saturday To: Amsterdam, Netherland 25Jan09 07:30am Sunday Meal: None Equip: Airbus A330 Jet Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 Depart - DTW TERMINAL EM Arrive - Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES Flight Duration: 7 hour(s) and 55 minutes 25Jan09 09:15am Sunday Air Northwest Airlines Flight# 8807 Class:M From: Amsterdam, Netherland 25Jan09 09:15am Sunday To: Norwich EN, UK 25Jan09 09:20am Sunday Meal: None Equip: Fokker 50 Turboprop Status: Confirmed Stops: 0 OPERATED BY KLM CITYHOPPER/KLM Northwest Airlines locator: N768ES SEATING IS AIRPORT CHECK IN ONLY. SEATS ARE BEING MONITORED BY SEAT CHECKER. Flight Duration: 1 hour(s) and 5 minutes ---------------------------------------- ** IMPORTANT ** PLEASE READ TERMS AND CONDITIONS BELOW ** Boulder Travel is not liable for any discrepancies not brought ot our attention immediately upon receipt of ticket issuance. Fares are not guaranteed until tickets are issued. Boulder Travel Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm Saturday ** for Corporate Travel only ** 10:00am-2:00pm Saturday ** Vacation Travel by appointment only ** Please call Boulder Travel at 303-443-0380 or 800-336-0380 in the U.S. For emergency after-hours service, please call agent24 at 303-876-4190 or 800-390-4804 in the U.S. or Canada. ** Please reserve usage to travel emergencies only. ** Photo I.D. is required for all travel reservations. Additional documentation and health requirements including but not limited to a passport and/or a visa may be needed to travel outside the U.S. NO CAR REQUESTED IN DEN NO HOTEL REQUESTED IN DEN NO CAR OR HOTEL REQUESTED PASSPORT REQUIRED. PASSPORT OR PASSPORT REPLACING DOCS. MUST BE VALID FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS BEYOND THE DATE OF DEPARTURE FROM THE U.S.A. VISA REQUIRED? EXCEPT FOR THOSE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL UNDER THE U.S. VISA WAIVER PERMANENT PROGRAM (V.W.P.P.)? TRAVELLING ON HOLIDAY? BUSINESS OR FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES ONLY? AND STAY DOES NOT EXCEED 90 DAYS. FREE BAGGAGE ALLOWANCE: 2 CHECKED BAGS NOT EXCEEDING 62IN/158CM AND 50LB/23KG. SHOULD YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR ITINERARY AFTER DEPARTURE PLEASE CONTACT OUR 24 HR RESERVATION CENTER: US/CANADA/PUERTO RICO AND THE US VIRGIN ISLANDS 1-800-390-4804 * * * * * VIEW AND PRINT A TRIP RECEIPT AT [5]WWW.VIEWTRIP.COM YOUR VIEWTRIP RESERVATION NUMBER IS KCZGW0 * * * * * YOUR E-TICKET CONFIRMATION NUMBER FOR NORTHWEST IS N768ES ** *SEAT ASSIGNMENTS ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. ** *PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL MANY AIRLINES HAVE CHANGED THEIR BAGGAGE POLICIES AND ARE NOW ALLOWING FEWER FREE BAGS. PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR AIR CARRIERS WEBSITE OR CALL YOUR TRAVEL AGENT FOR MORE DETAILS. YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHECKED BAGGAGE FEES. UPON AIRPORT CHECK-IN PLEASE VERIFY THAT YOUR FREQUENT FLYER NUMBER HAS BEEN ENTERED FOR EACH FLIGHT SEGMENT. PLEASE CHECK-IN 3 HOURS PRIOR TO ALL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS. PLEASE RECONFIRM ALL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. FAILURE TO DO SO COULD CANCEL YOUR RESERVATION. THIS TICKET IS NONREFUNDABLE. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO USE THIS TICKET AS BOOKED YOU MUST NOTIFY BOULDER TRAVEL OR THE AIRLINE PRIOR TO YOUR SCHEDULED DEPARTURE TIME TO CHANGE YOUR RESERVATION. A CHANGE FEE AND POSSIBLE FARE INCREASE WILL APPLY. PLEASE CANCEL PRIOR TO TIME OF TRAVEL IF UNABLE TO USE OR THE TICKETS WILL HAVE NO VALUE FOR FUTURE TRAVEL. Ticket Information Ticket Information: Ticket for: JONES/PHILIPD Ticket Nbr: 0127524889145 Electronic: Yes Amount: 1216.30 Total Tickets: 1216.30 Total Fees: 45.00 Total Amount: 1261.30 Your Agent was Brent Robertson at Ext: 1446 ---------------------------------------- ResFAX(r) Copyright(c) 1992-2008 Cornerstone Information Systems, Inc., Bloomington, IN ***ResFAX Message ID 288515*** ***ResFAX Itinerary E-Mail*** -- ******************** Tara Torres Meeting Planner UCAR/JOSS PO Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 V: (1) 303-497-8694 F: (1) 303-497-8633 [6]www.joss.ucar.edu ******************** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 955. 2009-01-15 19:12:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Pat Berge , Janet Tulk , Kathryn Craft Rogers , George Miller , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Cherry Murray , Doug Rotman , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , mann , Anthony Socci , Bud Ward , "Peter U. Clark" , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Professor Glenn McGregor , Stephen H Schneider , "Stott, Peter" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Tim Barnett , "Verardo, David J." , Branko Kosovic , Bill Fulkerson , Michael Wehner , Hal Graboske , Tom Guilderson , Luca Delle Monache , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "Dean N. Williams" , Charles Doutriaux , Anne Stark date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:35 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Data published 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 coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology paper (and other interested parties), I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower tropospheric temperatures that were the subject of Mr. Stephen McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have also released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a document entitled: "Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures calculated from CMIP-3 archive" The link to the technical document is: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/MSU_doc.pdf I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific research, and will be employed for such purposes only. I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be able to return to full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests are for the purpose of harassing Government scientists, and not for the purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping me complete the process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the synthetic MSU datasets and the technical document. And thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement over the past two months. It is deeply appreciated. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 195. 2009-01-16 09:03:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:03:07 GMT from: subject: CanIt notification - You have 19 pending message(s) in stream to: Pending Messages Date Subject Sender Score Action 2009-01-16 08:40:03+00 refused credit? not with problemcreditapproved... trattoria@naturalsomeone.com 10.7 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-16 08:18:26+00 Verified By Visa ! online-login@visa.com 14.5 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-16 08:05:27+00 Discover How Much Cash You May Already Have trattoria@greenfoxglove.com 10.9 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-16 07:47:23+00 This member has a question for you member@ebay.co.uk 13.5 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-16 07:38:21+00 Suppress Your Appetite And Lose More trattoria@extendparking.com 9 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-16 03:16:39+00 Important message from Abbey - Read carefully! e-banking@abbey.co.uk 11.5 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 20:47:33+00 I wanted to tell you bywqddex@brandywyne.com 7.3 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 19:57:30+00 Important Message from luye-fisheries nobody@corp.vsnl.com 5.1 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 19:38:36+00 AAAS Advances -- January 2009 announcements@members-aaas.org 5.2 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 18:36:19+00 Having trouble getting your resume noticed? newsletter@bounce.uptilt.com 5.1 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 17:47:50+00 Re:New Drug's rishabh_euroasias@vsnl.net 11.6 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 17:31:23+00 Messaggio da eBay info@ebay.it 16.2 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 16:39:38+00 PAYMENT PERSONNEL NEEDED URGENTLY. job.offer.comp@itc.org 16.9 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 16:32:37+00 Re: RE: 2008 global temp news release bvolker.mrasek@t-online.de 8.6 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 16:20:06+00 The ECO Award 2008. Watch our educational videos introduction. globalcommunity@telus.net 6 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 16:12:03+00 Payment Reference: ISL/098/2008-IT paolorossini29@yahoo.it 8.2 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 15:51:41+00 Comprehensive Root Cause Analysis/CAPA Training! newsletter@bounce.uptilt.com 7.2 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 14:22:41+00 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sign_up_to_Mobile_Broadband_for_=A325_and_get_a_Laptop?= t-mobilewithrewardstoday@prolongedcar.com 6.9 [Do Nothing] 2009-01-15 12:28:34+00 This is RIDICULOUS! Generating CASH Shouldn't Be This Easy! list@myearningsnow.com 21.3 [Do Nothing] [1]View Trap (Requires Login) Submit Reject All as Spam Please note, if you are using Outlook Web Access or Outlook 2007 please use the "View Trap" link above to accept/reject messages. 3054. 2009-01-19 08:38:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jan 19 08:38:50 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Data published to: "Peter Mayes" Pete, There are a couple of links in Ben's email below. I think you said last night you had the pdf of the paper. Here's another pdf of a different paper just out. Here are some email addresses! Jean Palutikof Mick Kelly Mick is still doing Tiempo ! Hiya Henry Phil passed on the message. Here's what I've been up to on the non-academic front since moving here... [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/~f030/news/news%20071101.htm The main house, which is currently at the design stage, will have a rather large study/library/meeting room but probably not quite big enough for a conference! However, we have identified a great conference centre to the north of us (near where Bill Gates was just holidaying so must be good). With best wishes for 2008 Mick Hi Phil See [2]http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch/ Or if you don't check the link this week... [3]http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch/archive/arweek090111.htm You really must update your website photo! With best wishes for 2009 Mick Cheers Phil Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:35 -0800 From: Ben Santer Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov Organization: LLNL User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20081216) 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 CC: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Pat Berge , Janet Tulk , Kathryn Craft Rogers , George Miller , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Cherry Murray , Doug Rotman , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , mann , Anthony Socci , Bud Ward , "Peter U. Clark" , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Professor Glenn McGregor , Stephen H Schneider , "Stott, Peter" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Tim Barnett , "Verardo, David J." , Branko Kosovic , Bill Fulkerson , Michael Wehner , Hal Graboske , Tom Guilderson , Luca Delle Monache , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "Dean N. Williams" , Charles Doutriaux , Anne Stark Subject: Data published 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: 15820429 - c3caec9e4154 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15820429&m=c3caec9e4154&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15820429&m=c3caec9e4154&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=15820429&m=c3caec9e4154&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology paper (and other interested parties), I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower tropospheric temperatures that were the subject of Mr. Stephen McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have also released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is: [7]http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a document entitled: "Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures calculated from CMIP-3 archive" The link to the technical document is: [8]http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/MSU_doc.pdf I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific research, and will be employed for such purposes only. I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be able to return to full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests are for the purpose of harassing Government scientists, and not for the purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping me complete the process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the synthetic MSU datasets and the technical document. And thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement over the past two months. It is deeply appreciated. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5038. 2009-01-19 09:43:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jan 19 09:43:45 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: REQUEST TO REVIEW: J OF CLIMATE (2-PART MANUSCRIPT) BY to: Wanda Lewis Dear Wanda on serious reflection , I can not undertake this request. I simply have a lot on , including several outstanding requests to referee papers. I am just starting teaching on 2 courses and have other commitments as well. Added to the fact that this paper is slightly outside by area of expertise - at least as regards any experience with Bayesian methods. I ask that you seek another reviewer. I hope Nathan will understand! I could suggest perhaps Matthew Schofield (ms3727@columbia.edu) or perhaps Martin Juckes (mjuckes@neptune.badc.rl.ac.uk ). sorry Keith At 21:13 14/01/2009, you wrote: January 14, 2009 Dear Dr. Briffa, Dr. Nathan Gillett, Editor, Journal of Climate, has asked me to contact you as he is seeking Reviewers for a two part manuscript submitted to Journal of Climate: Manuscript Number: JCLI 3015 Part 1 of 2 Title: "A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Spatially Arrayed Temperatures. Part I: Development and applications to paleoclimate reconstruction problems" Authors: Martin P. Tingley and Peter Huybers Manuscript type: article Manuscript length: 50 pgs ------------------------------------------------------------- Manuscript Number: JCLI 3016 Part 2 of 2 Title A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Spatially Arrayed Temperatures. Part II: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation-Maximization Algorithm Authors Martin P. Tingley and Peter Huybers Manuscript type: Article Manuscript length: 53 We understand this is a significant undertaking given this is for a two part manuscript. However, we are very keen to find common reviewers for both manuscripts so they can comment on whether there is enough material to warrant two papers. To help you decide, you will find attached, the two abstracts. Could you kindly advise of your availability to review these manuscripts - if you are available we would expect your review in 6 weeks (from receipt of the manuscripts). In the event you are unable to serve as reviewer, we would very much appreciate suggestions of alternative Reviewers (perhaps a member of your group may be ideal, for example). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Kind regards, ---------------------------------------- Wanda Lewis Editorial Assistant, Journal of Climate jclea@uvic.ca -- 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/ 4347. 2009-01-20 15:31:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Myles Allen" , , "Bryden, Clare" , "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" , "Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC)" , "Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA)" , "Meah, Nafees (DECC)" , "Roger Street" , "Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)" , "Pope, Vicky" , "Murphy, James" , "Sexton, David" , "Collins, Matthew" , "Harris, Glen" , "Booth, Ben" , "Lowe, Jason" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , "Jason Holt" , , "Phil Jones" , "C G Kilsby" , "Nigel Arnell" , , , "Carter Tim" , "Wells N.C." , "jaak monbaliu" , date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:31:18 -0000 from: "Hoskins, Brian J" subject: RE: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review to: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "claudia tebaldi" , "Watson, Robert (SEG)" Bob I am coming into this after a load of meetings. Claudia has said roughly what I would have said. I have now gone through with Clare a version of our report which takes account of all the Reviewers' suggestions, but it has as yet no change on this point. I should now like to go back to the Reviewers with the concerns that Nafees and you have on this sentence and discuss our final, agreed version. Best wishes Brian From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca] Sent: 20 January 2009 14:35 To: claudia tebaldi; Watson, Robert (SEG) Cc: Myles Allen; C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk; Hoskins, Brian J; Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; Nigel Arnell; alberto.montanari@unibo.it; elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: RE: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Dear Bob, Claudia, I think Claudia's interpretation concerning the intent is correct. On its own, it does invite misinterpretation I think. One simple solution would be to remove the paragraph break between "not possible at this time." and "There is a cascade...". Another solution would be to deleted the 2nd half of the last sentence of paragraph 2 "and in some respects was not possible at this time" and also to remove the paragraph break. The wording of the first half of that sentence already hints that the challenge was large and that there were limits in the extent to which the provider could respond to the request. Cheers, Francis ps - I'm be leavnig for Boulder in a couple of hours. Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: claudia tebaldi [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] Sent: January 20, 2009 7:28 AM To: Watson, Robert (SEG) Cc: Myles Allen; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk; Hoskins, Brian J; Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; Nigel Arnell; alberto.montanari@unibo.it; elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: Re: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Dear Robert, I think the sentence should be read in the light of the following paragraph, where a cascade of confidence is mentioned. Our expectations about the robustness of the PDFs, considering what we trust GCMs to be good at, at this point in time, invite us to be cautious in front of this results, for example keeping in mind that development in the science and the methodology will likely change the shape and range of these PDFs. I think the very last sentence just refers to the fact that for some variable, i.e., winds, the developers of the method decided it was not possible to characterize their uncertainty at all. That is my interpretation of the paragraph that gives you pause. Maybe a more precise wording taking the place of "in some respects" could help. Maybe a more explicit link of the two paragraphs could help too -- I will let others comment on that. I know Myles is traveling to the US at this time and won't be in email contact for a few hours. The same may be true of Francis -- they are coming to Boulder/NCAR for the same meeting. I'm sure they will be able to comment on this by tonight or tomorrow morning. best regards claudia On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Watson, Robert (SEG) <[1]Robert.Watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk> wrote: Dear colleagues Could someone explain exactly what the last sentence in the following paragraph was meant to mean, i.e., the sentence starting "Trying to fulfil ....... I interpret the sentence as saying the panel does not believe the analysis at all - hence none of the probabilistic analyses can be trusted because it not only stretched the ability of current climate science but it was actually not possible - this sentence will be used by sceptics to argue that the projections are useless and should not be used - is that what is meant??? Bob In response to user request, the scope of the UKCP commission included the quantification of uncertainty, taking account of climate models from centres other than the MetO Hadley Centre, inclusion of new developments such as carbon cycle feedback, and the production of daily data on a 5km grid. Trying to fulfil this scope stretched the ability of current climate science and methodology, and in some respects was not possible at this time. -----Original Message----- From: Myles Allen [mailto:[2]allen@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 20 January 2009 06:52 To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; [3]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC); Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [4]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [5]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [6]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [7]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Dear Francis, That sounds fine -- and even brings us back close to Brian's original word-count. Revision enclosed. If there is space, I don't think we lose anything by keeping "perhaps like that used in the Marine Report" since it is clear that is just an example of what we mean. Myles -----Original Message----- From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:[8]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca] Sent: 20 January 2009 01:54 To: Myles Allen; [9]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [10]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [11]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [12]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [13]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Hi all, I'm ok with the wording in this 2nd version. My suggestion would be to end the first sentence of the "In view of these risks" paragragh at the first comma, and to delete the remaining part "closer to conventional ...". I don't think we should dictate how they do this (they do have the marine example to follow in any case). I would also replace "conservative methodologies" with "traditional methodologies", which is I think what we mean. I also suggest replacing "conservative" with "traditional" near the end of the paragraph that starts with "The guidance given ...". 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: Myles Allen [mailto:[14]allen@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: January 19, 2009 5:37 PM To: [15]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [16]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [17]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [18]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [19]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Dear Clare, That sentence was intended to be helpful, but if it isn't, then given the aim of keeping the report as brief as possible, perhaps you're right we should just leave it out. Second revision enclosed. Myles -----Original Message----- From: [20]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk [mailto:[21]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 January 2009 22:28 To: Myles Allen Cc: Clare Goodess; Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [22]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; [23]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [24]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [25]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [26]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop Dear all I feel that this sentence proposed by Myles "If necessary, sample results from the more conservative methodology could be provided at the time of launch on condition that a firm commitment was made, with the necessary resources, to provide this option in full as soon as possible." goes somewhat further than what the reviewers discussed and agreed during the meeting. In particular we did not all discuss and agree on setting conditions and asking for firm committments, although I recall Myles mentioning the need for additional resources. There was I think a general consensus on the value of providing some comparative examples with the launch material. But, personally, I would prefer to keep the wording proposed by Brian. Best wishes, Clare > Dear Clare and Brian, > > > > I have always tended to use a Hawaiian interpretation of "close of > play". Hope this nevertheless arrives in time to be useful. > > > > I can't remember exactly what was on the screen, but it seems to me that > we were recommending that, in view of the risks mentioned in the use of > a relatively untested and unpublished method, users should also be > provided with an alternative based on a more conservative methodology > such as that used by the IPCC, not just that consideration should be > given to the usefulness of such an alternative. That was certainly my > recommendation. If it is helpful, we can add that the consensus seemed > to be that it wouldn't be necessary to have this available in full at > the time of launch, but that an explanation of the alternative (and its > shortcomings) together with some comparative examples, accompanied by a > firm commitment (adequately resourced - meaning not just asking the HC > team to do more work in less time) to release it as soon as possible, > would be OK. > > > > I have suggested a revision to Clare Goodess' edits, enclosed. If anyone > wants to contact me, please try 07776 306691 tomorrow morning (flight to > Denver leaves shortly after 12). > > > > Regards, > > > > Myles > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Clare Goodess [mailto:[27]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 19 January 2009 17:50 > To: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson, > Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger > Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; > Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, > Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [28]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil > Jones; C G Kilsby; Myles Allen; [29]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca; claudia > tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [30]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; > [31]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; > [32]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no > Subject: Re: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop > > > > Dear Clare and Brian > > Please find attached some minor comments on the draft report. > > Best wishes, Clare > > At 11:27 15/01/2009, Bryden, Clare wrote: > > > > > Dear All > > Please find attached Brian's draft report from the workshop. Please > could you respond with any changes and comments by close of play on > Monday, allowing him one day to review them before Defra's wash-up > meeting on Wednesday. If any member of the Review Group finds this > timing impossible, please let Brian and me know the earliest you could > manage. > > Please also find attached my notes from the workshop, as requested by > some of the reviewers. They were intended to document comments and > discussions not covered directly by the presentations. They are still > very much in note form, and I must attach a major health warning to the > notes of the more technical discussions. > > Note that these, as all other documents associated with the review, are > to be treated as confidential. > <> > <> > Best regards > Clare > > --- > Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 884834 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07717 156452 > > E-mail: [33]clare.bryden@metoffice.gov.uk [34]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ > <[35]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> Please note that I work four days a > week, Monday-Thursday. > > (c) Crown Copyright 2009. Produced by the Met Office. > New Met Office Climate Change Seminars - plan today to safeguard your > future success [36]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/training/climatechange > > 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: [37]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > [38]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > > 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. -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central [39]http://www.climatecentral.org currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80305 tel. 303.497.2487 2095. 2009-01-22 11:56:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:56:28 -0800 from: Eric Steig subject: Re: A paper of mine from 1990 to: Michael Mann Mike, I just didn't see how we could Phil's results in our analysis. The agreement is good of course, and agrees well with our ice core records as well. Not to mention the recent borehole thermometry work. Still, we probably could and should try to do so in updated work. David Bromwich has expressed interest in working together to do something even more definitive in the near future. He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica -- he thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong. Writing a paper together with him to clarify all this would be useful, I think. He's also separately working on a piece on the tropospheric trends. They strongly support our results. I'd rather *not* be part of that because then there will be no question that it is independent work (which indeed it is). Best, Eric Michael Mann wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Phil--I have to plead ignorance on this. Which paper is this, and can > I get a copy electronically? If we've overlooked something of yours we > should have cited, I agree we need to do our best to make amends, > perhaps w/ a comment about this on RealClimate? > > mike > > On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Eric Steig wrote: > >> Phil, >> >> I was aware of it and indeed had cited it in the original but it was >> among the >30 refs. that had to go. >> >> Having said that, I ought to re-read it. >> >> And I'd definitely be interested in your take on our paper. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Eric >> >> >> P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >>> Eric, >>> I'm in Boulder at a meeting. There is wifi, so I've >>> been surfing during less interesting talks. Have seen >>> the Nature paper and the RC take. I saw the small >>> paper in PNAS. I was wondering if you were aware >>> of this paper of mine from 1990. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >> > > -- > 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1452. 2009-01-27 17:10:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:10:49 -0500 from: "reviews@crdf.org" subject: Review Request: CRDF Proposal 16485 to: "Briffa, Keith" Title: Influence of changes in temperature and moisture on structure and composition of annual rings in Siberian trees Proposal # 16485 Jan 27, 2009 Dear Dr. Briffa: At the suggestion of Dr. Eugene Wahl, I am writing to ask for your assistance in evaluating the above proposal, which has been submitted to U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation (CRDF) for the CRDF and Russian Foundation for Basic Research 2008 CGP-RFBR Multidisciplinary Climate Change Competition. The abstract of this proposal is included at the bottom of this message. CRDF is a nonprofit organization authorized by the U.S. Congress and established in 1995 by the National Science Foundation. This unique public-private partnership promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, primarily between the United States and Eurasia, through grants, technical resources, and training. For further information on CRDF, please visit our website at www.crdf.org. Reviewing the proposal would involve reading a project narrative of no more than 8 pages, and reviewing application materials that consist of CVs of participants and a budget. Reviewers will submit an online evaluation, based on six review criteria. In order to be mindful of your time, we will send the proposal to you electronically and provide you with the link to a reviewer website, through which you must submit your review. We realize that you have many demands on your time, but we hope you can assist CRDF and the Eurasian science community by evaluating this proposal. We would expect all reviews to be returned by February 11, 2009. - If you are willing to review the proposal, please reply to this message and indicate the following in your email: 1. Citizenship: Please indicate whether you are a U.S. citizen or have a U.S. Green Card; this is to ensure that CRDF complies with U.S. export control requirements. 2. Confidentiality: That you are aware that these proposals are under review and will keep them in the strictest confidentiality. - If you are NOT ABLE TO REVIEW the proposal, we would appreciate if you would recommend a colleague with appropriate expertise in the field of the proposal. Please send such recommendations to us by return e-mail. Thank you in advance for your time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at reviews@crdf.org. Sincerely, Julie Wilson Program Manager U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation Tel. 703 526-9720 Fax. 703 526-9721 http://www.crdf.org ______________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this proposal is to bring together resources and knowledge of several groups in Russia and the United States to improve understanding of the controls on tree-ring multi-elemental and stable carbon isotope d13C composition with the ultimate goal of improving records of past climates in Siberia based on tree rings. Our team has expertise in performing high-quality analytical measurements, data analysis, and modeling of tree-ring processes. There is a strong record of international publications produced as a result of previous collaboration between scientists at the Institute of Forest (Russia) and colleagues at University of Arizona. The best available analytical equipment is now accessible within Russia, however expertise of international experts is needed to help young scientists master the required methods. Siberian Federal University will be at the core of this project, encouraging Masters and Ph.D. students to participate. We propose to investigate control s of variability in multi-elemental composition and stable carbon isotopes in tree rings at two sites in Siberia characterized by distinct climates (temperature-limited Khatanga in Northern Siberia, 72N, 102E and moisture-limited Minusinsk in Southern Siberia, 53N, 92E). The purpose is to facilitate new advances in the field of dendroclimatology in two directions: first, by exploring new climate proxies based on multi-elemental analyses, and second by attempting to better constrain moisture and temperature controls on stable carbon isotopes and on biologically important elements (K, Ca, etc.) for each season. The geographical region of this study, Siberia, is important climatically but is still relatively poorly studied in terms of past climates compared to United States and Europe. We plan to collect samples in the time interval of the past ~100 years, during part of which local instrumental climate records are available. It is hoped that results of this proposed projec t will yield new approaches of accessing information on past climate changes and will help efforts to precisely characterize past climate changes over Siberia. 2296. 2009-01-28 13:39:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jan 28 13:39:56 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: NERC collection of Output and Performance Measures 2008/09 to: Tim Osborn From: To: Subject: NERC collection of Output and Performance Measures 2008/09 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:16:07 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 Thread-Index: AcmAki3K//pvxEecRZmKAD8DCVLD3A== X-Null-Tag: 0e1822ce2ec219af206e4c95856b46f6 X-MailScanner-NERC-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-NERC-ID: n0RFHOYM032257 X-MailScanner-NERC: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-NERC-From: opm@nerc.ac.uk X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 16423395 - e837bff8b227 X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=16423395&m=e837bff8b227&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=16423395&m=e837bff8b227&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=16423395&m=e837bff8b227&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Dear Professor Briffa, Award title: Quantitative applications of high-resolution late Holocene proxy data sets: estimating climate sensitivity and thermohaline circulation influences. I would be grateful for your input to the annual collection of output and performance measures (OPMs) relating to your NERC award. These data should be submitted through NERC's web-based research outputs database (ROD). Making your return on ROD: To access ROD simply go to [4]http://rod.nerc.ac.uk/ and enter: - Your reference number/username: NER/T/S/2002/00440 - Your password: rubybadger You will then enter the system at the home page for your award. From there you will be able to navigate within ROD and enter your OPM data. The deadline for the submission of 2008/09 data is WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2008. It is essential that returns are made on time. As ever, the early deadline is necessary to select and validate NERC's top science and organisational achievements for reporting through the NERC Annual Report and to provide us with statistical evidence required by the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS) to demonstrate the impact and quality of the research undertaken with NERC funding. This information is essential in helping us secure future funding. Once again may I express our sincere thanks for the level and quality of reporting over the past three years and to request your continuing support. This has been vital to provide us with evidence of our performance that can be demonstrated to NERC Council and to government. For example, a NERC citations impact study conducted in 2008 reviewed the ISI publications data on ROD for the years 2003 - 2005. Results of the study will be published on the NERC website. Thank you to those who provided feedback to the ROD questionnaire over the summer. A small number of replies raised a range of issues that will help inform future collections. Within the team we remain mindful of the need to keep the burden of reporting as light as possible, whilst allowing you the maximum opportunity to tell us about your outputs, outcomes and impacts. Process details: If necessary, sanctions will be applied rigorously to retain the high OPMs return rate. The Chief Executive will in the next few days write to Heads of Departments to confirm this. We hope there will be no need to apply sanctions and we will provide every support to ensure this. We ask that your submissions to ROD be completed for every award for which you are responsible for reporting. The sanction for failing to comply is ineligibility to apply for new grants (responsive mode, knowledge exchange and research programme) for 12 months. It is important you let us know well in advance of the 18 March deadline if there are any circumstances that make your compliance problematic. You are reminded that split and consortium awards are considered to have one Principal Investigator at the lead institution, who is responsible for collecting, consolidating and reporting the OPMs data for all Co-Investigators on the award. All award holders are reminded that, as a condition of their award, they must provide OPMs data annually during the life of their award, during the year funding completes, and for a further two years. Support: There is extensive online help available via the help and user-guide icons. The OPM questions should be familiar to previous users. There are no substantive changes to ROD this year when reporting on grants. The homepage has a feedback form through which you can raise issues with the ROD support team. Additionally, assistance will be available during office hours by telephoning Claire Hendry on 01793 411556. There is also a dedicated address for emails - opm@nerc.ac.uk Note, further communications will be issued via email only. You will not receive a hard copy of this letter. Many thanks for your continuing co-operation, Gregor McDonagh Business Performance Measurement Manager, Strategic Management Group Tel: 01793 442514 -- 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. -- 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/ 4934. 2009-01-29 12:14:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:14:24 -0000 from: "Suzanne Palminteri" subject: [Env.all] FW: [IPCC-announcement] Vacancy Announcement: IPCC WG2 to: , Greetings ENV, This may be of potential interest to people in a variety of research groups. Cheers, Sue -----Original Message----- From: Moss, Richard Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:25 PM To: Climate Change Subject: FW: [IPCC-announcement] Vacancy Announcement: IPCC WG2 Project Scientist This position will support the task group on scenarios I've been chairing. If anyone knows of strong candidates, please encourage them to apply. -----Original Message----- From: ipcc-announcement-bounces@usgcrp.gov [mailto:ipcc-announcement-bounces@usgcrp.gov] On Behalf Of climate_workshop_admin@usgcrp.gov Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3:10 PM To: climate_workshop_admin@climatescience.gov Subject: [IPCC-announcement] Vacancy Announcement: IPCC WG2 Project Scientist PROJECT SCIENTIST, IPCC WORKING GROUP II TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, potential negative and positive consequences, and options for adapting to it. A Technical Support Unit (TSU) provides technical and administrative services in support of assessment deliverables. The TSU is located at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, USA. As a core member of the TSU, a Project Scientist is sought to provide scientific expertise to both the IPCC WG2 co-chairs and to the Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA). Emphasis will be on scoping, preparing, and reviewing the WG2 contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and any Special Reports agreed upon by the Panel in response to specific requests of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The incumbent will serve as TSU focal point for support of the TGICA work program, including the New Scenarios development process, ongoing data archiving and distribution mechanisms, and training and capacity building. Requires a Ph.D. in social or natural science discipline and 3 or more years' experience relevant to the development and use of scenarios in assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability to global climate change. The specific academic discipline of the successful applicant may be less important than practical training and experience in interdisciplinary climate change research. This is a term position through 30 September 2009, with possibility of annual extensions through FY2014. Relocation expenses will be covered. To view the complete job description and apply, visit (reference job #9068 under `Current Job Openings/Scientific'). Initial consideration will be given to applications received prior to 2/20/2008. Thereafter, applications will be reviewed on an as-needed basis. We value diversity. AA/EOE PARDON CROSS-POSTINGS * PARDON CROSS-POSTINGS * PARDON CROSS-POSTINGS _______________________________________________ IPCC-announcement mailing list IPCC-announcement@usgcrp.gov http://lists.usgcrp.gov/mailman/listinfo/ipcc-announcement _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 2070. 2009-01-29 12:16:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:16:33 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That's great news. I'm really delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc "I'm not entirely there in the head" isn't there to spoil the occasion... With best regards, Ben P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Ben, > Meant to add - hope you're better! You were missed at > IDAG. Meeting went well though. > > I heard during IDAG that I've been made an AGU Fellow. > Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it. > I hope I don't see a certain person there! > Have to get out of a keynote talk I'm due to give in > Finland the same day! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Ben, > I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too > old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at > some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at > the moment. > > It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on > Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email, > telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think > Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has. > > With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have > submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more > years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data - > laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up > statements saying you've done this following Obama's > statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely > get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both > Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll > suggest this. > > Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's > work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment > piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper > they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it > hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you > reading them unless interested. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3860. 2009-01-30 09:33:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:53 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: data request to: Smithg Dear Mr. Smith, Please do not lecture me on "good science and replicability". Mr. McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was unwilling to do that. Our results were published in a peer-reviewed publication (the International Journal of Climatology). These results were fully available for "independent testing and replication by others". Indeed, I note that David Douglass et al. performed such independent testing and replication in their 2007 International Journal of Climatology paper. Douglass et al. used the same primary climate model data that we employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do - they independently calculated estimates of "synthetic" Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data. The Douglass et al. "synthetic" MSU temperatures are very similar to our own. The scientific differences between the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. results are primarily related to the different statistical tests that the two groups employed in their comparisons of models and observations. Demonstrably, the Douglass et al. statistical test contains several serious flaws, which led them to reach incorrect inferences regarding the level of agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends. Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the Douglass et al. statistical test and our statistical test with randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not to do that. He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well. Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to LLNL and DOE management to complain about my "unresponsiveness" and my failure to provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of the information available on Mr. McIntyre's blog. You did not understand - and still do not understand - that the primary model data used in our paper have always been freely available to any scientific researcher, and are currently being used by many hundreds of scientists around the world. Any competent climate scientist could perform full replication of our calculation of "synthetic" MSU temperatures - as Douglass et al. have already done. Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or post it on Mr. McIntyre's blog. Sincerely, Dr. Ben Santer Smithg wrote: > Dear Dr. Santer, > > I'm pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line. > Thank you for your efforts to make these materials available. > > My "dog in this fight" is good science and replicability. I note the > following references: > > The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part): > > "The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness > of scientists to: > > 1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and > replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, > procedures and materials. > 2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted > with more complete or reliable experimental or observational > evidence. > > Also I note the NAS booklet On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct > in Research (2^nd edition) states After publication, scientists expect > that data and other research materials will be shared with qualified > colleagues upon request. Indeed, a number of federal agencies, journals, > and professional societies have established policies requiring the > sharing of research materials. Sometimes these materials are too > voluminous, unwieldy, or costly to share freely and quickly. But in > those fields in which sharing is possible, a scientist who is unwilling > to share research materials with qualified colleagues runs the risk of > not being trusted or respected. In a profession where so much depends on > interpersonal interactions, the professional isolation that can follow a > loss of trust can damage a scientist's work. I know that the 3rd > edition is expected soon, but I cannot imagine this position will be > weakened. Indeed, with electronic storage of data increasing > dramatically, I expect that most of the exceptions are likely to be > dropped. > > I understand that science is considered by some to be a "blood sport" > and that there are serious rivalries and disputes. Nevertheless, the > principles above are vital to the continuation of good science, wherever > the results may lead. > > Again, I thank you for making the data available, and I wish you success > in your future research. > > Kind regards, > > Geoff Smith > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Smithg > *To:* santer1@llnl.gov > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:23 PM > *Subject:* data request > > Dear Dr. Santer > > ref: Santer, et. al. > Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the > tropical troposphere > International Journal of Climatology > Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1703-1722 > > As a courtesy, I would like to advise you that I have requested data > to support the above paper (monthly model data (49 series) used for > statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with a > file of the data as used in the paper) be made available to me via a > request to Dr. Anna Palmisano of the DOE, Office of Science, the > funding agency. This request is for "recorded factual material > commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to > validate research findings". > > This data is already the subject of an FOIA request, but I have > asked Dr. Palisano to obtain and send me the data independently of > the outcome of any FOIA review. My reasons are: > > 1) further analysis of the data is important for public policy > 2) there is no valid intellectual property justification for > withholding this data > 3) the data is readily available as obviously you (Dr. Santer) used > the information in preparing the recently published paper > > My request has been copied to Dr. George Miller. > > Since I have not asked you directly for the data, I now request this > data directly from you (monthly model data (49 series) used for > statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with a > file of the data as used in the paper). > > Your reported replies to requests of other individuals that the > datasets are publicly available is non-responsive to the request. > > You may be aware that the head of the Royal Meteorological Society > (who are the publishers of the above referenced journal) has > announced that their data archiving policies will be reviewed at > their next general editors meeting. That may change things for the > future, but a future change does not have retrospective force. > Nevertheless, there is a high probability that requests for this > data will continue until provided. > > In the absence of the requested data, it is very likely this > publication will be judged "non-replicable" and therefore of no > evidentiary value in public policy. > > Kind regards, > > Geoff Smith > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4806. 2009-01-30 10:41:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Kate Willett , Dick Dee , david.levinson@noaa.gov date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:41:06 +0000 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Re: CRUTEM3v and HadCRUH comparisons with ERA-40 and ERA-Interim to: Adrain Simmons Hi Adrian et al., thanks for the update. Looks good. Very interesting stuff. I'm including Dave Levinson in here to speak to the precip issue in my very last point. I knew there had to be some benefit to my being chapter lead in the BAMS State of the Climate report. Dave did the precip analysis for AR4 or at least can get hold of the different datasets. Okay, on with comments: trying to head off likely reviewer concerns in tables 1 and 2 is quoting to 4 s.f. scientifically justified given the likely errors that are involved in both the obs datasets and the reanalyses? Would 2 or at most 3 s.f be more rational? Is a difference in the 3rd or 4th s.f. meaningful and pointing to a real difference that we should be investigating or simply an artifact of inclusion / exclusion of one or two datapoints? I like the plotting style in Fig 1., can this be replicated in Figure 6 so we are internally consistent? I'd still like to see an assessment of the significance of differences when we compare obs and rean timeseries (various places) in a formal sense. Maybe this is in the text but not the Figures in which case please move on move on, nothing to see officer. Otherwise I just feel that this protects us from an obvious angle of attack by the usual suspects if this thing gets picked up and turned over by climatefraudit or associates. Saying its statistically indistinguishable also bolsters the scientific value of the analysis substantially in my view. I'm intrigued by what is going on in sub-saharan Africa ERA-INT in Fig. 3. Do we have any confidence in this feature? It kind of jumps out at you so may be worth addressing / discussing. Figure 11 and associated discussion seems a reasonable strawman to me. What does the rean soil moisture do as that is the local source over land. Do we see large-scale drying? Pity we don't have a reasonable soil moisture obs dataset. I think in the rean at least we have access to enough variables to actually corroborate the strawman even if we cannot then confirm it in the real-world because of a lack of data ...! In figure 12 you use GPCP data. Now precip estimates over land are highly uncertain, and differ substantially on multi-decadal timescales. So I'd be loathed to rely upon a single dataset version to make a meaningful conclusion about the differences between obs and rean. 1999 would fit rather well with ATOVS introduction and that may help explain any apparent jump. But equally plausibly GPCP may be in error. I'd at least use the NCDC GHCN dataset and possibly others here to be totally sure that we are attributing the problem to the right cause (rean or obs). Thanks 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 973. 2009-01-30 11:41:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:41:01 +0000 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: CRUTEM3v and HadCRUH comparisons with ERA-40 and ERA-Interim to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Thanks for the message, Phil. I'm not in the office myself today. I've one hard copy of the whole thing with me, and I'm sure Stephan will print off some more copies for us. Good idea about consulting with Kevin and Phil next week - can't think why this did not occur to me. It's most likely we'll meet on Monday at breakfast. I won't get to the Mon Repos until 2030-2100 on Sunday, and will need an hour or two to gather thoughts as to what I'm going to say the next morning. I've not prepared for this meeting in advance, as I've already had a couple of sessions in Geneva on the review of progress of the current GIP, and decided to devote the present week to my FP6/7 projects and the humidity paper. All the best Adrian P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Adrian, > Thanks for the email and the plots. I'm in Switzerland > already at an extremes workshop. I'll look through these > in more detail later. > Can you bring along a few (3-4) hard copy sets of the > pdf? It is easier for me to look at the hard copy. It might > also be useful to get the views of Kevin Trenberth and Phil > Arkin of your RH thoughts in Geneva next week. > I'm glad to see the precip in ERA-Interim behaving well > in the tropics. There is another precip dataset from GPCC > that we might want to try - again useful to get Phil Arkin's > thoughts on that. > See you on Monday - or maybe Sunday. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Hi everyone >> >> I've not got on as fast I would have liked with the writing, but at >> least I have an argument for the drop in relative humidity. Whether you >> can accept it is another matter.... >> >> Attached is a document that comprises an abstract, two tables and twelve >> figures, with captions. Doubtless there'll be further changes, >> especially to take into account the HadCRUH update. >> >> Figs 1 to 10 you have seen before in some form or other, though they are >> now updated to include ERA-Interim data up to June 2008, the latest >> month to be completed. I took Peter's comments on board, and simplified >> what I displayed in the regional plots, and also switched the colours >> for the humidity, so blue means moistening and red drying. >> >> Fig 11 is a new one, and I find it quite striking. It shows (a) that >> HadCRUH shows similar temporal variations in the averages over all land >> and all sea (maybe the point is also made in Kate's paper, which I need >> to reread), and (b) that in ERA, there is quite a reasonable correlation >> between temporal variations in the saturation specific humidity >> calculated using sea-surface temperature and surface pressure, averaged >> over all sea points, and temporal variations in the 2m specific humidity >> averaged over all land points. >> >> So I think the recent drop in relative humidity could well be real (to >> be confirmed by the HadCRUH extension, I hope!) and a consequence of the >> fact that in recent years the atmosphere has gone on warming just above >> the land surface, whereas temperatures over sea have not shown the same >> rise. With warmer temperatures over land, extra moisture has to be >> supplied if relative humidity is to stay fixed. But evaporation over sea >> does not increase commensurately because sea-surface temperatures have >> not risen recently in concert with those over land. So there is not the >> moisture supply from sea to land to maintain uniform relative humidity. >> >> Does the above make sense to you? I think Fig 11 supports the argument. >> There can be other effects - reduced transpiration due to increased >> stress on vegetation in areas that are already arid, and consequences of >> deforestation - that could cause drying (and there could be moistening >> at high latitudes due to a reduction in the space/time extent of frozen >> soils). But the drop in relative humidity seems intuitively to be too >> rapid and widespread for such other causes to provide the only >> explanation. >> >> Fig. 12 was an attempt to answer a question Dick raised when I tried the >> argument on him - "what does this imply for precipitation?". I'm not >> sure this figure will survive, and right now I'm puzzled by the shift in >> the ERA/GPCP comparison around 1999 for most regions. It's much the same >> for both ERA-40 and ERA-Interim. Could just be a mistake on my part, but >> I've used two different pieces of code and got the same result. So the >> jury is out on this one. But there are some similarities between the RH >> series in Fig 6 and the precip series in Fig 12, so I keep it in for now. >> >> Otherwise I've written just a handful of technical paragraphs. >> >> No chance of progress in the next couple of weeks due to two trips, but >> at least I'll get a chance to talk with Phil at the first of the meetings. >> >> All the best >> >> Adrian >> >> >> Adrian Simmons wrote: >>> Thanks for the comments, Peter. A few quick responses: >>> >>> (i) I'll check different tolerances for including CRUTEM3v data, but >>> doubt it will help coverage much. Actual numbers can be seen in the >>> attached plots. They shift mostly only on the decadal timescale, >>> consistent with the 10-year book explanation given by Phil earlier. >>> >>> (ii) For temperature, I could show the CRUTEM2v time series plus >>> differences. To see anything much though I would have to use a different >>> scale for differences, and that may detract from the main point, which >>> is that the time series are very similar indeed. I would argue that if >>> you can't see the differences, they can't be very significant. I've got >>> a couple of tables to quantify differences. I'll try out the alternative >>> nevertheless. This approach won't work for humidity, however, as none of >>> the time series spans the full period. >>> >>> (iii) If you could extend HadCRUH over land to the end of 2007, albeit >>> in provisional form, I would certainly be interested. >>> >>> (iv) I wondered myself about flipping the colour for the humidity plots. >>> But q increases as T increases. So I thought to use red colours both for >>> larger T (conventional) and larger q (unconventional, I know), so that >>> the correlation stands out. I guess it's a matter of taste. If we stick >>> with the current scheme, I would include a sentence explaining why blue >>> means dry. >>> >>> (v) I had a longish chat with June Wang when I visited NCAR in October. >>> She was then about to put in a proposal jointly with Aiguo Dai (who I've >>> not met) and Leo for funding for an attempt at homogenising radiosonde q >>> - something we're very interested in for future reanalysis. I've also >>> just looked at a paper of hers on the dry RS80 bias, as this may play a >>> part in the RH shift over Europe either side of ~1990 (generally, >>> radiosondes dry our boundary-layer analysis whilst SYNOPs moisten it). A >>> visit from them in the summer would be very welcome. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> peter.thorne wrote: >>>> Dear Adrian, >>>> >>>> some comments below inter-leaved within the text. Hopefully they will >>>> be >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 18:38 +0000, Adrian Simmons wrote: >>>>> Dear Phil, Kate and Peter >>>>> >>>>> I finally managed to spend some time over the past few days assembling >>>>> some provisional figures (attached) for a comparison of our reanalyses >>>>> with your data sets. Era-Interim is now in January 2008, and when it >>>>> completes 2008 (probably late next month or early February), we'll >>>>> have >>>>> 20 years of this reanalysis, and thirty years of combined >>>>> ERA-40/ERA-Interim reanalysis from the FGGE year onwards. My idea is >>>>> to >>>>> start writing something soon, with a view to finalising the figures >>>>> and >>>>> text once we have results up to the end of 2008. >>>> Sounds great. >>>> >>>>> Here are some comments on the figures (all of which are land-only). >>>>> >>>>> (i) Figs. 1-3 These cover the temperature comparisons, and simply >>>>> update >>>>> the picture from Simmons, Jones et al. (2004). In these and other >>>>> figures I have normalised everything to give zero anomaly for the >>>>> ten-year mean 1989-1998, which is convenient as I can then plot maps >>>>> of >>>>> the anomalies for the decades 1979-1988 and 1999-2008. (Note that for >>>>> now the maps labelled 1999-2008 are actually for 1998-2007, and those >>>>> for 2004-2008 are actually for 2003-2007 - this will be fixed when we >>>>> actually have reanalysis data for 2008). For the maps I show all CRU >>>>> grid squares for which less than 5% of months are missing. >>>>> >>>> Is there any reason that the criteria is this tight? Is there any >>>> implication to loosening it to say 25%? You should find extra data in >>>> at >>>> least some relatively data sparse areas which may be worth the cost of >>>> the additional noise, or does it make no substantial difference to >>>> coverage for either dataset? >>>> >>>>> Basically we see excellent continuation of the ERA-40 results when we >>>>> sample ERA-Interim and ERA-40 in the same way as CRUTEM3v samples in >>>>> space and time. A point that might be emphasized is that the coverage >>>>> of >>>>> CRUTEM3v is much poorer for the last ten years than the first one. Any >>>>> comment on this? Are there many late-arriving CLIMATs that will change >>>>> the picture when I download a new version of CRUTEM3v? It is >>>>> noteworthy >>>>> that CRUTEM3v samples poorly the Arctic region where ERA indicates the >>>>> strongest warming (and ERA also shows strong warming over sea-ice - or >>>>> where sea-ice used to be!). Fig 1 shows a stronger trend in ERA that >>>>> in >>>>> CRUTEM3v when we use the complete ERA record rather than sampling it >>>>> as >>>>> CRUTEM3v. In other words ERA-Interim shows less recent cooling than >>>>> CRUTEM3v. Here we are treading on thin ice (sorry!) from a PR >>>>> viewpoint, >>>>> so I'm interested in your reaction to all this. >>>> For all the timeseries figures or at least those that you subsample to >>>> coverage mimicking can we consider a slightly different presentational >>>> style? I find it hard to ascertain what is going on because the lines >>>> are sufficiently thick to overlap substantially for much of the period. >>>> An alternative approach would be to show one dataset's (the >>>> "observations"? Open to argument and counter-vailing views here) actual >>>> timeseries and then offset from this the difference series to the other >>>> two timeseries. We know the datasets agree on the high frequency, its >>>> the low frequency behaviour that really interests us here. The >>>> difference series illuminates this directly and could be assessed for >>>> statistical trend significance probably without a d.o.f. correction to >>>> the uncertainty. This would very considerably strengthen this part of >>>> the analysis as it is actually really getting at a very thorough >>>> investigation of the inter-dataset differences which is key. >>>> >>>>> (ii) Fig. 4 shows excellent agreement between HadCRUH and ERA-40 time >>>>> series for q. After 2003, the "sampled as HadCRUH" means I sample >>>>> ERA-Interim for the grid squares for which HadCRUH gives values for >>>>> December 2003. Slightly less trend for the full ERA dataset. >>>>> >>>>> (iii) Fig. 5 and 6 are time series for RH. Generally good agreement >>>>> also. Two points. One is shift in ERA-40 around 1990 for Europe. I >>>>> think >>>>> this is a reanalysis problem. Hard to be sure, but could be explained >>>>> by >>>>> increased dry bias of sondes. No time to write more now, but Figs 10 >>>>> and >>>>> 11 relate to this, and also to second point - the relative dryness of >>>>> recent years. I cannot find a reanalysis problem to explain this, and >>>>> am >>>>> inclined to think for now it could be real - there is no fundamental >>>>> physical reason why relative humidity should not show a trend in a >>>>> climate that is shifting. But it is really frustrating that HadCRUH >>>>> stops at the end of 2003. What are the prospects for extending it? >>>>> Could >>>>> something quick be done as a check on the reanalysis result - omitting >>>>> homogenization and subtle QC checks for example. >>>> We could, in theory, update the series as we now have, just, >>>> unquarantined disk with the ISD source updated through the end of 2007 >>>> (wouldn't help with '08). We could, as an interim measure, update >>>> through 2007 by simply plonking it on the end for now (not quite that >>>> simple as we'd have to convert to required res and format but the hard >>>> yards are done). Adding 2008 would be technically feasible but a heck >>>> of >>>> a lot of work and is probably outside the time remit. We were going to >>>> produce a 2nd gen product for end of '09 through 2007 then worry about >>>> instigating updates. That's quite a lot to do, but I guess in theory we >>>> have the data through 2007 so could update the land component thru >>>> then. >>>> Not sure about marine, but that's not your problem ...! >>>> >>>>> (iv) Fig 7 shows ten-year anomaly maps. Don't have HadCRUH for >>>>> 1999-2008 >>>>> of course. RH map for 1999-2008 show good temporal continuity - >>>>> generally drying (relatively) in tropics and mid latitudes, and >>>>> moistening (relatively) at high latitudes. Perhaps not implausible - >>>>> for >>>>> RH to stay uniform as T increases the water has to come from >>>>> somewhere. >>>>> That could be difficult over dry soils. And easier over melting >>>>> soils?? >>>>> Is anything like this seen in the Hadley Centre climate runs? >>>>> >>>> In the humidity maps can you flip the colour scheme so that red is >>>> drier >>>> and blue is wetter? That is more intuitive to me at least. >>>> >>>> We haven't had an in depth look at climate model output in this >>>> respect. >>>> We should have some HadGEM1 fields that we could dig out, but Kate's >>>> been doing some HadCRUH-climate model work and we want to ensure we >>>> don't duplicate so suggest Kate updates you on status. >>>> >>>>> (v) Fig 8 shows consistency across boundary layer (level 49 is close >>>>> to >>>>> 850hPa, where analysis in influenced more strongly by sondes rather >>>>> than >>>>> SYNOPs). >>>>> >>>>> (vi) Fig 9 shows some 5-year means, comparing ERA-INT and HadCRUH for >>>>> 1999-2003. >>>>> >>>>> (vii) Figs 10 and 11 are fits of background and analysis to >>>>> assimilated >>>>> observations. There are subtleties I don't have time to explain right >>>>> now, but basically a flat line is a good thing from the viewpoint of >>>>> trend analysis. It is the drop in the background RH curves and rise in >>>>> the background Q curves for the northern hemisphere between 1988 and >>>>> 1993 that makes me think the RH shift between the 1980s and 1990s in >>>>> ERA >>>>> relative to HadCRUH is a reanalysis problem. Equally though, there is >>>>> nothing in these curves (or some others I've looked at) that points to >>>>> the lowering of RH in the reanalyses for the last few years as being >>>>> spurious. >>>> Which makes it more appealing to do a quick and dirty fix to update >>>> HadCRUH through at least 2007 as that would be the clincher. Of course, >>>> in this era we also have the GPS-PW network from June Wang at NCAR. >>>> Perhaps this would be a useful addition? Aiguo Dai also has an >>>> alternative observational dataset of surface q and RH which could be a >>>> useful addition. I think his is updated through 2006. It has no >>>> homogeneity adjustments but because its a compilation of synops >>>> probably >>>> better coverage (swings and roundabouts). We have both of them visiting >>>> here in the summer for 2 months and 3 months respectively so >>>> opportunity >>>> to do some collaborative work on this. I know they were keen to visit >>>> CRU and Reading institutes. If you want their email addresses so you >>>> can >>>> send some enquiries just let me know. >>>> >>>> I hope you have a relaxing christmas >>>> >>>> Peter >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------- >> > > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- 1216. 2009-01-30 11:51:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:51:50 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: [Fwd: tipping points and insurance- funded research] to: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk Agreed - seems more like work for Tim Lenton. Phil > Dear all > > This is some work which needs to be done by end of April. Seems more > suited to Tyndall and Tim Lenton than CRU. > > Clare > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: tipping points and insurance- funded research > From: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" > Date: Fri, January 30, 2009 11:21 am > To: "Clare Goodess" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Clare > I am writing to see if CRU would be interested in working on this project > for WWF/Allianz (see attachment). Orifginally PIK expressed an interest, > but they have withdrawn, so we need a good science partner. Happy to > discuss, but WWF would like to start soon. I would do the insurance > chapter. >   > The research would be paid! >   > I have been asked by them to approach Tyndall also, but no one else at > this stage, > Andrew 1227. 2009-01-30 15:36:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:36:30 -0500 from: "Scott Robeson" subject: RE: More Thoughts to: Phil, Thanks for the helpful comments. Interesting week here -- 30+ cm of snow, which is not typical for southern Indiana. I have picked up the new datasets and run them through 2008. - The v version showed some differences from the previous results -- the difference in the trends between the percentiles actually seems to be larger in the v version. Please see the attachment. Note that these are for the HadCRUT data (previous results were for CRUTEM). I also did a time series of 90th minus 10th percentile time series and the post-war discontinuity in SSTs seems evident here. - Yes, you're right about the high latitude areas (more variable regions) driving the high and low percentiles, but data from all over the globe still contribute somewhat. So, in a sense the trends in the percentiles are most representative of these high-latitude regions. I could start to do some regional analyses, but I'd like to keep the focus on how spatial variability is changing across large spatial scales. Perhaps a hemispheric analysis might be useful along those lines and at least it would ensure that something like having all the 10th percentiles from the SH and 90th percentiles from the NH isn't happening. - Fig. 2 is more erratic since the 1970s as the trends are calculated over increasingly shorter time periods. The last several points on that graph are only for about 30 years while the first ones are for the whole 1881-2008 period. The trend analysis still uses the monthly data, but I just calculated one trend per year (Jan 1881 to Dec 2008, then Jan 1882 to Dec 2008, etc.). So, the original figure caption was misleading in that it didn't mention the months used. - I had thought of a fixed grid analysis too -- then we would know if the changes are due to the inclusion of a larger number of more-variable regions later in the record or to "real" changes in the structure of the thermal anomalies. When you say 90% complete time series, do you mean that a grid point is included if it has 90% data available for a given time period (i.e., excluded if it has more than 10% missing)? Thanks, Scott -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:28 AM To: srobeson@indiana.edu Cc: willmott@udel.edu Subject: More Thoughts Scott, I picked up a copy of your docs/pics etc in Norwich on Monday. I've now had a read through, so here's some thoughts from Switzerland. I think running the v version through would be worthwhile, as a sensitivity test. If it shows little difference, then you have something that is quite robust. I don't think there are many data issues, just coverage changes. Can you run with a fixed grid - say 90% complete time series over the 1901-2007 period? I'm still wondering where the big increase in 90th percentiles is coming from? I can see how you calculate it, but spatially to my mind this would be dominated by the more variable regions. Maybe if you split into two groups - north of 30N and south of 30N. Seems like your Fig 2 is more erratic since the 1970s. This is an annual whereas Fig 1 is all months. To get annual do you do things annually or average the months. By the way 2008 is complete now. Cheers Phil Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\hadcrut3_hadcrut3v_comparison.pdf" 4096. 2009-01-31 05:48:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, willmott@udel.edu date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:48:15 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: More Thoughts to: "Scott Robeson" Scott, Yes - I did mean excluding points that aren't more than 90% complete in any fixed grid analysis. The v version makes the last you your plots more stable through time (the 90 minus 10 plot). Maybe our work on the SST for the period from 1945-1960 and also more SSTs in the WW2 years will lower the slight bump in the plot at that time as well. There should be a new version with these changes in the late spring. In the meantime best to concentrate on the land only versions. The SST part does have lower variability. Hemispheric analyses would be a useful addition. Interesting to see an SH land one - to see what impact Antarctica after 1957 has. Cheers Phil Phil, > > Thanks for the helpful comments. Interesting week here -- 30+ cm of snow, > which is not typical for southern Indiana. > > I have picked up the new datasets and run them through 2008. > > - The v version showed some differences from the previous results -- the > difference in the trends between the percentiles actually seems to be > larger > in the v version. Please see the attachment. Note that these are for the > HadCRUT data (previous results were for CRUTEM). I also did a time series > of 90th minus 10th percentile time series and the post-war discontinuity > in > SSTs seems evident here. > > - Yes, you're right about the high latitude areas (more variable regions) > driving the high and low percentiles, but data from all over the globe > still > contribute somewhat. So, in a sense the trends in the percentiles are > most > representative of these high-latitude regions. I could start to do some > regional analyses, but I'd like to keep the focus on how spatial > variability > is changing across large spatial scales. Perhaps a hemispheric analysis > might be useful along those lines and at least it would ensure that > something like having all the 10th percentiles from the SH and 90th > percentiles from the NH isn't happening. > > - Fig. 2 is more erratic since the 1970s as the trends are calculated over > increasingly shorter time periods. The last several points on that graph > are only for about 30 years while the first ones are for the whole > 1881-2008 > period. The trend analysis still uses the monthly data, but I just > calculated one trend per year (Jan 1881 to Dec 2008, then Jan 1882 to Dec > 2008, etc.). So, the original figure caption was misleading in that it > didn't mention the months used. > > - I had thought of a fixed grid analysis too -- then we would know if the > changes are due to the inclusion of a larger number of more-variable > regions > later in the record or to "real" changes in the structure of the thermal > anomalies. When you say 90% complete time series, do you mean that a grid > point is included if it has 90% data available for a given time period > (i.e., excluded if it has more than 10% missing)? > > Thanks, > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:28 AM > To: srobeson@indiana.edu > Cc: willmott@udel.edu > Subject: More Thoughts > > Scott, > I picked up a copy of your docs/pics etc in Norwich on > Monday. I've now had a read through, so here's some thoughts > from Switzerland. > I think running the v version through would be worthwhile, > as a sensitivity test. If it shows little difference, then you > have something that is quite robust. > I don't think there are many data issues, just coverage changes. > Can you run with a fixed grid - say 90% complete time series > over the 1901-2007 period? > I'm still wondering where the big increase in 90th percentiles > is coming from? I can see how you calculate it, but spatially to > my mind this would be dominated by the more variable regions. Maybe > if you split into two groups - north of 30N and south of 30N. > Seems like your Fig 2 is more erratic since the 1970s. This > is an annual whereas Fig 1 is all months. To get annual do you > do things annually or average the months. > > By the way 2008 is complete now. > > Cheers > Phil > > > 4723. 2009-02-05 12:32:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: ipcc-extremes-RSVP@usgcrp.gov date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:32:12 -0500 (EST) from: ipcc-extremes-rsvp@usgcrp.gov subject: Invitation to IPCC WG2 Scoping Meeting: Jones to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Jones - Attached please find an invitation to participate in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scoping Meeting for a potential Special Report on "Extreme Events and Disasters: Managing the Risks" to be held in Oslo, Norway, from 23-26 March 2009. The provisional agenda is also attached. To give quick context, at the 38th session of the IPCC Bureau (24-25 November 2008 - Geneva, Switzerland), a Norwegian proposal to undertake a special report on Extreme Events - stressing risk assessment and management - was presented. After deliberation, the Bureau decided to conduct a scoping meeting, to provide support for a future decision on whether to endorse the Special Report. The Bureau requested that the meeting produce a white paper describing process, objectives, and an annotated outline. The outcome of the meeting will provide guidance to the 39th session of the Bureau and the 30th session of the IPCC (20-23 April 2009 - Antalya, Turkey). A formal decision on undertaking the proposed Special Report will be rendered then. A closed web site has been created to help participants prepare for the scoping meeting. Visit and use the embedded username and password in the invite PDF to access the site. Please fill out the Pre-Registration Form at your earliest convenience. If you have difficulties accessing the site, please do not hesitate to contact the IPCC Working Group II Technical Support by responding to this message -- that is, via . Given the proximity of the meeting and need to ensure the highest caliber experts, it would be appreciated if you would indicate your availability, again via , by 25 February 2009. Thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to meeting you in Oslo in about 6 weeks' time. Sincerely, Extremes SR Science Steering Group Attachments: Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ExtremesInvite-Jones.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ExtremesSR_Agenda.pdf" 4647. 2009-02-05 15:24:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:24:08 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: RE: Financial arrangements in centres to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,k.Briffa@uea.ac.uk,alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk third paragraph relates to the library. Clare From: "Alastair Grant" To: "'Phil Jones'" , "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" Cc: , , , , "'White Carrie Mrs \(ACAD\)'" Subject: RE: Financial arrangements in centres Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:53:32 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 thread-index: AckBLWeYzbOBKa+pTQyECestcyoTWwAyYsrw Phil: Please be assured that we greatly value the excellent science that CRU has done over many years and we certainly do not wish to undermine one of ENV and UEAs jewels in the crown. Personally, Im very excited by the potential that the appointment of William Cheung and Aldina Franco give for strengthening links between ecology and climate change and the work on the impacts of climate change on agricultural systems that is developing within ELSA and CRU will clearly be central to the Schools contribution to LWEC. These changes are about simplifying administrative systems to try to give you more time to do excellent science and to reduce administrative burdens on staff both within CRU and in the rest of the school. There is a real danger that the hidden costs of staff time taken up making decisions about budgets are much greater than the relatively small sums of money involved. When we take into account all running costs, the cost to the school of a professor is heading towards 100 an hour. So I want to reduce the time that the CRU Board needs to spend discussing small amounts of money to release time to discuss strategic science issues. The funding from the CRU library remains in place, but has transferred to the ENV publications budget Carrie will be able to give you the account number. I think that I worked on the basis of the original budget but Im happy to work on the basis of 3300 for the coming year. On many of the other issues that you identify, we are basically saying that the sums of money are too small to merit spending much time monitoring budgets. To give a wider example of the philosophy, during the year we have stopped bothering to ask people to check their phone printouts for private calls, because the amounts recovered werent worth the effort that it took up. The examples of this here are that costs of office supplies, stationery, photocopying, telephones and post will be covered by the general school budgets for these. Reception will no longer need to track CRU post separately from the rest of ENV, and Sylvia will no longer need to worry about which stationery is paid for by ENV and which by CRU. Research that involves large mail shots or print jobs or extensive telephone calls etc, should cover these costs as in the past, but the school will pay for general use of all these things and CRU no longer needs to worry about them. On travel, non-reclaimable VAT on travel will be handled in the same way that we do for the rest of the School, so again the CRU board do not need to worry about this. Weve allocated a travel budget of 250 each to the academic staff this money can simply be spent without prior authorisation. We will also pick up reasonable travel costs for visiting speakers there will, no doubt, need to be some discussion with Carrie about what reasonable means and there is an overall school limit on the visiting speaker budget. But together these will certainly total more than the 1200 budget for the non VAT element of ENV.37.3.16. Under the system that you outline, research staff who wanted want funds for travel have had to apply to the CRU board for funding. Under the new arrangements, they are able to request money from an ENV budget for travel related to proposal development, and straightforward requests usually get a response in a day or two. So in total, I would expect CRU to receive significantly more money for travel than in the past. We probably do need a discussion about what you have used 37.4.21 (Computer and software maintenance) and 37.7.15 (computer equipment) to cover. We want to achieve consistency across the whole School, and under fEC, we need to try to charge these costs to research grants wherever possible. Without seeing the detail, these budgets look a bit more generous than those in the rest of the school, but any decreases here will be roughly balanced by increased resources for travel. Would it be possible for someone to give a brief summary of what these budgets have covered please? We can then have a chat about these elements of the budget and any other issues that need resolving preferably after Im back from the Ireland fieldcourse which runs from 6^th to 19^th September. What is your schedule like in the week beginning 22^nd September? I hope that this helps deal with your concerns. There will, Im sure, be a bit of pain during the transition, but the net result will be a streamlined system that takes up less time for academic staff and researchers and gives a similar level of financial support to that in previous years. 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: Phil Jones [[4] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 18 August 2008 13:25 To: Alastair Grant; 'Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)' Cc: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; d.maraun@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Financial arrangements in centres Jacquie, Alastair, Attachment also pasted here. Cheers Phil Dear Alastair and Jacquie We were very surprised and disappointed to receive your email of 16 July informing us, with no prior consultation, of your decision to remove the CRU school grant. CRU is the longest-established centre within the school set up in 1972 ( [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/) and it is no historical accident that we have an internationally-renowned reputation and identity. As the introduction to UEAs Corporate Plan says We were the first university in the world to establish a Climatic Research Unit and have continued to be a global leader in the study of climate change and its mitigation. In June this year, the ENDS report said that CRU 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" and we were specifically cited in their list of key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past 30 years. Jacquie had a good opportunity to see how far our reputation extends when she brought lay members of UEA Council to CRU for a visit in March. This reputation is backed up by a strong publishing record (according to a Web of Science search for 1998-2007, CRU has published 289 papers, with 8620 citations, an average of 30 citations per paper). We make these points to demonstrate that CRU is not just a loose association of people, but a long-established unit, with focussed aims and a management structure dedicated to achieving them. As well as our Director and Deputy Director, we have a 30% time Research and Administration Manager, Clare Goodess. Her responsibilities include management of the CRU School Grant. Her main contact with finance administrative staff is Christine Webster. Until very recently she has been dependent on Christine for providing statements of expenditure since she did not have access to view the account (something taken up with Carrie White and others some time ago). Now she is able to view the account through the Discovery Reporting system, which will considerably reduce the call on Christines time. CRU also has a Strategic Plan, introduced in early 2005, and currently under review by CRU Board and CRU Forum. As your email of 16 July indicates, one of the items in the CRU school grant is travel and subsistence. In 2007/08, our 2000 travel budget was divided fairly evenly between paying taxes which cannot be claimed on EC-funded travel, and travel for CRU staff and invited seminar speakers. Decisions on travel are taken by CRU Board with strategic considerations the foremost criterion. Thus we pay for staff to attend meetings associated with proposal development and invite seminar speakers that will enhance our strategic and academic links. Funding is provided not just to our faculty members, but also to our research staff. The CRU School Grant also covers office supplies and stationery, photocopying and printing, telephones and post. In addition, and very importantly, it also includes money for computer and software maintenance and consumables, computer equipment, and maintaining the CRU library (book purchase, periodicals and subscriptions and binding). The CRU Library is a major resource not only for CRU but for the School and the University. CRU has a part-time IT Manager, Mike Salmon, and he manages the computing budgets together with Clare Goodess, according to CRUs rolling five-year IT plan which is approved by CRU Board and CRU Forum. The CRU Library is managed by Alan Ovenden, 0.5 days per week. In 2007/08, the Library budget allocated was 2800, but we have had to vire money from other headings due to rising costs, and expenditure has been about 3300. As with computing costs, there is no indication in your email as to whether the CRU Library budget has been maintained. Our library is a major resource for staff and students in CRU and ENV, and attracts many international visitors. Just now, we are beginning to get requests for renewals of some of our journal subscriptions. In conclusion, we consider that the current arrangements for managing the CRU School Grant have worked well. They have given us some flexibility over expenditure, within constraints, and probably allow us to make quicker decisions when anything urgent arises. As a well-established Unit, we have a strategic overview and a strong management structure, that we believe warrants us retaining separate budgets. For 2007/08, the CRU School Grant totalled 13990. At the present time, we have no idea of the funding that is potentially available to us (presumably we would have to bid for many items under the new arrangements) in the coming year. Clearly this makes it very difficult to plan and manage effectively and efficiently. The removal of the CRU School Grant will likely add to administrative burden of CRU staff. It will further reduce the little flexibility we have, but perhaps more significantly, it will erode the sense of identity shared by CRU members suggesting a lack of appreciation on behalf of the School of CRUs efforts and achievements over past decades. Thus we urge you to reconsider the decision that the two of you have taken with respect to CRU. Phil Jones on behalf of the CRU Board At 12:34 16/07/2008, you wrote: Largely as a result of historical accident, some groups within ENV have had separate budgets while others have not. For example, CEEC has had a budget, while LGMAC has not. Current arrangements for managing centre budgets have been creating un-necessary work for administrative staff. We have also had a situation in which there has been a lack of equity between faculty members. For example, some have had access to travel budgets while others have not. To simplify financial management and to remove these anomalies, Jacquie and I have agreed that we should have a uniform set of financial procedures across the School, so that all faculty members are treated in the same way. The only exception will be centres that are funded by a large core grant and have a centre administrator to manage a centre budget. The details are in the attached document. Carrie will make arrangements with staff responsible for placing orders in most cases it will simply be a case of putting a different budget code on the order after 1^st August. 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: [6]http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130 CEEC web page: [7]http://www.uea.ac.uk/ceec MSc programme in Applied Ecology and Conservation: [8]http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/bio/courses/postgraduates/Taught%2BCourses/ aec Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 1303. 2009-02-07 16:06:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:06:03 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Antarctica to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Get file back from David and update the Ant stations, especially Byrd. 3199. 2009-02-09 09:39:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,c.goodess@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:39:31 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: [Fwd: climate change - CO2 effect] to: Phil Jones , "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Hi Andrew, Ch. 2 of IPCC AR4 WG1 may cover this issue, as Phil suggests, but as this particular topic isn't new, AR4 may not give much detail. So, here's some more detail: It *is* correct that, as concentrations increase, the ability to absorb more terrestrial (note: not "solar") radiation is reduced ("law of diminishing returns"?). However, the extra absorption is not reduced to anywhere near zero and this effect is fully taken into account in future climate projections. This is exactly the reason why we often talk about the warming that would occur due to a doubling of [CO2]. If we double [CO2] from pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm (i.e. +280 ppm), we might warm by 2.5 degC. To warm by a further 2.5 degC would require a further doubling from 560 to 1120 ppm (i.e. now +560 ppm). (Another way to express this is to say that the radiative forcing depends on the logarithm of [CO2]). This is all taken into account by IPCC etc. Also, for other, lower concentration, GHGs, this law of diminishing returns has not yet been reached. The reasons why the incremental (or enhanced) greenhouse effect by CO2 hasn't already reduced to near zero are discussed here: My summary of these reasons: (1) Absorption is quite variable according to wavelength of radiation, and there are some wavelengths where the atmosphere is not saturated (i.e. where it does not already have the capacity to absorb all the terrestrial radiation). As [CO2] increases, the atmosphere can definitely absorb more of this radiation. For example, for CO2, about half the incremental/enhanced greenhouse effect arises by absorption of terrestrial radiation with wavelengths of 15 microns (which happens to coincide with the peak in the Earth's radiation spectrum -- i.e. more energy is radiation by the Earth in this wavelength than in others, so it is particularly effective if you can absorb this type of radiation). In this band, current CO2 concentration is not yet absorbing all the energy (so there is capacity to absorb more as [CO2] increases further) and also water vapour is only a partial absorber so there is still room for a CO2 effect. (2) Even if lower layers of troposphere are fully "saturated" (i.e. able to absorb 100% of terrestrial radiation), the weather is able to efficiently mix the troposphere so that any additional heat trapped within the upper troposphere also influences the lower troposphere and the surface. So what is really important in determining the surface climate is the energy balance at the top of the troposphere (the "tropopause"). In the upper troposphere, water vapour concentration is quite low, so there are plenty of gaps in the absorption spectrum where extra CO2 can play a role. Finally, the evidence from other planets is a powerful demonstration of the existence of a natural greenhouse effect. However, when making the argument, care must be made to take into account distance from the sun, differences in albedo (reflectiveness) and in atmospheric depth. For venus, the fact that it's closer to the sun is insufficient to explain it much higher surface temperature (though it contributes) and this demonstrates how strong the greenhouse effect could actually become. Sorry, but I don't have a suitable reference to hand. Hope that helps, Tim At 09:01 09/02/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > Andrew, > The answer to this view is probably Ch 2 of the IPCC Report (AR4) on the > Forcing Factors that influence the climate. > The best person to help with one or two specific references is > Piers Forster > from Leeds who was one of the two CLAs on the Chapter. > Piers is "Piers Forster" . > > All of these skeptic issues have been discussed and dismissed ages ago. > > Cheers > Phil > > >>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:59:04 -0000 (GMT) >>Subject: [Fwd: climate change - CO2 effect] >>From: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk >>To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, >> k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, >> t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 >> >>Any of you able to answer Andrew's questions? >> >>Clare >> >>---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- >>Subject: climate change - CO2 effect >>From: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" >>Date: Fri, February 6, 2009 8:51 pm >>To: "Clare Goodess" >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Dear Clare, >>I am sure this is old to you, but I am engaged in a debate on climate >>chnage with a real sceptic, a (geology) Professor Plimer in >>Australia. One of the points he raises ( and I have heard Lord Lawson use >>it also) is that it does not matter if we pile up masses of CO2 because >>the capacity to absorb solar radiation dwindles rapidly, due to the narrow >>waveband in which absorption ocurs, so that incremental concentrations >>have little effect. >> >>No doubt this has been investigated, so can you give some pointers on >>conslusive research on this. >> >>Also, does the fact that Venus has a thick CO atmosphere and very high >>temperatures give a real-life scale demonstration that Plimer's view is >>wrong, or is it unwise to use planetary behaviour? >> >>Sorry to bother you, but despite my fairly wide reading I have not found a >>convincing rebuttal >>Andrew > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 3740. 2009-02-09 09:40:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 9 09:40:21 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Invoice to Epri to: "Hopley Hilary Mrs \(SCI\)" USA. Please let me know if that solves it. Tim At 09:14 09/02/2009, Hopley Hilary Mrs \(SCI\) wrote: Hi Tim I am having trouble with Dr Naresh Kumar's fax number. Is it a German number? Hilary >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [[1]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:02 PM >To: Hopley Hilary Mrs (SCI) >Subject: Re: Invoice to Epri > >Hi Hilary, > >yes, please do send a short covering letter/note with the UEA >and Sage invoices. Here is some text, if you could just add >names and addresses to it, it should be fine. > >--------------------------- >This invoice is in relation to the cost of some of the colour >figures in the Phil Jones et al. article that has recently >been published in The Holocene journal. This article arose >out of the "Past Millennia Climate Variability - Synthesis and >Outlook" meeting held in Wengen, Switzerland, in June 2006. >This workshop was organised under the PAGES/CLIVAR >intersection group and was generously supported by funding >from EPRI and other organisations. Thorsten Kiefer from PAGES >and Larry Williams from EPRI were among the attendees. >--------------------------- > >Thanks > >Tim > >At 11:44 05/02/2009, Hopley Hilary Mrs \(SCI\) wrote: > >>Hi Tim >> >>I will have the invoice to EPRI tomorrow. I just wondered if >you needed >>to send a letter with it or shall I just fax it to fax it to Naresh >>Kumar with a copy of the Sage invoice. >> >>Hilary >> >> >>Hilary Hopley >>Administrative Assistant >>Faculty of Science >>Bio 0.20 >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich >>NR4 7TJ >> >>Tel:01603 591017 >>Fax:01603 259492 > >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: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > 2903. 2009-02-10 09:54:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Parker date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:54:16 +0000 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Re: Visit to Met Office to: Phil Jones Phil, David, as David says I'll be away in Oklahoma first week in March. Antarctic data first piqued my interest with the Science paper on raobs trends which was clearly non-physical but hard to nail down how wrong it was. I did some minor digging into READER and found that in the UA domain it was qc'ed but not homogenised. I've made a rather rash assumption that this would also be the case for the surface data but am happy to be corrected. Its clear to me that Antarctica is a uniquely difficult environment to collect long-term homogeneous data in. So I have substantial doubts that all the manned station pegs in Steig et al. are adequate. Does this really matter? I'm not sure. What Steig et al., satellites, and potentially reanalyses does do is allow us, in principle, at least to get around the no-neighbours issue in assessing homogeneity away from the peninsula. For example we could use a bootstrapping of the Steig et al approach by creating say 50 realisations of each station series using randomly seeded combinations of manned station pegs as the S et al. RegEM constraint (excluding the candidate station) to make a neighbour composite ensemble. We could then add in the available reanalysis field estimates and satellite estimates and make a reasonable punt about the existence and magnitude of any breaks based upon multiple lines of evidence (of course, we lose some of these before 1979 ...). We could use this information to assess in a more rigorous way than has been done to date the homogeneity of these sparse stations. Then cleaned up data could be fed back through Steig et al. afterwards to see how it impacts that analysis making for a nice clean self-contained study. My understanding from the blog discussion of Steig et al. is that the analysis step is fairly trivial so such an ensemble realisation approach should be plausible with a humble PC so long as it has the coding platform available. Of course, this doesn't resolve any fundamental methodological concerns about the S et al. approach that may exist but it does give us a reasonable chance of creating a much more homogeneous READER manned station dataset for next IPCC AR and our future products. My suspicion is that actually changing the manned station data in this way may make S et al. more different to the straight average of the READER data as used (effectively) in AR5 and point to the importance of the long-term homogeneity of the data pegs in RegEM ... this may, of course, be felt to be a can of worms too far ... Peter On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > David, > I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought > you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a > possible project. > I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an > archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure). > With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula > (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is > an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since > 1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular. > I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and > RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes > with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one > at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is > getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly > data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is > that some sites > get buried, but still seem to transmit. > What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the > full field > from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the > data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure > remains the same. > > I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all > that relevant. > > Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming > mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to > spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote: > >Phil > > > >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there. > >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your > >visit whenever that may be convenient for you, > > > >David > > > > > >On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > David, > > > The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing. > > > As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered > > > trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails. > > > Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops, > > > the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting > > > next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6. > > > I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked > > > at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past. > > > Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway, > > > I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others > > > like Kevin T next week as well about the paper. > > > Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea > > > to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more! > > > Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't > > > rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can > > > be here now and Geneva next week. > > > > > > Have a good weekend - if a little cold! > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near > > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader" > > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in > > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last > > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may > > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our > > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on > > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be > > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic > > > > observations. > > > > > > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could, > > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well- > > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate > > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a > > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily > > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this > > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar. > > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had > > > > more time to think them through. > > > > > > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting > > > > at Imperial on 12-13 Feb when you aren't available. > > > > > > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 530. 2009-02-10 11:48:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Feb 10 11:48:02 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Icelandic sediment detection of atmospheric lead -- AAAS to: "Bruce Dorminey" Bruce, Thanks for the paper. I was on the HOLSMEER project, which is long finished, that provided the funds for this saltmarsh work in Iceland, as well as others in the UK, Ireland and Portugal. The two British Isles sites had much larger Pb concentrations in Roman times than the Icelandic one. I vaguely recall the Portuguese site having dating problems and probably not being old enough anyway. I think all it adds is that it is possible to detect the influence of early metal working - and its effect through the atmosphere and oceans in more distant parts. As the timing in Iceland agrees with Scottish and Irish sources (but much weaker), the Icelandic source is clearly from Europe - as opposed to being North American. Later in the 20th century, it is possible to see the introduction of lead in petrol and even its replacement with unleaded. Cheers Phil At 09:58 10/02/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil: I'm a science journalist doing a breaking news story for the AAAS' ScienceNOW news service here in the U.S., on the attached paper by Wil Marshall of the University of Plymouth's putative detection of 2000 year old atmospheric lead pollution from an Icelandic salt marsh. I wonder if you would kindly take a look at it and offer some comment on it's significance; its methodology. In other words, what importance is this to the history of climatology in regards to man-made pollution? How does it fit the pattern of what is already known and what does it add to the canon? Many thanks, Bruce Bruce Dorminey wikipedia: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Dorminey book link: [2]http://www.amazon.com/Distant-Wanderers-Search-Planets-System/dp/0387950745/sr=1-1/qi d=1159268294/ref=sr_1_1/002-4521384-9880818?ie=UTF8&s=books tel: 1 206 529 7658 [3]brucedorminey@gmail.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2604. 2009-02-10 16:42:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Thorne , "Simpson, Ian.R" date: Tue Feb 10 16:42:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Visit to Met Office to: David Parker David, Peter, Ian, Let's go for the week with Feb 25/26 in it. I could come down for late on the 25th then spend most of the 26th discussing Ian's work and also the Antarctic ideas. Presumably John Prior and others will be available at some point on the 26th. The Antarctic surface T data that are in CRUTEM3 have come from my searches over the years and also from READER. Much of the early stuff in READER has come from the archives here, except where BAS have got the original digitized data from the Antarctic Institutes in all the countries. I also have some files of when some of the manned stations on the ice have moved. These are forced moves, as the station moves, but they have never been accounted for. Halley and Casey are affected. There are issues to discuss about the AWSs and also, as David knows from AOPC, work that Wisconsin are doing in putting together all the historic US series. I've talked to them about this - mainly to try and stop them calculating mean T a different way. If they do this it will screw their series up. It all relates to them saying that the mean of min and max is not a great way in the Antarctic to calculate mean T. They say they can now do the mean of every 3 hours, but it needs the historic series and the routine updating to change at the same time - which is unlikely to happen. Cheers Phil At 18:13 09/02/2009, David Parker wrote: Phil Thanks. I think Feb 25-26 is better as Peter, who suggested the Reader- data project, will be away in the first week of March. Ian will be here except, I think, on Feb 27th when he is going to a chess tournament. The hotel next to the Met Office should be OK but I haven't checked availability - that can be done when the date is chosen. David On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > David, > I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought > you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a > possible project. > I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an > archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure). > With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula > (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is > an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since > 1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular. > I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and > RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes > with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one > at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is > getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly > data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is > that some sites > get buried, but still seem to transmit. > What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the > full field > from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the > data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure > remains the same. > > I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all > that relevant. > > Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming > mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to > spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote: > >Phil > > > >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there. > >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your > >visit whenever that may be convenient for you, > > > >David > > > > > >On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > David, > > > The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing. > > > As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered > > > trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails. > > > Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops, > > > the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting > > > next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6. > > > I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked > > > at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past. > > > Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway, > > > I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others > > > like Kevin T next week as well about the paper. > > > Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea > > > to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more! > > > Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't > > > rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can > > > be here now and Geneva next week. > > > > > > Have a good weekend - if a little cold! > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near > > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader" > > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in > > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last > > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may > > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our > > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on > > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be > > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic > > > > observations. > > > > > > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could, > > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well- > > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate > > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a > > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily > > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this > > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar. > > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had > > > > more time to think them through. > > > > > > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting > > > > at Imperial on 12-13 Feb when you aren't available. > > > > > > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva > > > > > > > > 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:[1]www.metoffice.gov.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4805. 2009-02-11 10:55:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:55:38 -0500 (EST) from: climate_workshop_admin@usgcrp.gov subject: [Extremes-Logistics] Extremes SR Logistics Package Posted to: climate_workshop_admin@climatescience.gov Dear Extremes Scoping Meeting Invitee - ***This is a post-only message. This account will not accept incoming traffic.*** Please be advised that the local organizer -- the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) -- for: IPCC Special Report on Extremes Scoping Meeting: Oslo, Norway (23-26 March 2009) ... provided the logistics package late yesterday to the Working Group II Technical Support Unit. You are encouraged to visit the closed web site as soon as possible at: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/extremes-sr/ [the username and password were provided in your PDF'd invitation] ... to retrieve information about the conference venue, transportation options, and local accommodation. The WG2 TSU has been informed that a rooming block has *not* been reserved at the Grand Hotel. They will honor the discounted rate on a room availability basis. SFT was only able to negotiate rooming blocks at the Thon Hotel Cecil and Thon Hotel Munch through 22 February 2009. So please make your hotel arrangements in the near term. Mention *Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT)* when booking at any of the options to secure the negotiated rates. All Meeting Participants are requested to Pre-Register via the closed web site. Also, please RSVP by 25 February 2009 so that the scoping meeting organizers can plan accordingly. Direct that traffic to . Thanks. And the Science Steering Group looks forward to seeing you in Oslo. POST-ONLY E-MAIL * POST-ONLY E-MAIL * POST-ONLY E-MAIL * POST-ONLY E-MAIL _______________________________________________ Extremes-Logistics mailing list Extremes-Logistics@usgcrp.gov http://lists.usgcrp.gov/mailman/listinfo/extremes-logistics 4969. 2009-02-11 16:48:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: Aishath-Farhath.Ali@uea.ac.uk, M.Andersson@uea.ac.uk, H.Aplesiasfika@uea.ac.uk, J.Barichivich@uea.ac.uk, R.Bellamy@uea.ac.uk, J.Bevan@uea.ac.uk, Sebastian.Blake@uea.ac.uk, Dave.Brooks@uea.ac.uk, Z.Buys@uea.ac.uk, Zhenxing.Chen@uea.ac.uk, Z.Dai@uea.ac.uk, K.Devitt@uea.ac.uk, Jane.Dickinson@uea.ac.uk, F.Duffill@uea.ac.uk, A.Elvidge@uea.ac.uk, F.Farrashkhiabani@uea.ac.uk, E.Foster@uea.ac.uk, E.Gasson@uea.ac.uk, J.Graugaard@uea.ac.uk, Christopher.Harris@uea.ac.uk, Rebecca.Hart@uea.ac.uk, Catherine.Harvey@uea.ac.uk, K.Hopkin@uea.ac.uk, N.Hughes@uea.ac.uk, S.Hughes1@uea.ac.uk, George.Knights@uea.ac.uk, S.Kung@uea.ac.uk, A.Lazzarotto@uea.ac.uk, R.Leavett@uea.ac.uk, Zhenjiang.Li@uea.ac.uk, Shiou-Yu.Lin@uea.ac.uk, Wenshi.Lin@uea.ac.uk, L.Liu2@uea.ac.uk, C.Lohvongpaiboon@uea.ac.uk, C.Luther@uea.ac.uk, Jie.Mao@uea.ac.uk, J.Marunye@uea.ac.uk, D.Masisi@uea.ac.uk, S.Mayilswami@uea.ac.uk, Donal.Mccoy@uea.ac.uk, Y.Minegaki@uea.ac.uk, Q.Mohamad@uea.ac.uk, Norni.Mohamed@uea.ac.uk, R.Nitta@uea.ac.uk, D.Nose@uea.ac.uk, Sarinah.Omar@uea.ac.uk, S.Osman@uea.ac.uk, Kimberley.Parsons@uea.ac.uk, A.Pattinson@uea.ac.uk, L.Petit@uea.ac.uk, Jennifer.Price@uea.ac.uk, M.Raven1@uea.ac.uk, C.Rison@uea.ac.uk, Lucy.Rose@uea.ac.uk, H.Shah@uea.ac.uk, J.Shiv@uea.ac.uk, G.Simpkins@uea.ac.uk, X3022846@uea.ac.uk, S.Sritharan@uea.ac.uk, A.Swami@uea.ac.uk, O.Tang@uea.ac.uk, S.A.Taylor1@uea.ac.uk, R.Wonderen@uea.ac.uk, E.Wan@uea.ac.uk, Jinglu.Wang@uea.ac.uk, Mingming.Wang@uea.ac.uk, Adam.Williams@uea.ac.uk, Lezann.Wright@uea.ac.uk, Sheng.Yang@uea.ac.uk, Shu.Zhu@uea.ac.uk, Barnaby.Andrews@uea.ac.uk, R.Baldwin@uea.ac.uk, J.Hodbod@uea.ac.uk, d.cobb@uea.ac.uk, p.simmons@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, c.Peres@uea.ac.uk, Jason.Chilvers@uea.ac.uk, S.O-neill@uea.ac.uk, d.benson@uea.ac.uk, S.Dorling@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:48:59 +0000 from: ian renfrew subject: Possible MSc projects with Global Action Plan to: Alan Bond Dear MSc students, I've just been contacted by Global Action Plan, who have worked with ENV faculty recently to carry out research projects. They are keen to recruit some MSc students for 2 internships. Details below. If anyone has not yet chosen a topic, then read the following and please contact Global Action Plan directly. They seemed very keen to get a good student - free lunches even! regards Ian Renfrew (Acting Director MSc programmes) ------------------- 2 Internships: Evaluating Pro Environmental Behaviour Change Programmes. Global Action Plan run engaging and practical behaviour change programmes based on socio psychological literature on behaviour change and what we know works over 15 years experience. We run these in communities (EcoTeams: groups of 6-8 households together), Schools (Action in Schools), hard to reach communities (Evergreen: Residential Associations), Small and Medium Enterprises (SmartWorks) and Corporations (Environmental Champions). For more information please see our website. We have been measuring the waste usage, energy usage and waste production throughout all of our programmes. Recently we have added Psychometrics to our measurement process too but we still do not feel we are capturing our programme impacts in the most efficient and robust way. We are looking for an MSc student interested in doing research which would suit their interests and dissertation requirements to evaluate our evaluation procedure, and produce a small internal report for us on how we might measure our programmes more effectively in the future. We believe they are having much greater impacts than we are capturing, and we would like to know how we might capture these impacts better. We would seek to begin this work immediately. It would involve working across all of our teams, and a few of our programmes, with plenty of desktop based research into measuring methods, and some practical work going out and seeing how our programmes actually run. It may also involve speaking and meeting measurement tool providers (e.g. industrial scale smart meters) to establish costs potential deals for GAP. This is a rough outline and can be tailored towards a students interests. There are two positions available for this work, with students able to specialise in the programmes which most closely match their interests. Volunteering Opportunities: There are a number of voluntary jobs also available but which do not warrant a full intership or dissertation but that again hopefully provide the student with valuable insight and networking opportunities into the environmental field in the UK. Converting behaviours into carbon savings figures: (Estimated work: 2 hrs per behaviour Max; ideally less) Please find attached the EcoTeams QuestionnaireThe relevant section for your work will be the actions and behaviours sections. Ideally I would like a carbon figure for each of these behaviours on the assumption it at least partially replaces an old behaviour. Realistically this will not be possible but it would be great to be able to say we have thoroughly researched each one of these behaviours and found the carbon equivalent data for every behaviour that data exists for. The smartest way to do this will be to speak to Sam Balch first. He is our research and development manager, and has been working on doing this for a while by taking data from the AMEE database and matching it to our EcoTeams survey. He already has some carbon convertibles for certain behaviours, and the first job would be for you to create a spreadsheet which simply copies of all of the actions and behaviours from the survey, and matches the carbon reduction figures and assumptions along side them for easy presentation. He only has a few, and you would have the job of finding the rest and making the assumptions based on what hes already done. Clearly this will be difficult as it depends on what the alternative behaviour was and how much the person has improved on it. What we will need to do is make some assumptions and then when we are reporting on these we can state the assumptions and report transparently. For example if we are considering composting.then we should assume that before composting the organic waste was being thrown in the regular bin and going to land fill. Hopefully there are figures out there for this behaviour. But what if the person has Improved what they are doing rather than simply started the behaviour. What do we assume then; do we assume a 20% improvement i.e. 20% more organic waste is being sent to compost than before, or should it be 10% or 50%. I would like you to use your own initiative as this will be different for each behaviour. Please state the assumptions you are making and why. So for example: Putting the lid on the pot when I am cooking: Started this behaviour: A carbon figure for this would assume simply a 100% switch that they do it all the time now and they are an average UK household. Putting the lid on the pot when I am cooking: Improved on this behaviour: A carbon figure for this might assume they were already doing it half of the time and now they are doing it 75% of the time, meaning we use 25% of the carbon reduction figure as it is an improvement of 25%. Desktop based research on Industrial Smart Meters: (Estimated time: 32 hours/ 4 days Max) Google industrial smart meters for a start and have a look at whats out there to give you an idea of costing and capabilities of systems. If need be give the companies a call to ask questions about suitability for what we want to use it for. We want to use it essentially for measuring the energy usage in schools, so that we might pick up where our programmes are having an impact. This means they would have to be easy to install and then remove so we can take them with us as we move around schools. They may have to be able to do deal with multiple main electricity points and be able to aggregate or simultaneously record multiple inputs (dependant on cost) other wise we will have to report each one separately which is also possible but means having more of them. Ideally they would measure and record in real time meaning would could see night time energy usage and day time energy usage etc and pick up hot spots of energy use. And their cost would need to be reasonable. Remember we are a charity when asking about prices so that often we will get charity prices or discounts. Once youve got a good idea of whats out there, it might be worth calling Andrew Ford who knows a lot about energy in schools below. He knows about GAP Schools programme as weve worked with him before and explain what you have found and see if he thinks it is fit for purpose of it there is a better way of doing things. Andrew Ford Energy Projects Officer Energy Saving Trust Advice Centre for London Green Living Centre Islington Council 222 Upper Street, London, N1 1XR t : 020 7527 2022 f : 020 7527 2332 Alternative contact: Energy Centre 020 7527 2121 Whilst working on the schools research, if you do happen to speak to schools etc, do please be open to giving them information about our schools programme and putting them in touch with me so that we might pursue running programmes with any interested parties. International Data Collation: GAP EcoTeams (Estimated Workload 4 hrs/ .5 of a day as and when information comes in) As I mentioned I will be talking in Copenhagen in the lead up to the COP15 negotiations later this year. I will be presenting findings from our Ecoteams programme across all of our international partners and have recently requested they send me their reports and data. It would be great if I had someone to bring this together for me and perhaps even create a visual that easily shows the programme impacts across all of our international partners. I am waiting on data from India and Spain this week and will forward this onto any interested parties to work on. Transporting our Interactive displays in an EcoFriendly way: (Estimated workload 16hrs/ 2 days Max) At the moment we move all of our interactive displays (Eco Driving Simulator/ Energy bike/ Carbon Gym) by public transport as we simply assumed that public transport was the most enviro friendly way to get these to events. A debate at the pub last night with the director, Gav (who you met yesterday re the EcoDriving Simulator) and some others led us to question that assumption however. A typical journey for any one of our Interactive displays involves a taxi ride followed by a train ride, followed by another taxi ride. We are wondering if there is perhaps a place for an extremely eco efficient vehicle to be driving these things to events instead. Calculations to figure this out would probably involve 5 scenarios of a typical journey for our simulators that are representative of their travelling. Across these 5 scenarios public transport (taxi and train) would be compared against a range of vehicles.you would need the dimensions of the interactive displays to ensure they would fit in whichever vehicle that is chosen. Im certain they would fit in a small van, but perhaps they would even squeeze into a car with drop down seats opening the possibilities to far more efficient vehicles. Or indeed would electric vehicles fit our purpose, be affordable, and be able to do the distances required. Ideally a very small report at the end would give us the appropriate option and cost for each type of journey along with associated cost as a comparison against our current methods. This would look something like: Event Location Best Option Comparison London event: Hybrid = 1KG of Carbon from return trip of less than 30 miles and cost 20. Compared to return Taxi of 5Kg and 25 Outside London short distance = Small Van 3Kg for 60 mile return trip and cost 25 Compared to return taxi of 4 miles plus train of 25 miles return at 40 total. Long distance = Train and Taxi as before. Costs would assume the attendance of 2 Eco Educators along with the interactive display e.g. 2 train fares at economy rate etc. This would allow us to always transport our displays in the most environmentally friendly way possible; which we are not sure we are doing at the moment. We would also be looking for companies who would help us fulfil these travel plans e.g. green tomato cabs run Hybrid Taxis in London and Im sure there must be Electrical Hire vans, otherwise there are some quite efficient vehicles within the StreetCar car club company. OK, Thats all. Im sorry its so lengthy. I wanted to be clear about the projects. Please do contact me directly if you are interested in gaining some experience working with us. Scott Davidson Behaviour Change Researcher Global Action Plan creating the climate for change 8 Fulwood Place, London WC1V 6HG t - 020 7025 3960| f - 020 7831 6244 | e - scott.davidson@globalactionplan.org.uk | w -http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk Winners: the Ashden award for sustainable energy Finalists: Creating the Future Awards Do you really need to print this email? 80% of emails are printed unnecessarily...save resources, be happy! Internet Communications are not secure. Global Action Plan accepts no legal responsibility for the content of this email or liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by it. Views presented are those of the author only. This email (including attachments) is subject to copyright, all information in it is confidential, and it is only intended for use by the addressee. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -- Dr Ian A. Renfrew Reader in Climate System Dynamics School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom Room: 2.33 tel: 01603 592557 fax: 01603 591327 email: i.renfrew@uea.ac.uk http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/e046/home.htm ---------------------------------------------- 2221. 2009-02-12 16:00:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:00:41 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Can I count on you as mail reviewer for 7 lab proposals? to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, Yes you can do them there itself. I will pass your name to ORISE and they will provide the criteria, guidance, password to access Peernet, etc. Your reviews will be important input to a panel that I'm trying to set up in April. Thanks a lot. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:57 PM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Can I count on you as mail reviewer for 7 lab proposals? Anjuli, I can do the reviews. I assume they will come with some guidance, as they will differ somewhat from the standard Univerity type grants. I see - you say criteria below, so fine. Timing is fine, as long as I can do them all here and don't have to come to the US. I will likely be coming to the meeting in Bethesda though. Cheers Phil > Hi Phil, > > We've got 7 large proposals in response to the DOE lab call. Would you > be able to provide mail reviews for the proposals? I don't believe you > are conflicted with any of the PIs (check Column C in attachment). > > An honorarium of $500 would be provided for your time and effort. > ORISE handles all the logistics of the review. They will provide the > proposals, criteria, and honorarium. > > We'd need the reviews by mid-April. Hope you can do this. Let me know, > so I plan accordingly. > > Regards > Anjuli > 4524. 2009-02-13 11:48:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thorpe, Jo (DECC - CEOSA)" date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:48:28 -0000 from: "Myles Allen" subject: RE: Funding to attend scoping meeting for possible IPCC special to: "Bernie, Dan (DECC - CEOSA)" , , , , , , , , , , Dear Dan, Just to confirm that I do plan to attend, and I will be representing Peter Stott and Gabi Hegerl (who will in turn be representing me at the other IPCC meeting in Hawaii). Myles PS Needless-to-say, my parent organization (University of Oxford) lost all its money in Iceland... ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Bernie, Dan (DECC - CEOSA) [mailto:Dan.Bernie@decc.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 13 February 2009 11:42 To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk; Sari.kovats@lshtm.ac.uk; n.adger@uea.ac.uk; tom.downing@sei.se; t.mitchell@ids.ac.uk; roger.street@ukcip.org.uk; mark.pelling@kcl.ac.uk; maureen.fordham@northumbria.ac.uk; andrew.maskrey@undp.org Cc: Thorpe, Jo (DECC - CEOSA) Subject: Funding to attend scoping meeting for possible IPCC special report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks" Dear colleague As you will be aware the Science Steering Group set up by the IPCC bureau have invited you to attend a scoping meeting for a possible IPCC special report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks". We at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are very pleased that you have been invited to participate in the scoping meeting. DECC has agreed to cover some travel and subsistence costs for UK participants at this meeting, however, due to limited funds, we encourage you to seek funding from your parent organisation in the first instance. If they are not able to cover your costs for the meeting then DECC would be able to fund your travel and subsistence for the meeting. If this is the case then we would need to see an estimate of your costs beforehand (broken down into travel, hotel, meals etc) so that a budget can be agreed in advance of the meeting. We would then reimburse actual costs up to the agreed budget on receipt of supporting vouchers. I have attached our general guidance on support for IPCC activities which is applicable in this case. Please do not hesitate contact us if you require further details or clarification. Best wishes, Dan Bernie Climate Science Team Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis Department of Energy and Climate Change Zone 3E, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London. SW1P 2AL Tel: 0207 238 1561 188. 2009-02-15 00:10:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:10:42 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: [Fwd: [geo] IMechE report: Adapting to the inevitable?] to: Phil Jones Phil, I haven't been able to download this report, just the press release. This says UEA helped. It looks like wolf-crying rubbish to me. Do you know anything about it? Hopefully UEA is not CRU. Tom. From: "John Nissen" To: "geoengineering" Cc: "Mark Lynas" , "Dr Tim Fox" , "Tim Lenton" Subject: [geo] IMechE report: Adapting to the inevitable? Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:35:56 -0000 Reply-To: jn@cloudworld.co.uk Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com We are heading for 1700 ppmv CO2, up to 8 degrees warming, and possibly 7 metres of sea level rise, according to the IMechE report, downloadable from: [1]http://www.imeche.org/media/press/ This would be catastrophic. Yet it completely neglects tipping points, such as the Arctic sea ice and methane release from frozen structures in the Arctic. And it ignores Antarctic contribution to sea level rise. So the situation is even worse than they say; and, with the Arctic sea ice retreating rapidly, the danger is imminent, rather than centuries ahead. But if we take the report at face value, this is surely a call for geoengineering if ever there was one. There's no way we can adapt to 8 degrees warming - we have to prevent it. The only way is through geoengineering. Cheers, John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- 4426. 2009-02-16 08:36:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Kate Willett , Dick Dee date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:36:13 +0000 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Re: updated HadCRUH to: Adrain Simmons Adrian et al., without looking at the data in detail I suspect its because N. America is so spotty data (because the data feed for N. America was corrupted for Kate's PhD - we will remedy in our new dataset efforts - there are literally a couple of thousand stations) that Kate's approach has led to discernible differences. Kate will produce some sensible words on this for the paper but basically: 1. I have performed some intra-station qc (different to HadCRUH) as part of planned follow-on work. 2. Kate has taken this data and anomalised it so that on an annual-mean basis the station series should agree over the overlap period. 3. Because when we gridded it up there were obvious hotspots Kate then went cross-eyed for several days looking at station-neighbour comparison plots to weed out those with obvious discontinuities (think of this as a numpty homogenisation). Because N. America in HadCRUH is so data sparse and Kate rejected a fairly hefty proportion of stations (about 1/4 - more in RH than q) as having obvious issues I suspect this is the reason for your disagreement in that region (the other regions are better sampled so dropping stations won't have as big an issue on the noise (red or white!) - I think there's a Figure in Kate's J. Clim piece with gridbox sampling, if not then its in her thesis). If you combine the two data files Kate sent then over the overlap betweenthe datasets there should be very good agreement. Kate looked at the different datasets (good vs. rubbish) and the broad- scale signal is similar so all that splitting the data should do over most regions (we only looked at extra-tropics, tropics, globe) is reduce the noise from having rank bad data included. It shouldn't affect the resulting analysis. Peter On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 20:36 +0000, Adrian Simmons wrote: > Thanks, Phil. I'll reconsider figure order, and blending, once we see > whether North America is repairable. > > All the best > > Adrian > > > P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > Adrian, > > Author order fine with me. Results look very good except for > > North America. As the rest seem OK, it looks unlikely that > > you've done soemthing wrong Adrian. I guess checks need > > to be made. > > As Kate has updated from 1994-2007, the overlaps could be > > compared. On the two plots you've sent, you'll need to combine > > the q and RH series from HadCRUH either side of 1994. The grey > > lines don't go back to the first year in the plots. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > >> Dear Kate > >> > >> I'm not really netcdf literate, but after my last email yesterday I > >> remembered that someone helped me read a file a few years ago (for the > >> 2004 ERA/NCEP/CRUTEM2v comparison paper with Phil and others, as it > >> happens). So I've read your file with the extended (1994-2007) version > >> of HadCRUH, and done some comparisons. The outcome is just as I'd hoped, > >> with one proviso. If Phil will forgive me, I'll move you ahead of him in > >> the author list because of this extra work. > >> > >> The first figure shows the comparison of ERA-Interim, the original > >> HadCRUH and your new extension. Plotted are the global averages over > >> land points, from 1989-2008. For 1989-1993 the spatial and temporal > >> sampling is as in HadCRUH, and for 2004-2008 it is as in the new dataset > >> (using the December 2007 coverage in computing the ERA values for 2008). > >> For 1994 to 2003, the averaging is done (for all three datasets) only > >> over points for which both HadCRUH and the new dataset have non-missing > >> values. You can see that the extended dataset agrees with ERA-Interim as > >> to the decrease in relative humidity in recent years, which is a bit of > >> a relief as I can stick with the current explanation of the result. > >> > >> The proviso concerns the values for North America in the new dataset. > >> The second attachment shows RH time series for the six land regions > >> considered earlier. For five of the six regions the agreement is > >> excellent, but North America stands out as different, with the new > >> dataset matching neither HadCRUH nor ERA-Interim early in the period, > >> and not showing the drying that ERA-Interim shows late in the period. > >> This is reflected a little in the global plot in the first attachment. > >> As discussed in an earlier mail, ERA-Interim does have relatively low > >> rainfall after about 1999 compared with GPCC (and more so GPCP), > >> suggesting it might also overdo the drying in RH, but the mismatch > >> between HadCRUH and your new dataset over just North America looks odd. > >> > >> It is always possible I've made a mistake somewhere, but it's hard for > >> me to see why in this case only North America would be affected, given > >> the way I do the calculations. Maybe you could find time to have a > >> closer look at this region. > >> > >> Otherwise, ERA-40 should reach the end of 2008 during the week ahead, so > >> I'll finish the figures then, and try to get on with the writing. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Adrian > >> > >> > >> > >> Kate Willett wrote: > >>> Hi Adrian, > >>> > >>> I've finished the HadCRUH update! It took longer than expected, as usual > >>> but I've just gridded it, made zonal averages for the Globe, Northern > >>> Hemisphere, Tropics and Southern Hemisphere and it looks good. > >>> > >>> I have sent you both the homogeneity checked version > >>> (ISDSUB_update_5by5_9407.nc.gz) and a gridded version of all the > >>> stations kicked out from the homogeneity check > >>> (ISDBADS_update_5by5_9407.nc.gz). These contain 'q_anomalies', > >>> 'q_num_obs', 'rh_anomalies', 'rh_num_obs' and 'time' which is months > >>> since January 1973. Missing data should be -1e+30. Next week I'll put > >>> together a page of text describing exactly what I've done for your > >>> paper. I'm happy to redo this text as necessary. > >>> > >>> In brief, I took all the ISD stations that matched the HadCRUH stations > >>> (2676) from 1994 to 2007 to give 10 years of overlap with HadCRUH. I > >>> then created pentad mean anomalies using the HadCRUH 1973-2003 > >>> climatology. These were then adjusted to match the homogenisation > >>> process of HadCRUH for the overlapping period and the entire series for > >>> each station offset to match the median of the HadCRUH station for the > >>> 1994-2003 period. > >>> > >>> I then turned these into monthly mean anomalies and ran a t-test over > >>> the overlapping period. Any stations with sparse data presence or > >>> significantly different from its HadCRUH equivalent (at 5%) were removed > >>> (now 2473 stations). I made neighbour composites for each station using > >>> at least 3 and a maximum of 10 of its closest correlating neighbours. > >>> This removed a few more stations (some q only and some rh only). I then > >>> ran a homogeneity check to see if each station appeared reasonably > >>> homogenous in relation to its neighbours. This left me with 2095 > >>> stations. Both the homogenous and non-homogenous stations have now been > >>> gridded to 5 by 5. > >>> > >>> I've also attached two plots comparing large scale timeseries with > >>> HadCRUH. HadCRUH is shown in black, and the ISD update shown in orange. > >>> The blue line shows the data kicked out from the homogeneity check and > >>> the red line is all ISD stations (found in HadCRUH). > >>> > >>> Pete and I have just looked over the plots and feel that the homogeneity > >>> check, while not making a very large difference, was still a useful part > >>> of the process. There are clear places where the orange line is much > >>> closer to HadCRUH than the blue. The downwards shift in RH in the > >>> Southern Hemisphere in 2002 is consistent with your Australia plot. This > >>> also appears in the global average. > >>> > >>> No time to write more now as I have a review to do before I leave > >>> tonight but I will get the write up to you hopefully next week and > >>> hopefully some more thoughts on the updated data. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Kate > >> -- > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > -- 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 2021. 2009-02-16 09:31:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon Feb 16 09:31:50 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Might be of interest to: Tom Wigley [1]http://www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/CBF13D63-D8F5-483C-BB64-981D610F373B/0/IMechEAdapt ationreport.pdf So it was Tim Lenton. The attached came from David Jones at BoM. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4581. 2009-02-16 16:37:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:37:58 -0700 from: Malcolm Hughes subject: Re: would you be interested? to: Keith Briffa Keith - much appreciated. The cv-type info is what is needed now. This is to go into a standard US NSF 2-page biosketch (Tom Swetnam's attached as a model, along with the NSF guidelines). Most of this would come from a typical cv if you send me one, but some parts would best come from you - recent collaborators, for example. If Tom M's interested in being involved, a 2-pager from him in the NSF format would be helpful. That should do it for the preproposal. We have Hank Shugart now enthusiastically involved, along with various Canadians, Vaganov's University and some Scandinavian Pyromaniacs.Once again, thanks, Malcolm Keith Briffa wrote: > Malcolm > In that case - happy to try and help - I just wanted to be honest > about my ability to be able to contribute much. At this stage I will > do whatever you propose - but remember that any "formal" link with UEA > or the School (ENV) would require a virtual enquiry and a mountain of > paper work with no assurance of getting past the powers that be > anyway. So let me know precisely the minimum stuff for me to send now > You REALLY do have my sympathies regarding the funding pressures - I > do know how these crush you and destroy the potential to do the > research we thought we "joined up" for! > cheers > Keith > > At 03:40 10/02/2009, you wrote: >> Keith - sorry you're lumbered with all that university stuff. In >> fact, we're not asking for much input at all at this stage. Our first >> hurdle is to prepare a 5-page preproposal to NSF in the next week or >> so, and for this all I would need would be cv-type info and possibly >> a letter, which I could send you a draft of. Then I might need a very >> little more input if we get to submit a full proposal. If that >> succeeds, and you and CRU are mentioned, it would allow me or others >> from the US group to visit you, would provide resources for folks >> working with us to collaborate with Tom and Vlad, if he ends up >> there, and would involve you or Tom to be invited as lecturers and >> UK students as participants to one or more of the summer schools we >> plan as part of this project (likely one in Quebec, one in >> Scandinavia, two in Russia) during the 5 >> years of the project. So - we're not seeking a large input, but it >> could be incredibly helpful in making collaborations possible and >> helping keeping our Lab afloat.. >> Some background - at my age I wouldn't normally be messing with this >> kind of project, especially as it would run 2010-2014, and I hit 70 >> in 2013. We really, really need some projects like this, as our >> university is being subjected to cuts that make the Thatcher years >> look like >> vicarage tea party - 600 employees of our university to lose their >> jobs this month and many more in July, $54million mid-year budget >> cut, departments and colleges being closed, student tuition fees >> going up dramatically, forced salary reductions, and so on, and so >> on, all here right now. >> This has all been imposed by our far right State Legislature and >> Governor. The only hope for holding any worthwhile together is to >> increase the flow of Federal money, such as NSF grants. Sorry to >> bother you with this >> All best wishes, 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 >> > > -- > 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\NSF-BioSketch-Swetnam-0209.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\InstructionsForNSFBiosketches.pdf" 1742. 2009-02-17 13:23:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:23:25 -0500 from: Raymond Bradley subject: Memory lapse (again) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, Do you recall...when we did our LIA paper in The Holocene there was a critique (by Mike Schlesinger, I think) of the technique we used--averaging normalised data. I can not reconstruct what the point was-do you recall? I'm not sure if this was ever published as a criticism, or if it just came up via email--again, anything you can do to jog my memory would be helpful. I think I asked you about this once before which only goes to show that my memory is getting ever weaker... Thanks--I hope all is going well. Cheers Ray Raymond S. Bradley Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 <[1] http://www.paleoclimate.org <[2] http://www.paleoclimate.org/> > Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [4]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html 4124. 2009-02-17 16:08:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Chris Kilsby" date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:08:35 +0000 from: Stephanie Ferguson subject: RE: Weather Generator report to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" Hi there, Roger & Phil agreed the wording of that box, so it stays as is. Cheers Steph. PS Any chance of comments from Chris before Friday? Thanks, my schedule is getting more scary by the second... In message <94551C0C91987F449790D26A58EAC3AF02038101@SAMC2V2T.DEMETER.ZEUS.GSI.GOV.UK> "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" writes: > Hi all, > > > > I’ve read through the annex and it looks fine as far as I can tell (which isn’t very far). Steph, the only style thing I would ask is that we put Defra above DECC in the departmental blurbs. > > > > Aside from Phil’s comments the only remaining thing I feel uncomfortable about is the text that Roger and Chris agreed about the term weather- it was important to put this in to get buy-in from UKCIP. Was the text in the box at the beginning agreed with UKCIP? Steph could you run it past Roger? > > > > On to the marine report now. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 February 2009 16:38 > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Stephanie Ferguson; Chris Kilsby > Subject: RE: Weather Generator report > > > > > Kathryn, > We'll look into this. It might be better in the WG Guidance. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:33 16/02/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: > > > > Thanks Phil this is very helpful. Re my comments on pages 24 and 28 then, can we say: > > Page 24 > “Then the WG is run once for each of 1000 climate model output variants from the central estimate (50% level) for a future projection”. > > And page 28 can therefore stay the same but add: > The maps should be interpreted as showing the differences (increases) in frequency of hot days between the same percentile. For example, for the 90th percentile maps, they show the number of days per year which is exceeded on average in only 10 percent of years. Note that all of the WG outputs in this case relate to the central estimate of the projection”. > > Kathryn > > From: Phil Jones [ mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk ] > Sent: 16 February 2009 11:52 > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Stephanie Ferguson; Chris Kilsby > Subject: RE: Weather Generator report > > > Kathryn, Steph, Chris, > Here are all my modifications to the WG Report that are required. Chris > needs to go through the report as well as this document. > > Steph - you should wait till Chris sends this back. Once he has, > can you make the changes and send back another version for a second check. > I'm around the rest of Feb - except for Feb 20 and 25/26 - if there are any > things that aren't clear. > > Kathryn - this contains some responses to your comments from the weekend. > > There are several questions for Chris. One for you - are Geoff's annexes still > numbered as they were in late 2008? > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 20:49 15/02/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: > > Hi Steph, > > Here are my comments on the typeset WG report (minus the annex which I’ll look at tomorrow). Chris and Philhil could you look at the questions I have blocked for you on a few bits of the text which have confused me a bit. > > In general it looks great and is much easier to read than the earlier versions. Apologies if my remaining questions are still due to ignorance! > > Kathryn > >  > > From: Stephanie Ferguson [ mailto:stephanie.ferguson@ukcip.org.uk] > Sent: 11 February 2009 16:25 > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Chris Kilsby; Phil Jones > Subject: Weather Generator report > > Dear All, > > Please find attached the Weather generator report - apologies for not sending it over earlier, I finished it on Monday and forgot about it! > > Do please let me know if there are any issues. > > Kind regards > > Steph > > > 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 ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- > -- Stephanie Ferguson, Communications Officer Tel. 01865 285711 UKCIP, School of Geography & Environment, OUCE, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY 129. 2009-02-18 05:19:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:19:30 -0500 (EST) from: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Invitation to Review for The Holocene to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk 18-Feb-2009 Dear Dr. Melvin: Manuscript ID HOL-08-0088 entitled "A summer temperature proxy from height increment of Scots pine since 1561 at the northern timberline in Fennoscandia" has been submitted to The Holocene. I invite you to review this manuscript. The abstract appears at the end of this letter. Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be able to accept my invitation to review. If you are unable to review at this time, I would appreciate you recommending another expert reviewer. You may e-mail me with your reply or click the appropriate link at the bottom of the page to automatically register your reply with our online manuscript submission and review system. Once you accept my invitation to review this manuscript, you will be notified via e-mail about how to access Manuscript Central, our online manuscript submission and review system. You will then have access to the manuscript and reviewer instructions in your Reviewer Center. I realize that our expert reviewers greatly contribute to the high standards of the Journal, and I thank you for your present and/or future participation. Sincerely, Prof. Keith Briffa Associate Editor The Holocene To respond automatically, click below: Agreed: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=hcyR82RdcGZFyPQ9Bjnj Declined: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=4dtkN7tr2m3HwrqC2Pfs Unavailable: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=y8ZPrSYBZX62GKQdmxbH MANUSCRIPT DETAILS TITLE: A summer temperature proxy from height increment of Scots pine since 1561 at the northern timberline in Fennoscandia ABSTRACT: Height increments of 60 Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees were used to reconstruct mean JuneAugust temperature variability at interannual-to-decadal scales from 1561 to 2004. Three standardization methods (67 %, 33% flexible splines, and a fixed 22 years spline) were compared in building chronologies in order to optimize the frequency response in relation to major climatic forcing factors. The height-growth chronology built using the 33% spline standardization proved to have the most consistent and time-stable relationship with the summer temperatures. Among the monthly precipitation and temperature variables from previous June to current August, previous July shows the highest correlation with height growth. In addition, both previous June and previous August have significant positive correlations. Our final transfer model accounts for 32.5% of the dependent instrumental temperature variance between 1909 and 2004. The Fourier spectra of the height-growth chronology and mean summer temperature are very similar in appearance, both series having peaks at 2.73.2 years, 6.7 yearss, and 15.7 years. Thus, the 444 years long summer temperature reconstruction is limited to high and medium frequencies. The coldest three summers in this record were experienced in years 1601, 1790 and 1903. Correspondingly, the summers of 1626, 1689 and 1598 were the warmest. The 1820s experienced the warmest 10-year mean, while the first decade of the 20th century was the coldest. Among the fourteen non-overlapping 30-year periods between 1561 and 1980 the period 16211650 was the warmest and the period 159111620 the coldest. 521. 2009-02-18 09:52:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:52:16 -0000 (GMT) from: s.lampkin@uea.ac.uk subject: [Env.all] Fwd: Join the zero carbon caravan to: env.all@uea.ac.uk We hope to hold a zero carbon world conference for a zero carbon world in Norwich on the journey (zero carbon because people will have to come on foot or by bike or participate via video conferencing, with some of the world's top climate scientists). Do you want to be involved? Chris Keene, 33 Dell Crescent, Norwich NR5 8QB 01603 614535 PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY, PUT ON BLOGS AND WEBSITES AND SEND TO SOCIAL NETWORK FRIENDS Join the Zero Carbon Caravan Come with us on a journey to save the planet. A Zero Carbon journey to show that we can live differently, travelling from all over the world to arrive in Copenhagen for the UN climate talks in December 2009. You dont have to come all the way to Copenhagen, just come for a few days if you like. We will travel mainly by cycling and sailing, but any methods of travel are allowed, so long as they use no fossil fuels. We will hold conferences on the way, explaining the need to reduce our carbon emissions to zero, then discussing ways of doing just that, and Zero Carbon Concerts, using bicycle-generated electricity and audience participation people power not fossil fuel power. We will demand a zero carbon world as fast as we can. The whole journey will have a high profile on internet media, so the politicians negotiating for a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol are aware of the pressure from public opinion. Cyclists, sailors, musicians, climate scientists, renewable energy experts, organisers, media officers, we'd love you to join us! This may be our last hope. For more information or to receive our email newsletter (once every few weeks) please contact Chris Keene chris.keene@zerocarboncaravan.net +44(0)1603 614535 _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 2578. 2009-02-18 16:58:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 18 16:58:39 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CII Climate Change: Drink and canaps reception 23rd F ebruary to: "Crystal Hunt" Crystal, I won't be able to attend the reception on Feb 23. Best Regards Phil At 16:49 18/02/2009, you wrote: Dear All Further to Andys email below, we have not received a response from you as to whether you will be attending the launch itself on the 23^rd or the drinks reception after. We still have spaces available if you wish to attend the event and the drinks reception. Please could you advise us if you will be attending either event? I look forward to hearing from you Kind regards Crystal Hunt ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Andrew Howie Sent: 12 February 2009 11:00 To: 'andlug@btopenworld.com'; 'peterbolster@aol.com'; 'andycouchman@aol.com'; 'Maureen Agnew'; 'Clare Goodess'; 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'; 't.osborn@uea.ac.uk'; 'Kevin Bermingham'; 'crerarc@willis.com'; 'dockerillfamily@waitrose.com'; 'nick.w.ford@uk.pwc.com'; 'julian_harpum@swissre.com'; 'david@crichton.sol.co.uk'; 'MALCOLM JOHNSON'; 'David@Crichton.sol.co.uk'; 'Lambert Nadin'; 'Alan.Milroy@xlgroup.com'; 'Sarah Aslett-Jones'; 'david.martin@adjustingsolutions.com'; 'jt.walden@btinternet.com'; 'Coates, Ian'; 'joanna.bean1@ntlworld.com'; 'david.martin@adjustingsolutions.com'; 'Perry A.H.'; 'andycouchman@aol.com'; 'nick.silver1'; 'Julian Richardson'; 'wmb@abelard-uk.com'; 'DavidRochester@Halifax.co.uk'; 'Cdvdclrk28@aol.com'; 'clairecrerar@yahoo.co.uk'; 'member@nick51.wanadoo.co.uk'; 'Crerar, Claire' Subject: CII Climate Change: Drink and canaps reception 23rd February 2009 Good Morning, To enable the CII to demonstrate our thanks for your hard work and input throughout this project, we would like to invite you to a drink and canaps reception commencing no later than 4:15pm after the main launch event on 23^rd February. We have reserved a separate function room solely for the authors who contributed to the research report where drinks and food will be served. We understand that some of you will have already responded to the initial climate change launch invitation you received a week or so ago, and apologise that we were not in a position to advise you of this thank you reception at that time. We would be grateful if you could reply to the following email address [1]crystal.hunt@cii.co.uk stating whether you will be attending the drinks reception. As mentioned above it is envisaged the drinks reception will run from 4:15pm finishing approximately 5:30pm, and we do hope that you are able to attend. We look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards Gillian, Crystal and Andrew Andrew Howie Business Development Co-ordinator Chartered Insurance Institute [2]www.cii.co.uk - This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. They may contain privileged information and are intended for the named addressee(s)only. They must not be distributed without consent. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this e-mail are those of the individual sender and not of the Chartered Insurance Institute. We believe but do not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking. The Chartered Insurance Institute reserves the right to monitor e-mail communications through its networks. If you have received this transmission in error, please telephone +44 020 8989 8464 immediately so that we can arrange for its return. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5112. 2009-02-19 08:51:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:51:20 -0500 from: Chet Ropelewski subject: Re: Request for a review to: Phil Jones Phil, Thanks for the informal comments and reprint. They will be useful for the review. I fear this submission is going to be a struggle. Yes, I'm in the DC area again. My office is in Silver Spring. Give me a head's up the next time you expect to be in the area. I planning to go to a reduced work schedule (3-days a week) early next year and expect to keep a hand in the game for a couple of years. Best -Chet Phil Jones wrote: > > Chet, > Glad to hear you have concerns about the paper! A lot of the issues > relate to the NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses producing temperature trends > that are less than in the HadCRUT3/NCDC/GISS surface temperatures > from the late 1950s. There is a paper by Kalnay and Cai (2003) that > claims > these differences result from Land-use/Land-cover effects - which is > total rubbish. Once the Reanalyses (ERA-40 as well) get better after the > satellite data start coming in all the differences disappear. > Attached is a nice paper on all this with ERA-40. > > It would be nice to meet up again - are you back in the DC area? > If you are I should tell you when I'm next in the area. I'm assuming > you're > not planning a holiday in the UK at any time! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:22 18/02/2009, you wrote: >> Phil, >> Thanks for your suggestions. You confirm some of my concerns about >> this submission. I hope that we can cross paths again before I >> really retire. >> Best >> -Chet >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Chet, >>> I just knew it had to contain Roger Pielke Sr! It also has many >>> authors the same >>> from a paper in JGR that David Parker and others sent in a comment >>> about - >>> that was accepted a few weeks ago. I can guess it will say the >>> same sorts of things. >>> >>> A lot of the things they are saying have been established >>> haven't. They are not >>> as important as this paper will claim! >>> >>> So David would be a good reviewer. I'd just get too stroppy with >>> them, as Roger never >>> listens to anything said to him. >>> >>> David is >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> Don't tell David I suggested him! >>> >>> Tom Peterson would be another good reviewer, but I can see there is >>> at least >>> one person from NCDC on the list. Another would be Kevin Trenberth, >>> but again >>> there is someone from NCAR in the author list. >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> At 17:25 17/02/2009, you wrote: >>>> Phil, >>>> Per your request. Abstract below. Auhor list attached. Thanks >>>> for your help. >>>> -Chet >>>> >>>> ABSTRACT >>>> 271 Human activities have modified the environment for thousands of >>>> years. >>>> 272 Significant population increase, migration, and accelerated >>>> socio-economic activities >>>> 273 have intensified these environmental changes over the last >>>> several centuries. The impacts >>>> 274 of these changes have been found in local, regional, and global >>>> trends in modern >>>> 275 atmospheric temperature records and other relevant climatic >>>> indicators. >>>> 276 One of the human influences on atmospheric temperature trends >>>> is extensive >>>> 277 land use land cover change (LULCC) and its climate forcing. >>>> Studies using both >>>> 278 modeled and observed data have documented these impacts (e.g., >>>> Chase et al. 2000; >>>> 279 Kalnay and Cai 2003; Feddema et al. 2005; Christy et al. 2006; >>>> Mahmood et al. 2006b; >>>> 280 Ezber et al. 2007; Nunez et al. 2008). Thus, it is essential >>>> that we detect LULCCs >>>> 281 accurately at appropriate scales and in a timely manner to >>>> better understand the impacts >>>> 282 on climate and provide improved prediction of future climate. >>>> 283 The National Research Council (2005) has recommended the >>>> broadening of the >>>> 284 climate change issue to include LULCC processes as an important >>>> climate forcing. The >>>> 285 findings of this report state: >>>> 286 "Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important >>>> regional and >>>> 287 global climatic implications that are not resolved by the >>>> concept of global mean radiative >>>> 288 forcing. Tropospheric aerosols and landscape changes have >>>> particularly heterogeneous >>>> 289 forcings. To date, there have been only limited studies of >>>> regional radiative forcing and >>>> 290 response. Indeed, it is not clear how best to diagnose a >>>> regional forcing and response in >>>> 291 the observational record; regional forcings can lead to global >>>> climate responses, while >>>> 292 global forcings can be associated with regional climate >>>> responses. Regional diabatic >>>> 293 heating can also cause atmospheric teleconnections that >>>> influence regional climate >>>> 294 thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. >>>> Improving societally relevant >>>> 295 projections of regional climate impacts will require a better >>>> understanding of the >>>> 296 magnitudes of regional forcings and the associated climate >>>> responses." >>>> 297 In short, the above discussion clearly identified the >>>> importance of LULCC in the climate >>>> 298 system. >>>> 299 It has also been established in the literature that biases, >>>> inaccuracies, and >>>> 300 imprecision have been introduced to the climate monitoring >>>> systems because of >>>> 301 meteorological station moves, instrument changes, improper >>>> exposure of instruments, and >>>> 302 changes in observation practices (Davey and Pielke 2005; Pielke >>>> et al. 2007a, b; >>>> 303 Mahmood et al. 2006a). Hence, we also need strategies that will >>>> help us to detect and >>>> 304 overcome these biases and thus lead to improved understanding >>>> of the role of land use >>>> 305 forcing within the climate system. >>>> 306 This paper has two main objectives. First, it highlights LULCC >>>> and its role >>>> 307 within the climate system. Examples include both long-term >>>> systematic change (e.g., >>>> 308 agricultural land use change, deforestation) and short-term >>>> abrupt change (e.g., rapid >>>> 309 urbanization). Second, the paper proposes a series of >>>> recommendations related to >>>> 310 detecting LULCC from observed climatic records, as well as >>>> modeling to improve our >>>> 311 understanding of LULCC and its impacts on climate. The latter >>>> also includes discussion >>>> 312 on why and how LULCC needs to be considered as a climate >>>> forcing and why it must be >>>> 313 included as a first-order effect in all climate assessments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Chet, >>>>> Bit busy - as always - for the next few weeks. Can you send the >>>>> abstract and the author list, to help me make some suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 16:24 17/02/2009, you wrote: >>>>>> Hi Phil, >>>>>> >>>>>> Among the jobs that I can't seem to retire from is Climate >>>>>> Variability/Change Editor of the Bulletin of the American >>>>>> Meteorological Society (BAMS). I'm asking for your help as a >>>>>> reviewer. The submission is "Impacts of Land Use Land Cover >>>>>> Change on Climate and Future Research Priorities" by R. Mahmood >>>>>> and 37 co-authors. Given the number of co-authors and their >>>>>> affiliations it is a challenge to find un-conflicted reviewers >>>>>> who know the subject. >>>>>> The paper is actually a conference summary, fairly broad ranging, >>>>>> running 25 double-space pages. I would need comments in about 4 >>>>>> to 5 weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not able to serve as a reviewer I would appreciate >>>>>> suggestions for alternatives, preferably outside the U.S. given >>>>>> the extensive list of authors, almost all of them from the U.S. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope that all is well with you. I've "retired" after about >>>>>> 10 years at the IRI. I accepted a visiting scientist position >>>>>> at NOAA's Climate Program Office and doing more program >>>>>> management than I'd bargained for. The plan is to go to a >>>>>> reduced schedule about a year from now and perhaps return to more >>>>>> scientific endeavors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> -Chet Ropelewski >>>>> >>>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4558. 2009-02-19 13:40:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:40:50 -0500 (EST) from: AAAS Member Services subject: AAAS Policy Alert -- 19 February 2009 to: AAAS Policy Alert -- February 19, 2009 Budget News On February 17 President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) at a special signing ceremony at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Last week House and Senate conferees reached final agreement on the $790 billion economic recovery bill, and it was subsequently passed by votes of 246-183 in the House and 60-28 in the Senate. The [1]newly released AAAS analysis reports that the final stimulus plan contains $21.5 billion in federal research and development (R&D) funding, more than either the $17.8 billion in the Senate or $13.2 billion in the House versions. The final bill contains $10.4 billion for NIH, $3.0 billion for NSF, $1.6 billion for the DOE Office of Science, and $600 million for NIST. The bill also provides $3.5 billion for DOE's energy R&D programs, and would fund climate change-related projects in NASA ($1.0 billion) and NOAA ($830 million). The $21.5 billion R&D total provides $18.0 billion for the conduct of R&D and $3.5 billion for R&D facilities and large equipment. Congressional News Holdren, Lubchenco Nomination Hearing. The [2]Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held a hearing on February 12 to consider the nominations of John Holdren for Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Jane Lubchenco for Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. Holdren's testimony focused on the dual role of OSTP: creating policy for science, as well as science for use in other policy issues. Lubchenco addressed the economic importance of NOAA activities such as weather forecasting and fisheries management, and stated that she supported the creation of a National Climate Service within NOAA. Chairman Rockefeller (D-WV) announced that he intended to bypass a committee vote on both nominees and instead use a Unanimous Consent Agreement on the floor to speed their confirmations. House Passes Nanotechnology Reauthorization Bill. Although the stimulus bill may have been the major story last week, the House also passed the [3]National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments of 2009 (H.R. 554), which would require a government roadmap for research on the environmental, health, and safety effects of nanotechnology. The new bill is identical to the NNI reauthorization bill that passed overwhelmingly in the House last year but stalled in the Senate. Senate Committee Changes Announced. The [4]Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced a new subcommittee lineup that eliminated two subcommittees that addressed climate change and added new subcommittees to address the growing focus on green jobs. Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) will serve as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the new Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, while Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) will head the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee. The full committee will handle global warming issues. Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Committee leaders have decided to eliminate the Human Rights and Law Subcommittee, saying that the full committee will continue to deal with human rights, and that President Obama's election makes a separate panel unnecessary. Senators Launch a WMD Caucus. Two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC), launched a [5]Senate Caucus on WMD Terrorism. The caucus will focus on a range of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats, including nuclear, biological, and chemical. The Senators plan to utilize the caucus as a forum for legislators, staff, and experts to address the range of policy mechanisms that could be utilized "to prevent, prepare for, mitigate, and respond to acts of WMD terrorism." Possible Merger of Security Offices Debated. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs met February 12 to discuss a proposal to merge the Homeland Security Council (HSC) with the National Security Council (NSC), both located in the Executive Office of the President (see webcast and witness testimonies [6]here). Witnesses on both sides of the issue agreed that personnel involved in homeland security advisory roles need better funding, more attention, and better staffing. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, as well as Fran Townsend, and Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Collins (R-ME) all strongly opposed the merger, noting that the Department of Homeland Security and the HSC are relatively new entities and should be given the time and resources to mature before considering whether the HSC should move under the NSC. Other witnesses claimed that the HSC could not meet its advisory responsibilities alone and that the NSC should be restructured to incorporate HSC staff and concerns. Traditionally, the White House structures its security advisory staff as it sees fit, but the HSC was created by statute, and the dissolution or merger of the council may need to be addressed through statute as well. New Portal for CRS reports. The website [7]wikileaks.org has joined several other [8]organizations in making Congressional Research Service reports available on-line. Unlike the other congressional support agencies (GAO, CBO), CRS is restricted from making its reports public, although Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced his intent to develop a system for releasing the reports. Executive Branch People in the News. - Acting FDA Commissioner Frank Torti has created the new FDA position of Senior Genomics Advisor, to be filled by Liz Mansfield, a scientist with experience at both the FDA and private sector. Her focus will be on helping the agency and those it serves analyze and make effective use of the increasing volume of genomic data associated with the drug approval process, an area in which the FDA has been criticized for lacking adequate scientific expertise. - Kei Koizumi, longtime director of the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program (and Policy Alert contributor), moves to OSTP this week as Assistant Director for Federal Research and Development, an appointment that does not require Senate confirmation. Elsewhere Anti-Evolution Bill Update: One New, One Defeated. Alabama now has an "academic freedom" bill for 2009; such bills have appeared almost yearly in the state legislature since 2004 but have never passed. Meanwhile, Mississippi's anti-evolution bill, which would have required science textbooks to include disclaimers calling evolution a "controversial theory," has reportedly died in committee. New Report Calls for Transforming Energy Research. A new report by the Brookings Institution, [9]Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes: A Step toward America's Energy Sustainability, calls for additional investments in traditional energy R&D as well as the creation of regional Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. The institutes would foster partnerships to develop and rapidly transfer highly innovative technologies into the marketplace. Court Rules Vaccines Don't Cause Autism. In 1986, in response to concerns that lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers might drive them out of business and that essential vaccines would no longer be available in the U.S., Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program includes a special court to which vaccine lawsuits are referred and which has the power to award compensation from a special fund created for that purpose. Last Thursday, [10]the court ruled that there is no link between vaccines and autism and that families with autistic children are not entitled to receive compensation. Three distinct cases were tried, each of which was handled by a different "special master." The three rulings were similar and found no evidence that vaccines had caused the children's autism. The [11]Associated Press quoted Denise Vowell, one of the special masters saying "Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding" of autism. The plaintiffs are likely to appeal. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Publisher: Alan I. Leshner Editor: Steve Nelson Contributors: Kavita Berger, Joanne Carney, Mark Frankel, Erin Heath, Kei Koizumi, Kathryn Luke, Shirley Malcom, Al Teich, 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 [12]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: [13]membership@aaas.org Science International Bateman House 82-88 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1LQ United Kingdom Privacy Policy: [14]http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/privacy.dtl [ AAAS / Science does not endorse any 3rd party products or services advertised here. ] 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved. One pixel image 2197. 2009-02-19 15:41:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Feb 19 15:41:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: London UHI to: "Jenkins, Geoff" Geoff, I know you don't want me to send you something now. I mentioned ages ago (last year) about some work on the London UHI I'd been doing. Here is the paper. It's just been accepted for Weather. I've to make slight changes to the English, that have taken me 20 minutes. The bottom line is that there is no urban-related warming at St James Park since 1900. The paper quantifies what the UHI is, but it has got no worse since 1900. Make sure you're not saying anything to contradict this in the urban annex of your report. Chris and I are glad that Colin spotted the mistake with the change factors being slightly offset. Mistake has been there a while! Shouldn't make much difference to the WG maps/tables. When you've got some time ask me about wind! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4582. 2009-02-20 09:51:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:51:40 +0000 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: Temperature trends and SST analyses to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil. I think it is worth saying something about absolute values. I'm just looking at them for precip, for which the observation-based data do not come as anomalies. Adrian Phil Jones wrote: > > Adrian, > The absolute values for ERA-Interim are interesting. Over the > 1989-2007 period > the range is 0.55 from the coldest in 1992 (13.74) to 2005 (14.29). > These compare > with HadCRUT3v from 1992 (+0.07) to 1998 (+0.53), so a difference of > 0.46. The value > is slightly smaller if 2005 is used instead of 1998. > Using the 14K value for HadCRUT3v for 1961-90 indicates that the > absolute > values differ by about 0.3K (with HadCRUT3v warmer), a value that is > consistent with > your cold bias relative to SYNOPS of about 0.5K. I agree that the SST > differences are > an issue, but I think we are quite close in absolute terms. > This might be worth reporting in a small section. A map of the > absolute differences > may show some larger cancelling errors across the world. > > The attached figure and bit of text comes from this paper - which is > too large to email > in full. > > Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: > Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. > Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199. > > The range of absolute global averages is from 12 to 16K, almost the > same as the second > of the two plots you sent yesterday. > > [Aside] The absolute temperature over the ocean in this paper is one > for air temperature. > Even though we use SST anomalies as a surrogate for air T over the > oceans, the > absolute was derived through the addition of an air minus SST climatology. > > We could possibly use ERA-Interim's average absolute fields to reduce > my presumed > uncertainty in the 14K number, by perhaps doing better over the data > sparse regions > such as the sea-ice areas and parts of the Antarctic. > > It isn't just the media that are interested in the absolute figure, a > lot of users would > like better absolute figures for driving impacts models where absolute > thresholds can > be important. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 17:12 19/02/2009, Adrian Simmons wrote: >> Phil >> >> All I did for the ten warmest years was to make sure that the set from >> the Hadley Centre/BBC website had the same average as the ERA-Interim >> set. ERA-Interim then shows a larger range. I did think this was >> predominantly because ERA-Interim shows stronger warming in the average >> over land (due to high-latitude coverage problems in CRUTEM3v), but with >> the SST differences discovered this morning perhaps things are more >> complicated. Maybe the SST difference is enough to allow 1995 into the >> list for ERA-Interim. Not one for the journalists, I guess, though I do >> wonder how/whether one should convey uncertainty in this sort of thing. >> >> Absolute values for ERA-Interim, for the record, are: >> >> 1989 13.78483200 >> 1990 13.99974918 >> 1991 13.94549942 >> 1992 13.73666668 >> 1993 13.76133442 >> 1994 13.83608341 >> 1995 14.01591682 >> 1996 13.87950039 >> 1997 14.00908375 >> 1998 14.20900059 >> 1999 13.91508484 >> 2000 13.94616604 >> 2001 14.12133312 >> 2002 14.16433334 >> 2003 14.16483307 >> 2004 14.08841705 >> 2005 14.28650093 >> 2006 14.21850014 >> 2007 14.16433430 >> >> See also the first panel on the attached plot. But one should treat >> these numbers with caution. Not only because of all the values after the >> decimal point, (needed to distinguish 2002 from 2007), but because over >> land we have a bias of about 0.5K cold compared with the SYNOPS. >> >> Adrian >> >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >> > >> > Adrian, >> > I think you're definitely imagining the ship tracks! These are >> > decadal averages. They potentially do show the drifter/ship offsets >> > I was talking about, though - about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C. John >> > Kennedy may have a difference for ships minus drifters. >> > >> > In the warmest year pdf, I assume you're adding 14 to the >> ERA-Interim >> > anomalies. If not these are amazingly close! >> > >> > It would be useful to see what ERA-Interim does get for the global >> > average >> > surface absolute T for your 1989-99 base period. The work that >> > estimated the 14 >> > number (it was 14.02 for the globe) made lots of assumptions over the >> > sea ice >> > areas and the Antarctic. I always thought this was accurate to about >> > +/- 0.5 deg C. >> > It was impossible to explain this accuracy of the absolute vs the much >> > smaller error bars >> > on the anomalies to any journalists. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > At 16:09 19/02/2009, Adrian Simmons wrote: >> >> Hi everyone >> >> >> >> Here are the differences in map form. Shown in the first attachment >> are >> >> ten-year means relative to 1989-1999 (except the last month of 2008 is >> >> missing, as ERA-Interim is still working on it). Please discount what >> >> happens right near the coast and sea-ice regions, as I may not have >> >> things quite right there. >> >> >> >> What is clear is that relative to 1989-1999, HadCRUT3v (or HadSST2) is >> >> almost universally a little warmer than the SSTs we use in >> ERA-Interim. >> >> I think I can see ship tracks also, but maybe I'm over-interpreting. >> >> >> >> See also the second attachment. We should know by Saturday whether >> 2008 >> >> makes it to the ERA-Interim list - I doubt it. ERA-Interim is >> currently >> >> analysing 18 December. >> >> >> >> Adrian >> >> >> >> >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Adrian, >> >> > I'm going down to the Hadley Centre next week on an unrelated >> >> matter, >> >> > and have arranged to talk to Kate and Peter about the HadCRUH >> >> analyses, >> >> > so we can add this one in as well. It would be worth showing these >> >> > plots to >> >> > John Kennedy and Nick Rayner to get their thoughts. >> >> > >> >> > HadCRUT3v uses HadSST2 anomalies over the ocean. HadSST2 >> should be >> >> > similar to HadISST1 where there are data, but you require a >> complete >> >> > field so >> >> > the latter is infilled - and there is also the sea ice component. >> >> > >> >> > The problem with the various SST forcing fields used by ERA and >> >> NCEP >> >> > is that >> >> > it is made up of different components and these may have slightly >> >> > different >> >> > absolute fields. There is probably a document explaining how the >> SST >> >> > fields >> >> > for Reanalyses was produced - maybe Nick will know about this. >> >> Overall the >> >> > differences will be small for most of the world's oceans, but are >> >> > likely to be >> >> > larger in data sparse regions and near the sea ice edges. So, if >> >> you redid >> >> > your plot for NH oceans, I'd expect it to be closer than a >> similar one >> >> > for the SH. >> >> > >> >> > As for the recent 8 years or so, there is an issue of the >> dramatic >> >> > increase in >> >> > drifter based SST values, which may be nearer the true value, but >> >> which >> >> > seem >> >> > about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than the ships. The HC are working >> on a >> >> > revised >> >> > SST dataset (HadSST3 presumably) which I'd like to think would >> >> solve these >> >> > problems. The fact that precip looks better in more recent years >> >> > suggests that >> >> > the drifter-based SST may be nearer the truth. >> >> > >> >> > The important message here is that ERA-Interim must be >> getting very >> >> > good to >> >> > be able to respond to barely detectable differences in SST >> across the >> >> > world's >> >> > oceans. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers >> >> > Phil >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > At 09:35 19/02/2009, Adrian Simmons wrote: >> >> >> Dear co-authors (also Saki, Per and Tim Stockdale) >> >> >> >> >> >> More interesting results. This time Kate can relax, as I'm back >> on to >> >> >> temperature trends. >> >> >> >> >> >> I wanted to produce a plot contrasting the recent temperature >> changes >> >> >> over land and sea. So I looked at the full HadCRUT3v dataset, >> which is >> >> >> based on Hadley Centre SST over the oceans, and compared the >> >> ocean-wide >> >> >> averages with the corresponding averages of ERA background 2m >> >> >> temperatures. I chose the background fields not the analyses, as >> the >> >> >> later took in ship air temperatures and cannot be relied upon, as >> >> >> discussed in Simmons et al.(2004), based on a comment from Simon >> Tett. >> >> >> >> >> >> The upper panel in the attachment shows the result - >> temperatures are >> >> >> adjusted to have the same average for the period 1989-1998 as >> before. >> >> >> The most obvious feature is a shift between HadCRUT3v and ERA >> >> around the >> >> >> turn of the century. The lower panel shows the corresponding >> >> comparison >> >> >> between HadCRUT3v and the SST used in ERA (the same for >> ERA-Interim as >> >> >> ERA-40). Clearly there is a shift in recent years between the >> SST used >> >> >> in ERA and that used in HadCRUT3v. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now, ERA used the following SSTs: >> >> >> >> >> >> (i) HadISST1 monthly up until November 1981 >> >> >> >> >> >> (ii) Then Reynolds 2D-Var weekly up until June 2001 >> >> >> >> >> >> (iii) Then NCEP operations until September 2008 >> >> >> >> >> >> (iv) Then OSTIA >> >> >> >> >> >> The lower panel clearly indicates a shift of between 0.1 and 0.2C >> >> in SST >> >> >> in 2001. So apparently there is a shift in going from the >> 2D-Var to >> >> >> NCEP operations, assuming that HadCRUT3v uses a homogeneous SST >> >> product. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then there is a question of whether it is the 2D-Var or the NCEP >> >> >> operations that is closer to HadCRUT3v. Remember the anomaly curves >> >> are >> >> >> normalised to 1989-1999 (just because that's what's convenient for >> >> other >> >> >> plots in the paper), but it could be that the absolute values are >> >> closer >> >> >> for the end of the period. >> >> >> >> >> >> Finally, I wonder whether this is related to the shift in >> >> precipitation >> >> >> over land in ERA around the turn of the century relative to >> GPCC. It's >> >> >> in the right sense (ERA shifting to relatively cooler SSTs, less >> >> >> evaporation, and thus less precipitation over land). As Dick and I >> >> >> discussed yesterday after looking at one of Per's plots for the >> >> >> comparison of ERA with GPCP and CMAP, when looking at the absolute >> >> >> values the precip is in better agreement in recent years than in >> the >> >> >> 1980s and 1990s, so perhaps the more recent SSTs are better also. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd appreciate some input on this from the SST experts, at ECMWF >> >> and the >> >> >> Hadley Centre. Clearly we need to resolve this before the next >> >> >> reanalysis, and I hope ERACLIM will get funded to enable us to >> do this >> >> >> thoroughly. >> >> >> >> >> >> Adrian >> >> >> >> >> >> PS Yesterday's interesting result was that the temperature >> trends over >> >> >> land from the ERA-Interim background fields are significantly >> >> closer to >> >> >> CRUTEM3v than are the trends from the ERA-40 background. The >> analyses >> >> >> themselves don't differ much, as there is plenty of 2m T data >> >> >> assimilated by the OI analysis in grid boxes for which there are >> >> >> CRUTEM3v values, and the OI analysis for 2m T is the same in ERA-40 >> >> and >> >> >> ERA-Interim. But the result does suggest that more confidence >> can be >> >> >> placed in the ERA-Interim analysis than the ERA-40 analysis in data >> >> >> sparse regions, where the background comes more into play. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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 >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- 1743. 2009-02-23 15:06:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 23 15:06:46 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: pre-review Arctic 2k reconstruction to: Ray Bradley Ray, Had a quick look and weak on statistics isn't the half of it! The tree-ring stuff needs to mention RCS - otherwise you might as well drop the trees! There needs to be a column on how they were standardized. The Yamal chronology in this paper has no low frequency - the way it is standardized loses it. The paper says so - and it is obvious if you look. What you should be referencing is a paper of Keith's from Phil Trans in 2008. He standardized the long Russian series with a consistent RCS approach. Nauzbaev and Vaganov know how to do this as well, but their 2000 paper is an odd one to use. Use their one from the Holocene in 2002. Keith told me that Grudd 2008 got it wrong as well. Also whilst we're on trees, if I was a skeptic I'd get fed up with people referencing Mann et al (2008) for some North American tree sites. This is a red rag to a bull. Again they should be to original sources and should say how they are standardized. Finally, I've calculated numerous DW statistics in my time. I've never got one approaching 3.9. According to wikipedia it is possible (range is 0 to 4). However, what you're supposed to do with the values above 2 is to subtract them from 4. So this one should be 0.1. What it then means is that there is very, very, very, very high negative autocorrelation (because of the subtraction). It doesn't look as though there is, so I think the calculation is screwed! I think it does stink, but they just need to write a paper with more details! The ice core interpretation depends on how the diffusion is allowed for - may not make much difference on this timescale. Also - they don't need all the ADs. They need to go before dates, but they aren't needed! Cheers Phil At 20:11 21/02/2009, Ray Bradley wrote: Hi Phil, If you have a moment to scan through this & give us some feedback...it would be appreciated. As you will see there are some statistical weaknesses....! But I think you will find it of interest. Darrell Kaufman just wrote : " Ray says that you'd tell us whether it stinks. To lay it bare, we're focusing on 20-year means, and our calibration period is only 100 years, so n = 5. The standard error of the regression is 0.04C, and the Durbin- Watson statistic, d = 3.9, indicating that autocorrelation is not significant. On the other hand, we can calculate annual proxy values for subset of 11 records that are resolved annually to show that the relation between proxy and instrumental temperature is strong (Fig 2 in the attached pdf). ". Thank you in advance for your suggestions. Darrell Darrell S. Kaufman Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192 [1]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ Raymond S. Bradley Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 < [2]http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [4]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4065. 2009-02-24 16:57:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Feb 24 16:57:05 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Input to 5th National Communication to: "Sarah Winne" Sarah, Should be able to look through next week. I only think you'll need the email contacts if someone on the UK challenges what is there. By the way - when I did the Oct 08 report, I had no idea the 2005 report existed. DEFRA/DECC didn't enlighten me about it! Cheers Phil At 16:45 24/02/2009, you wrote: Phil, Thanks for the additional information. That's all really useful for feeding back to DECC. I think at this stage I won't ask for the emails from the GCOS report - if there are any gaps when we start putting this together next week I will certainly get back to you on this. If I were to attempt some kind of synopsis of the GCOS report (only if DECC insist on this), do you think you would be willing to review it next week? Many thanks, Sarah >>> Phil Jones 24/02/2009 15:21 >>> Sarah, What you suggests sounds reasonable. The other option would be to paraphrase what was in the Oct 08 Report, but you've not got the time for that. As for changes in he numbers in the Tables - I wouldn't expect any as it was only done 4 months ago. There are words in the Oct08 report about the Met Office not being able to guarantee the continued operation of some sites (RAF airfields, for example) which might be worth discussing with DEFRA. The whole aim of GCOS is that these networks are maintained by national organizations (like the Met Office) but no other country went into such detail as why this might not be possible. One of the reasons for these reports is to get national governments to realise that it is they who are paying for the observations through their Met Services. So they should be funding their Met Service adequately. Ours is through MoD which is the problem. I can dig you out emails of those I contacted for the report. There were many, made worse by devolution! I'm not sure you want these at the moment - maybe you won't at all. One other thing - when you contact places like NERC, Met Office, Tyndall etc it would be worth sending them the Oct 2008 Report to see what they are down for. Other organizations include the EA (and Welsh, Scottish and NI counterparts) and places like POL, BODC, BADC etc. If you can get through to the right people, you might find you find out we're doing more! Cheers Phil At 15:01 24/02/2009, you wrote: >Dear Phil, > >Thanks very much for the quick response. I agree with the points you >make (especially the one about the timetable!). We are seeking >input from a number of stakeholders including NERC, Met Office, >Tyndall, etc. so we do hope to improve section 7.4. > >It is basically section 7.5 that I'm after and I'm trying to >determine how this could be done most easily and accurately in light >of the GCOS report. I'm keen not to re-invent the wheel seeing as >you just put the GCOS report together. What I was thinking of >suggesting to DECC is that we include a very short synopsis of the >report for section 7.5 plus any very recent developments since the >report (if any), and then include the whole of the GCOS report as an >appendix. Do you think this would be a suitable approach? This >would mean 7.5 in the 5th NC is shorter than in the 4th but given >the incredibly short amount of time that we have it might be a good >way forward. > >Many thanks, > >Sarah > > > > >>> Phil Jones 24/02/2009 14:32 >>> > > Sarah, > I'm off to Exeter tomorrow to the Hadley Centre and won't get >back till Friday, > so I can't be of any help at this time. > > I'm attaching the document I helped produce in October - the one >you refer to. > If you look at this you'll see it is impossible to summarize, as it >is essentially what you > want to complete section 7.5! There is probably slightly more >detail than you > require. Most of the Tables in your Ch 7 version are there in the >attached - and the > numbers agree as well! > > I can send the attached in word as well - but DEFRA did tidy it >up before submission to GCOS. > > Being involved with GCOS (member of their Atmospheric >Observation Panel for GCOS) > it is important that the Tables agree between the various national >reports. GCOS have > already combined the information in the Tables from the 2008 >submissions. The point > I'm trying to make is that GCOS wants Tables as in the attached and >not as in your Ch 7 > unless they have changed their minds. > > It was impossible for me to find the other national reports from >2008 using google, > but this link - which I got from GCOS - is where they are. > > >[1]http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/research_and_systematic_observation/items/4499 .php > > > An intriguing thing in looking through these is that in the UK >report I helped put together, > there was mention of joint initiatives with Germany and other >countries. None of these > got picked up in the other countries reports! Also I recall >noticing the opposite as well. > > Minor aside - section 7.4 could be better than the 2005 version. >There is a lot of work going > on in the UK - other than that funded by DEFRA and done at the Met >Office. I presume you'll > be contacting NERC. The problem I had last October (apart from the >ridiculous timetable > that you have) was finding who to contact and getting them to >respond. It is clear that > few people know what GCOS is about. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > >At 13:29 24/02/2009, you wrote: > >** High Priority ** > > > >Dear Phil, > > > >AEA has been tasked by the Department of Energy and Climate Change > >(DECC) to prepare the "Research and Systematic Observations" chapter > >of the UK's Fifth National Communications under the UN Framework > >Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Please find attached a letter > >from David Warrilow - head of Climate Science and Adaptation in DECC > >- providing a little bit of background to this work. > > > >The last National Communication - the UK 4th NC - was submitted in > >2005 and the UK government is in the process of updating the > >National Communication for the new submission due in 2010. AEA is > >coordinating the preparation of chapter 7 - "Research and Systematic > >Observations". I have attached the UK's 4th National Communication > >to this email so you can refer to the previous version of Chapter 7. > > > >I would be most grateful for your contribution in the update of this > >chapter. You'll see in chapter 7 that there is a section called > >"Systematic Observations" - I believe the recent report which you > >and your colleagues put together called "UK Report on national > >activities with respect to the GCOS Implementation Plan" is highly > >relevant to this section. Do you think you would be able to write a > >brief (1 - 2 page) synopsis of this report for us to include in the > >Systematic Observations section of Chapter 7? > > > >Although the UNFCCC's deadline for the National Communication is not > >until January 2010, the deadline for this update is much sooner due > >to the need to prepare for the EU's package of climate change > >measures to be announced this coming summer. As a result, AEA has > >been tasked by DECC to prepare a draft of this chapter by the 28 > >February. This means that we would really appreciate your responses > >with updated text by this coming Friday, the 27th of February. I > >realise that this is not very much time at all so I appreciate any > >help you can provide in the time available. > > > >Please let me know if you have any questions on the information we > >require and I will try to help. > > > >Kind regards > > > >Sarah > > > > > >Sarah Winne > >AEA > >The Gemini Building > >Harwell > >Didcot > >OX11 0QR > > > >Tel 44 (0)870 190 3891 > >Fax 44 (0)870 190 6318 > >Email sarah.winne@aeat.co.uk > > > > > > > > > >*********************************************************************** > >This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which > >may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. > >Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it on behalf of > >the addressee you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If > >you have received this transmission in error please contact the sender. > >Thank you for your cooperation. > >*********************************************************************** > > > >For more information about AEA please visit our Web site at > >[2]http://www.aeat.co.uk ( [3]http://www.aeat.co.uk/ ) > > > >AEA Technology plc registered office 329 Harwell, Didcot, > >Oxfordshire OX11 0QJ. > >Registered in England and Wales, number 3095862. > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5232. 2009-02-27 12:18:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: Simon Mason date: Fri Feb 27 12:18:00 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: temperature specialist to: Madeleine Thomson Madeleine, I've looked at this paper and it only looks at temperature and precipitation data for the period 1966-1995. This paper is the one you gave me the link for. If you meant to attach another, then I have not got it. I don't have access to papers (26-28) which may use longer paper. If though they use ref 34 or a more recent version (attached) then there is much infilling of data in CRU TS 2.1 in much of Africa. Ref 34 and the attached shouldn't be relied on for long-term trends when there is little available data in early decades of the 20th century. If there is no observational data then the gridded reduces to putting in the average temperature and rainfall for the 1961-90 period. Simon will know what I'm talking about! Cheers Phil At 14:03 25/02/2009, Madeleine Thomson wrote: Dear Phil I was given your name as a specialist in temperature analysis in Africa and am I am writing to you to ask if you could share some of your knowledge on temperature and help me better understand whether or not there is evidence of warming trends in the East African highlands over the last century. My question relates to the discussions in the literature over the last few years re the role that temperature increases may have played in the observed increases in malaria epidemics in Kenya in particular (Kericho) I am not trying to further the question - has climate change resulted in increases in malaria (for which there is already an extensive literature) but rather try and understand the importance or otherwise of a paper by Simon Hay and colleagues from Oxford (Meteorologic Influences on Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in the Highland Tea Estates of Kericho, Western Kenya Nature 2002;415:905-9 - [1]http://origin.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no12/pdfs/02-0077.pdf) in which they analysed meteorological data from 1901 to 1995 for four highland sites where malaria cases are on the rise in East Africa Kericho in western Kenya, Kabale in south-western Uganda, Gikonkko in southern Rwanda, and Muhanga in northern Burundi. For each month, the researchers determined the average temperature, as well as the average minimum and maximum temperature, rainfall and vapour pressure. After analysing the 95-years' worth of data, the team found no significant shifts in temperature or vapour pressure at any of the four sites. Rainfall had increased at only one, Muhanga. The results of this paper were presented at a recent meeting with the statement that there is no evidence for warming in East Africa over the last century. Is this really the case - that there no evidence of a warming trend generally in East Africa - or specifically at these sites. I have seen scattered reports in the literature suggesting that there have been strong warming trends over this time period but have yet to find a consolidated analysis. In particular I am interested in trends in minimum temperature which are likely to be most relevant to the malaria problem. I attach the paper of interest for your reference. I look forward to your reply. Best Regards Madeleine Madeleine C. Thomson Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Director Impacts Research Chair Africa Regional Programme International Research Institute for Climate and Society The Earth Institute at Columbia University Lamont Campus Palisades, 10964 New York Tel: 1 845 680 4413 Fax: 1 845 680 4864 web [2]http://iri.columbia.edu The IRI is a PAHO-WHO Collaborating Centre for Climate Sensitive Diseases Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4406. 2009-02-27 14:25:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: phil Jones date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:25:24 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: my symposium to: Tom Wigley Dear Tom, All of three are on the list (see attachment). I just wanted to let you know that I took the liberty of adding Anjuli Bamzai's name to the list. I thought that was appropriate, since DOE will be covering some of the cost of the Symposium. I'm currently trying to find the email addresses of everyone on the list. I'll send that out to you and Phil later today. I'm sure I'll need help to track down some of the addresses. Cheers, Ben Tom Wigley wrote: > Ben, > > Did I ever tell you niel plummer's email? It is ... > > nplummer@usgs.gov > > Were these people on the invite list ... > > Roger Pielke Jr > Chris Green > Steve Schneider > > If Steve -- should invite Terry Root too??? > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WigleySymposiumInvites_bds9.doc" 1550. 2009-02-27 17:58:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:58:11 -0500 (EST) from: weather@wiley.co.uk subject: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R2 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk 27-Feb-2009 Dear Dr. Jones, Thank you for submitting your reviosed manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R2 entitled "The Urban Heat Island in Central London and urban-related warming trends in Central London since 1900". It is early days for me as editor and my preferred policy is to send papers out to two reviewers and trust their judgment, only getting involved myself if there is disagreement. In this case, since you chose not to respond to the further comments of the second reviewer, and he was clearly a little unhappy with the ‘feel’ of the article, I thought I ought to read it through carefully and make my own assessment. I regret to have to say that the result is a more critical review. I immediately balked at your statement: ‘the purpose of this study is to show.. that the magnitude of the UHI for central London is nnot increasing’. You surely do not mean that: your purpose is to study the data and see what conclusions can be drawn. In the second paragraph, at proof-reading stage I would have changed ‘warmer’ in the third line to ‘higher’; as I was long ago taught, temperature is a neutral concept. Later in the article you refer at several points to temperature differences in °C, when it should be in degC. There are problems with the Kew and LWC sets. The Kew Observatory data bank is, I believe, based on a standard exposure screen brought into use in its closing years to provide overlap and enable all the long-period record (when readings were taken in a screen situated on the north-wall of the building) to be corrected. So care is needed in these results, especially going from pre-1980 corrected Observatory data to later Gardens data. You mention only in a small footnote at the end the three different sites for LWC (I think the Kingsway site was in use long before 1959?). These sites are all highly non-standard, and really should not be used in any serious climatological study (I can hear Philip Eden screaming as I type!). I do not think you can credibly make the comment (page 6), that the ‘LWC site would have been 0.5 deg warmer than the CAM site’: quite apart from anything else, which LWC site? In the text you do actually at several points infer there is just one LWC site; having worked at and read the thermometers at both High Holborn and Clerkenwell (and, incidentally, at Kew Observatory), my view would be that any accurate correlation between the two data sets would be unlikely (the former was, arguably, a better site than the latter). I think you can still come to the broad conclusions that you do, but using ‘SJP’, and not LWC. Accordingly, I would ask you to redraft the article accordingly, noting also the more minor (but not insignificant) points I raised above. A revised version of your manuscript will be reconsidered for publication. Please only respond to the email address at the head of this message. You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Center. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/weather and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to 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/113388511/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 Weather and I look forward to receiving your revision. Yours sincerely, Mr. BOB PRICHARD Editor, Weather weather@wiley.co.uk 3896. 2009-03-02 01:13:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:13:23 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Latest position re CRU TS to: Phil Jones Hi Phil Looking good. Update program 'finished'. Added station counts to it today, and corrected WET production (I'd completely forgotten that we'd decided to use synthetic only after 1989!). I put 'finished' in brackets, because I'm still unable to test it. But it all compiles, so barring testing it's there. PET still to do, and it will have to be added to the update program if required (not an onerous task now it's stable). Back Tuesday. Cheers Harry 1174. 2009-03-03 14:56:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 3 14:56:03 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: 2k Arctic synthesis to: Darrell Kaufman Darrell I would like to make some comments but the earliest I can get to this is Thursday (we have visitors here all day tomorrow. In short I would like to be involved - but I would rather wait and see the basis of your reaction to my initial thoughts when I get a Tracked changes version back to you. You are correct that there are clear limitations in the preservation of trend over two millennia in SOME of the data Mann et al used - and in the current series you cite for Yamal (Hantemirov et al) . I do believe that the composite series in our Phil Trans paper is a convenient representation of the circum-western Eurasian Arctic tree-line data - though the Grudd and Nauzbaev papers are virtually similar to our data for their areas. However I have a few reservations/comments on other aspects of the manuscript that I believe any likely referee might pick up on . Is it ok to wait til Thursday or will this not be acceptable for getting comments back? I know how these time lines are crucial. Best wishes Keith At 14:15 02/03/2009, you wrote: Hello Keith: Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along on a manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature records from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group recently published in J Paleolimnology. On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not have used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are your three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al. were processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and these should be omitted from the synthesis. I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you will be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data on your website, but would much prefer to have your involvement before using the data. Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit greatly if this paper were accepted for publication. Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and interest in getting involved. Thanks, Darrell  Darrell S. Kaufman Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192 [1]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ Hello Keith: Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along on a manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature records from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group recently published in J Paleolimnology. On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not have used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are your three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al. were processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and these should be omitted from the synthesis. I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you will be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data on your website, but would much prefer to have your involvement before using the data. Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit greatly if this paper were accepted for publication. Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and interest in getting involved. Thanks, Darrell Darrell S. Kaufman Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192 [2]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ -- 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/ 3624. 2009-03-03 19:49:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:49:44 +0000 from: Dennis Wheeler subject: RE: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 to: Phil Jones Phil Many thanks - I'll try to tackle this before setting of for the UK on Friday. But Millennium is great and, for me at least, it's a treat to be able to spend time with folk who are, at the very least, dimly aware of what I'm doing! Mind you the weather is appalling and very cold. best wishes Dennis ______________________________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:51:01 +0000 To: denniswheeler1948@msn.com From: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 Dennis, I have in fact submitted another one as Bob has been in touch. Attaching this if you have time. Bob wanted something at the beginning and then on possible problems with LWC. He hadn't realised we were only using this from 1974, because the earlier data aren't digitised. Enjoy Millennium! Cheers Phil At 16:28 03/03/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil Tranquilo - as they say out here in Mallorca, where I'm at the Millennium annual thrash. I'll sort your new version tonight and write to Bob, if Christian Pfister doesn't grab me to educate me in Medieval documents etc!!! regards Dennis ___________________________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:23:44 +0000 To: denniswheeler1948@msn.com From: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: FW: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 Dennis, Trying to stay calm! It seems as though I send one message and he replies to previous ones. Does he not look at the authoring centre? This is a reply to my message of Feb 19. I didn't get his reply sent on Feb 19. The version I sent you yesterday was resubmitted on Feb 27! Cheers Phil From: Weather - UK To: "p.jones@uea.ac.uk" Sender: "Owen, Alex - Chichester" Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:24:55 +0000 Subject: FW: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 Thread-Topic: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 Thread-Index: AcmbdiKjgxuJNumbTqWSptplk3ePQQAdBfhw Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB 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: 18381565 - 65a4d85be58c (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18381565&m=65a4d85be58c&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18381565&m=65a4d85be58c&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18381565&m=65a4d85be58c&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Dear Dr Jones This was my reply to your first email. Your second message to me this afternoon suggests to me that you did not get it. It obviously was a significant factor in the ensuing chaos if that is so - but, as you can see, it left me, so again I am as much 'victim' as you are. Many apologies - but what more could I have done? Bob _______________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for pointing this out; it does look rather odd. I will check back with the reviewer and get back to you. Bob > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:09:04 +0000 > To: weather@wiley.co.uk > From: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Re: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 > CC: bob_prichard@msn.com > > > Bob, > Thanks for the positive reviews. I have been on to the authoring centre > to download the first of the two reviews. I found the > review, and it appears to be one page in length. Can you check > that it isn't any longer, as it seems to stop just over halfway through > the paper? From the suggested changes in the first half, I'd have > expected more in the second half! > > The reviews are relatively minor, so it shouldn't take too long to revise. > > I have downloaded the copyright form. I'll put this in the post once I've > uploaded the revised version - either next week or the first one in March. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > At 00:13 19/02/2009, weather@wiley.co.uk wrote: > >18-Feb-2009 > > > >Dear Dr. Jones, > > > >Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001 entitled "The Urban Heat Island in Central > >London and urban-related warming trends in Central London since > >1900" which you submitted to Weather, has been reviewed. The > >comments of the reviewers are included at the bottom of this letter. > > > >PLEASE NOTE: The reviewers may have returned their comments to me as > >separate files. We do not attach these files to the decision letter > >as they can interfere with successful delivery of emails. You can > >view any additional comments from the reviewers by visiting your > >Author Centre in Manuscript Central. Click on "Manuscripts with > >Decisions" queue. > >In the list appearing at the bottom of the screen click on "View > >Decision Letter". In the new window the files can be seen in the > >section "Files Attached" at the bottom. > > > >The reviewers have recommended publication, but also suggest some > >minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to > >respond to their comments and revise your manuscript. > > > >You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your > >Author Center. Log into [4]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/weather and > >enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title > >listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". > > > >When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond > >to the comments made by the reviewers 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: [5]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/113388511/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 Weather. I > >look forward to receiving your revision. > > > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Mr. BOB PRICHARD > >Editor, Weather > >weather@wiley.co.uk > > > >Reviewers' Comments to Author: > > > >Reviewing: 1 > >Comments to the Author > >see attached file > > > >Reviewing: 2 > >Comments to the Author > >This is generally a very good article, full of interesting data, and > >it all hangs together very well and comes to sensible and > >interesting conclusions. My only (minor) criticism is that readers > >unfamiliar with the geography of the London area will probably not > >know where all the locations listed in Table 1 and mentioned in the > >text are in relation to each other, and so a map of these places > >below Table 1 (or wherever space is available) would be highly > >beneficial to readers. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone [6]Try it Now! _______________________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos Free. [7]Try it Now! _______________________________________________________________________________ This email (and any attachment) is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please do not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please tell us by reply and delete all copies on your system. Although this email has been scanned for viruses you should rely on your own virus check as the sender accepts no liability for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection. Please note that email traffic data may be monitored and that emails may be viewed for security reasons. John Wiley & Sons Limited is a private limited company registered in England with registered number 641132. Registered office address: The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ. _______________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3611. 2009-03-04 10:08:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:08:57 -0500 from: "Lisa Johnson" subject: Re: 1172171 Science Review Request to: "Phil Jones" Hi Dr. Jones, You're off the hook--I had sent out multiple requests and was able to find enough reviewers for this already. Thanks, Lisa >>> Phil Jones 3/4/2009 3:13 AM >>> Lisa, OK. Send the full manuscript. Cheers Phil At 19:57 03/03/2009, you wrote: >Dear Dr. Jones: > >I am asking on behalf of Dr. Jesse Smith if you would have the time >and interest to review a manuscript for SCIENCE? The paper is titled >"Global Signatures of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate >Anomaly and Plausible Dynamical Origins" from Michael E. Mann and >colleagues. I have attached the title page and abstract to this >e-mail as a pdf file. Please let me know if you have any trouble >opening or printing it. > >We ask that the review be completed in two weeks. If you are able >to review the paper, we will send it electronically. If you are not >able to review the manuscript, any suggestions of other appropriate >referees would be appreciated. > >Thank you for your time and help. > >Sincerely, > > >Lisa Johnson >Publications Assistant >SCIENCE >(202) 326-7014 >ljohnson@aaas.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2963. 2009-03-04 15:43:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 4 15:43:31 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Canada to: John Kennedy John, See below. Best to set all 1991-2008 to missing for 718260. I'll do that in my file. I'll then stop the numbers going in from now on. It seems as though Canada has used an earlier code for a newish station on Baffin Island. Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:27:50 +0000 (GMT) From: David Lister To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Canada Phil, I have had a look at the station series 718260. It is one that has been coming via CLIMAT - probably resuming in October 2002. It does now appear to be PANGNIRTUNG (66.15N, 65.73E and 23m) which is on Baffin Island. CRU records firmly believe it to be NITCHEQUON (53.2N, 70.9E and 536m). CRU are not the only ones to associate 718260 with NITCHEQUON (Quebec). The discontinuity in Tmean (most apparent in summer) (see attached series) does suggest that the station 71826 via CLIMAT is now PANGNIRTUNG. Given that the series is very intermittent via CLIMAT and does not match the earlier part, it seems that we should delete its modern subset. The series from Lucie Vincent do not include either location. In addition, the WMO conversions that you have built into the updating process (from CLIMAT so that stations under new WMOs get to their correct destination) does not seem to be implicated in the current problem. There is a long listing of North American stations/codes etc. at: [1]http://www.weathergraphics.com/identifiers/master-station.dat Cheers David On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Phil Jones wrote: David, When you've a moment can you have a look at this station - 71826. Cheers Phil X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,300,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="3186121" Subject: Re: Canada From: John Kennedy To: Phil Jones Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:06:23 +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: 18448918 - 899a4dc58909 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18448918&m=899a4dc58909&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18448918&m=899a4dc58909&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=18448918&m=899a4dc58909&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Thanks Phil, The Canadian station, which has an alarming discontinuity in its temperature series, is 718260. Apparently the station associated with the ID is now in a different place. Cheers, John On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 12:28 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > John, > > Attached is a file I use when updating the anders file. > Amongst other things > it has a list of 42 pairs of Canadian IDs. The left number is the > one the data has > in the file, while the second is the number Canada is currently > using for that station. > > If you were to implement something similar in your routine > updating you would > get up to an additional 42 sites with current data for Canada. The > 42 sites are in the > file, so the file size won't change. > > I never could figure out how Canada numbered its stations. It's > the one country > where it seems totally random! > > I assume you have the other attached file. For these Canadian > stations a small > temperature is added to these sites each time a new value comes in. > These numbers > were supplied by Lucie Vincent. This is because her homogeneity > work adjusted to > the method of calculating mean T in use in Canada in the 1950s. The > current method > is different. The difference this makes is only important in eastern Canada. > > All these have been taken into account by David Lister in the > anders file that went > through to the end of 2008, that I gave you last week. > > Earlier today we got an email from Australia - see below. > > So, Australia is still issuing the wrong CLIMATs as far mean T is concerned. > > In the files I gave you last week, all Australian data post-Nov94 has mean > T calculated the way it should be using (Tx+Tn)/2. Using the correct data > warms Australia as a whole by +0.15C compared to what is released. > > Cheers > Phil > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:14:17 +1100 > From: Blair Trewin > To: David Jones , David Lister > Subject: RE: FW: Australian temperature data [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > I've finally had a chance to have a look at this - it turned out to be > more complicated than I thought because a change which I thought had > been implemented several years ago wasn't. > > Up until 1994 CLIMAT mean temperatures for Australia used (Tx+Tn)/2. In > 1994, apparently as part of a shift to generating CLIMAT messages > automatically from what was then the new database (previously they were > calculated on-station), a change was made to calculating as the mean of > all available three-hourly observations (apparently without regard to > data completeness, which made for some interesting results in a couple > of months when one station wasn't staffed overnight). > > What was supposed to happen (once we noticed this problem in 2003 or > thereabouts) was that we were going to revert to (tx+Tn)/2, for > historical consistency, and resend values from the 1994-2003 period. I > have, however, discovered that the reversion never happened. > > In a 2004 paper I found that using the mean of all three-hourly > observations rather than (Tx+Tn)/2 produced a bias of approximately > -0.15 C in mean temperatures averaged over Australia (at individual > stations the bias is quite station-specific, being a function of the > position of stations (and local sunrise/sunset times) within their time > zone. > > Blair Trewin > National Climate Centre > Bureau of Meteorology > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [6]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4721. 2009-03-05 22:17:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:17:14 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Continuation for May2009-April2010 to: "Phil Jones" Phil I already approved back in Jan after we met at IDAG. You should've got the letter, let me check. About the $s, we still don't have our 2009 Budget, and are still under Continuing Resolution. It may very well be that your award will be delayed at the Operations Office because FY 09 monies have still not been released by Congress. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:47 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Continuation for May2009-April2010 > Anjuli, I was wondering when the letter might come about the continuation? I'll be writing a new proposal for a further 3 years during the summer. I have the seven proposals to review. See you in Bethesda - have just booked everything. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4870. 2009-03-05 23:22:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:22:56 +0000 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: Paper causing a stir to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil. From just reading the abstract, I think I would have rejected it, as I would not trust the trends in the original NCEP reanalysis, which is from a production system which is a generation earlier than ERA-40 - and ERA-40 needs to be used with caution as one goes higher. The NCEP trends at the tropopause and in the lower stratosphere are certainly way off the mark. I'm currently resisting the temptation to look at humidity trends in ERA-Interim above 850hPa. I think we have enough to present in our current paper, and I'd like to give priority to finishing writing it. I suspect as one gets to the middle and upper troposphere, the ERA humidities will shift as the satellite observing system changes, and as radiosonde instruments change. To date we've not implemented any bias correction/homogenisation of sonde humidities - for the future we hope that some proposed work by June Wang, Aiguo Dai and Leo Haimberger will get funding. June and Aiguo are visiting the Met Office this summer, and will be calling in at ECMWF. All the best Adrian Phil Jones wrote: > >> Adrian et al, > The attached may be of interest - but it is just based on NCEP! > There are caveats, but they could have easily looked at ERA-40 or JARE-25. > Garth Paltridge is making waves on Climate Audit about this paper being > rejected by J. Climate. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- 251. 2009-03-06 09:58:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:58:00 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: 2k Arctic synthesis to: Keith Briffa Keith: Thanks for the update. I'd like to revise the composite proxy record over the weekend (my only spare time). Can I assume that I need to omit the three tree-ring series that I took from Mann et al. (2008) because they were not processed to retain the low frequency signal, and that I should replace the Euraisan series with the three from your recent Phil Trans paper (using the data on your website)? If you agree, I can work on revising all of the calculations and figures and we can modify the text early next week. Would that work? Darrell On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: > Darrell > REALLY sorry - have not done this yet - had back > to back meetings for 2 days and am due to leave > now for the weekend - couple of days away from > computer - my comments are nothing earth > shattering or voluminous but I would still like > to make them for your consideration. I will try > to do this on Monday now - if too late - just ignore me . Sorry again > Keith > > thanks for your consideration > cheers > Keith > > At 15:01 03/03/2009, you wrote: >> Keith: >> I appreciate your willingness to squeeze this in on such short >> notice. If you could get your comments to me by the end of the week, >> that would be more than I had hoped for. Thank you. Darrell >> >> >> On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: >> >>> Darrell >>> I would like to make some comments but the >>> earliest I can get to this is Thursday (we have >>> visitors here all day tomorrow. In short I would >>> like to be involved - but I would rather wait and >>> see the basis of your reaction to my initial >>> thoughts when I get a Tracked changes version >>> back to you. You are correct that there are >>> clear limitations in the preservation of trend >>> over two millennia in SOME of the data Mann et al >>> used - and in the current series you cite for >>> Yamal (Hantemirov et al) . I do believe that the >>> composite series in our Phil Trans paper is a >>> convenient representation of the circum-western >>> Eurasian Arctic tree-line data - though the Grudd >>> and Nauzbaev papers are virtually similar to our >>> data for their areas. However I have a few >>> reservations/comments on other aspects of the >>> manuscript that I believe any likely referee >>> might pick up on . Is it ok to wait til Thursday >>> or will this not be acceptable for getting >>> comments back? I know how these time lines are crucial. Best wishes >>> Keith >>> >>> At 14:15 02/03/2009, you wrote: >>>> Hello Keith: >>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's >>>> clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along >>>> on a >>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature records >>>> from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new >>>> compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group recently >>>> published in J Paleolimnology. >>>> >>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not have >>>> used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't see >>>> your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can >>>> tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are >>>> your >>>> three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska >>>> record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al. >>>> were >>>> processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and >>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis. >>>> >>>> I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I >>>> want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you >>>> will >>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring >>>> component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil >>>> Trans >>>> data on your website, but would much prefer to have your >>>> involvement >>>> before using the data. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am >>>> leading a >>>> 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit >>>> greatly if >>>> this paper were accepted for publication. >>>> >>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs >>>> substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and >>>> interest >>>> in getting involved. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Darrell >>>>  >>>> >>>> Darrell S. Kaufman >>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences >>>> Northern Arizona University >>>> 928-523-7192 >>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Keith: >>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and >>>> Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have >>>> come to you sooner. I am now well along on a >>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy >>>> temperature records from the Arctic (attached). >>>> The impetus for the paper is the new compilation >>>> of high-resolution lake records that my group >>>> recently published in J Paleolimnology. >>>> >>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that >>>> I should not have used the series from the Mann >>>> et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008 >>>> Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as >>>> I can tell, the only records that meet the >>>> criteria for this study are your three new RCS >>>> series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of >>>> Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's >>>> series in Mann et al. were processed in a way >>>> that would preserve the millennial trend, and >>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis. >>>> >>>> I now need to substantially revamp the >>>> manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that >>>> I get it right this time and hope that you will >>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help >>>> guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis. >>>> I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data >>>> on your website, but would much prefer to have >>>> your involvement before using the data. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an >>>> issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is >>>> currently pending and would benefit greatly if >>>> this paper were accepted for publication. >>>> >>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I >>>> realize needs substantial revisions, and let me >>>> know if you have time and interest in getting involved. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Darrell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Darrell S. Kaufman >>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences >>>> Northern Arizona University >>>> 928-523-7192 >>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ >>> >>> -- >>> 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/ > 2313. 2009-03-06 11:59:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:59:30 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: 2k Arctic synthesis to: "K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk" Great. I'll play with both the composite series and the three individuals. I was hoping to get some spatially distributed information, so might include all three. I will also subdivide by proxy time and use PCA to examine spatial patterns. I'll take a stab at revising the text to include a few sentences about how we chose the tree-ring series. Then maybe you can take a look on Monday. Have a good weekend. Darrell On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:54 AM, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Darell > the short answer is yes - you need to give the appropriate weight > to the > Eurasian aggregate series though ie this one series should count as > 3 in > an average of all high -latitude (e.g. compared to Rosanne D'Arrigo > west > N. American series) unless you use the 3 separate > series(Fennoscania,Yamal, Taimyr) individually. I would use my single > average series as is though. While you are doing this work , I > suggest you > also produce separate proxy type series (ice, lakes, trees) - for > explicit > comparison and perhaps separate half-hemisphere (US side and Eurasian > side) though not sure if Greenland ice should go in either. Cheers > Keith > > > > > directlty> Keith: >> Thanks for the update. I'd like to revise the composite proxy record >> over the weekend (my only spare time). Can I assume that I need to >> omit the three tree-ring series that I took from Mann et al. (2008) >> because they were not processed to retain the low frequency signal, >> and that I should replace the Euraisan series with the three from >> your recent Phil Trans paper (using the data on your website)? >> >> If you agree, I can work on revising all of the calculations and >> figures and we can modify the text early next week. >> >> Would that work? >> Darrell >> >> >> On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: >> >>> Darrell >>> REALLY sorry - have not done this yet - had back >>> to back meetings for 2 days and am due to leave >>> now for the weekend - couple of days away from >>> computer - my comments are nothing earth >>> shattering or voluminous but I would still like >>> to make them for your consideration. I will try >>> to do this on Monday now - if too late - just ignore me . Sorry >>> again >>> Keith >>> >>> thanks for your consideration >>> cheers >>> Keith >>> >>> At 15:01 03/03/2009, you wrote: >>>> Keith: >>>> I appreciate your willingness to squeeze this in on such short >>>> notice. If you could get your comments to me by the end of the >>>> week, >>>> that would be more than I had hoped for. Thank you. Darrell >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: >>>> >>>>> Darrell >>>>> I would like to make some comments but the >>>>> earliest I can get to this is Thursday (we have >>>>> visitors here all day tomorrow. In short I would >>>>> like to be involved - but I would rather wait and >>>>> see the basis of your reaction to my initial >>>>> thoughts when I get a Tracked changes version >>>>> back to you. You are correct that there are >>>>> clear limitations in the preservation of trend >>>>> over two millennia in SOME of the data Mann et al >>>>> used - and in the current series you cite for >>>>> Yamal (Hantemirov et al) . I do believe that the >>>>> composite series in our Phil Trans paper is a >>>>> convenient representation of the circum-western >>>>> Eurasian Arctic tree-line data - though the Grudd >>>>> and Nauzbaev papers are virtually similar to our >>>>> data for their areas. However I have a few >>>>> reservations/comments on other aspects of the >>>>> manuscript that I believe any likely referee >>>>> might pick up on . Is it ok to wait til Thursday >>>>> or will this not be acceptable for getting >>>>> comments back? I know how these time lines are crucial. Best >>>>> wishes >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> At 14:15 02/03/2009, you wrote: >>>>>> Hello Keith: >>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's >>>>>> clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along >>>>>> on a >>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature >>>>>> records >>>>>> from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new >>>>>> compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group >>>>>> recently >>>>>> published in J Paleolimnology. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not >>>>>> have >>>>>> used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't >>>>>> see >>>>>> your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can >>>>>> tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are >>>>>> your >>>>>> three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska >>>>>> record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al. >>>>>> were >>>>>> processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and >>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis. >>>>>> >>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I >>>>>> want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you >>>>>> will >>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring >>>>>> component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil >>>>>> Trans >>>>>> data on your website, but would much prefer to have your >>>>>> involvement >>>>>> before using the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am >>>>>> leading a >>>>>> 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit >>>>>> greatly if >>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs >>>>>> substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and >>>>>> interest >>>>>> in getting involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Darrell >>>>>>  >>>>>> >>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman >>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences >>>>>> Northern Arizona University >>>>>> 928-523-7192 >>>>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Keith: >>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and >>>>>> Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have >>>>>> come to you sooner. I am now well along on a >>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy >>>>>> temperature records from the Arctic (attached). >>>>>> The impetus for the paper is the new compilation >>>>>> of high-resolution lake records that my group >>>>>> recently published in J Paleolimnology. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that >>>>>> I should not have used the series from the Mann >>>>>> et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008 >>>>>> Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as >>>>>> I can tell, the only records that meet the >>>>>> criteria for this study are your three new RCS >>>>>> series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of >>>>>> Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's >>>>>> series in Mann et al. were processed in a way >>>>>> that would preserve the millennial trend, and >>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis. >>>>>> >>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the >>>>>> manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that >>>>>> I get it right this time and hope that you will >>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help >>>>>> guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis. >>>>>> I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data >>>>>> on your website, but would much prefer to have >>>>>> your involvement before using the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an >>>>>> issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is >>>>>> currently pending and would benefit greatly if >>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I >>>>>> realize needs substantial revisions, and let me >>>>>> know if you have time and interest in getting involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Darrell >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman >>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences >>>>>> Northern Arizona University >>>>>> 928-523-7192 >>>>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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/ >>> >> >> > > 1517. 2009-03-06 16:18:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bernie, Dan (DECC - CESA)" date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:18:33 -0000 from: "Prout, Matt (DECC - CESA)" subject: Nomination to attend scoping meeting of the IPCC Fifth Assessment to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear Colleague, I am writing on behalf of the UK's focal point for the IPCC, David Warrilow, at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The IPCC are holding a scoping meeting for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which will take place in Venice, Italy from 13 to 17 July 2009. DECC are initially asking the lead authors and review editors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to be nominated for the scoping meeting. Therefore I am writing to ask whether you would be willing for us to nominate you to participate in this meeting. If you are happy for us to nominate you, we would be grateful if you would complete the attached nomination form and return it to me and my colleague Dan Bernie (cc'd in on this e-mail) before 12 pm on Friday 20^th March 2009 so that we can collate the forms and send them to the IPCC before the deadline. In addition, we would also welcome your recommendation of any other individuals that you feel should be nominated. If you would like to make any such recommendations please pass their details, including their areas of expertise, on to us and we will contact them directly. The IPCC Chair in consultation with the IPCC Vice-Chairs and the Co-Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups will select the final participants for the scoping meeting, so though there is no guarantee that any particular individual will be invited to attend, we would greatly appreciate your agreement to be nominated as a participant. DECC will have some limited funds available to support attendance at this important meeting and we will pass on details to those invited to attend in due course. We look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes Matt Prout <> International Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation | Department of Energy and Climate Change | 3E Ergon House | London SW1P 2AL | Tel: 020 7238 5060 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Nomination Form for the IPCC AR5 (DECC).doc" 3518. 2009-03-06 17:48:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:48:54 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: FW: Continuation for May2009-April2010 to: "Phil Jones" Fyi -----Original Message----- From: Laing, Kim Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:01 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: Continuation for May2009-April2010 Yes, the PR was prepared in January, but due to the rolling out of STRIPES, it is being held upstairs. It should go out in early April. -----Original Message----- From: Bamzai, Anjuli Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:19 PM To: Laing, Kim Subject: FW: Continuation for May2009-April2010 Kim, Was the letter about Year 3 sent to Phil Jones/Univ East Anglia. I believe I recommended back in Jan. He doesn't seem to have got the letter yet. Should we resend? Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:47 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Continuation for May2009-April2010 > Anjuli, I was wondering when the letter might come about the continuation? I'll be writing a new proposal for a further 3 years during the summer. See you in Bethesda - have just booked everything. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 4518. 2009-03-08 09:34:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:34:58 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: latest version to: "K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Briffa" Hi Keith: I finished revising the synthesis by omitting the three tree-ring series from the Mann et al. (2008) compilation. I also replaced the three Eurasian series with the new regionalized curves from your recent RCS study. The trends hold up. The overall, monotonic cooling is a bit weaker (0.2 C/ka), but the 20th century warming is much larger. I'm waiting for Dave (NCAR Postdoc) to complete the PCA (values highlighted in yellow will change), then I am aiming to submit it early in the coming week. Do you think it would be wise to include a note in the Online Support Materials on RCS and why it's appropriate for this synthesis of long- term proxy records? Thanks, Darrell   Hi Keith: I finished revising the synthesis by omitting the three tree-ring series from the Mann et al. (2008) compilation. I also replaced the three Eurasian series with the new regionalized curves from your recent RCS study. The trends hold up. The overall, monotonic cooling is a bit weaker (0.2 C/ka), but the 20th century warming is much larger. I'm waiting for Dave (NCAR Postdoc) to complete the PCA (values highlighted in yellow will change), then I am aiming to submit it early in the coming week. Do you think it would be wise to include a note in the Online Support Materials on RCS and why it's appropriate for this synthesis of long-term proxy records? Thanks, Darrell Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2k synthesis v6.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2k synthesis v6 figs.pdf" 57. 2009-03-09 09:49:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "rbradley@geo.umass.edu" date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:49:14 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: citations and comments on draft to: Keith Briffa Keith: Thank you for your insights. I think I can deal with nearly all of your suggestions. You picked up on the plug for proxies from lakes at high latitudes. I'll try to tone that down, but do want to retain the message. I'll see whether our NCAR co-authors can address your suggestion about using an energy balance model to relate Milankovitch forcing to temperature. That will take some time, but I'd rather submit a manuscript with a high probability of success than to have to go back to the drawing board. Most importantly: You commented about the significance of the regression used to scale the proxy values to temperature. This is the weakest point of the paper, in my view. Because the focus is on the 20-year intervals, we only have 5 points for the regression, which is a serious limitation, and I doubt would hold up to statistical scrutiny. On the other hand, I am confident that the proxy values do correlate with temperature and the correlation is significant at even the annual scale (see Fig 2), and here I mean 'significant' even after accounting for autocorrelation effects on the df. Would it be valid to present the statistics for the annual correlation, then use this to support the scaling for the 20-year means, even though the n (= 5) for the 20-year means is too small to derive statistical significance? Or can you see another way around this issue? It's important to scale the proxy data to temperature, and I believe that our data can support this, I'm just not sure how best to make the case. I'll append the values for the five, 20-year intervals that I used to calculate the scaling in case you have some ideas to try. Also, could you please forward a pdf of your 1990 Nature paper? Our electronic subscription picks up at 2000 and I wanted to follow up on your suggestion that we place some probabilistic estimate on the significance of the recent warming. Thanks again; the paper will be much stronger with your input. Darrell JJA(C) Proxy 0.26 1.66 -0.05 1.35 0.09 1.54 0.11 1.32 -0.31 0.29 On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Darell perhaps a short piece in the Supp. Inf. could give a little more detail on RCS , cite the original refs and show a Figure? but CAN NOT do for now , so let's go with it as is to make your deadline. This could be done later if referees say so. Attached is a tracked version with my comments (forwarded only to Ray also for hard-nosed comment!). Cheers Keith At 16:54 08/03/2009, you wrote: Also: Would it be important to cite the original sources for the tree-ring data, or do you think citing your new compilation would suffice? thanks. Darrell -- 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/ <2k synthesis v6-KRB.doc> 1764. 2009-03-09 10:19:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Mar 9 10:19:10 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Leadership, Innovation and Collaboration (Annual Report) to: Simon Clegg Simon, Paper was in Nature (Geosciences). Gillett, N.P., Stone, D.A., Stott, P.A., Nozawa, T., Karpechko, A.Y., Hegerl, G.C., Wehner, M.F. and Jones, P.D., 2008: Attribution of polar warming to human influence. Nature (Geosciences), doi:10.1038/ngeo338. Here's some text on it. In Gillett et al. (2008), we find that observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with natural climate variability, but instead are directly attributable to human influence on the climate system as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The results show that these human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level. As for DAARWG, here's a paragraph. Phil Jones is a member of NOAA's Data Access and Archiving Working Group (DAARWG), which reports to the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) of NOAA. The aims of DAARWG are to provide the SAB with guidance on how best to archive the increasing amounts of observational and climate model data that NOAA is obliged to keep by Federal Laws. The group has advised on the development of guidelines to decide which datasets need to be archived and also addressed issues of access. DAARWG oversees all three of NOAA's principal Data Centres as well as the 30+ centres of data that NOAA runs. Cheers Phil At 15:59 06/03/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, I'll certainly mention the nature paper. Please send me a couple of paragraphs - or even just one paragraph - summarising the impact that DAARWG has on NOAA action/policy. I can use that as an example of one of the School's "other" forms of output and influence. Thanks, Simon. ************************************** Simon L. Clegg, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. email: s.clegg@uea.ac.uk phone: (0)1603 593185 fax: (0)1603 591327 Skype: slclegg (with video) SkypeIn: 919-975-4901 (USA) Professor Clegg is also a member of the Air Quality Research Centre at the University of California at Davis. ************************************** On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Phil Jones wrote: Simon, A few other things - apart from the AGU Fellowship. We have just had a CRU Board meeting and discussed if we had one major CRU output. 1. We had a paper in Nature Geosciences (attached). Do you want me to ask Alexei Karpechko to put this together for a brief piece? If so, how many words and diagrams? 2. We would have highlighted the new set of UK Climate Scenarios (UKCP09), but they will not be out for several months. They should be a must for 2 years time! 3. I'm on a NOAA Working Group called 'Data Access and Archiving Working Group' or DAARWG for short. This reports to the NOAA Scientific Advisory Board. I've attached its latest recommendations. There is a strong likelihood they will get acted upon now NOAA has a National Climate Service. 4. I've just rotated off the Hadley Centre Science Review Committee. Cheers Phil At 00:41 05/03/2009, you wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you to those who responded to our previous request for the Annual Report, including the printed document that was put in pigeonholes last week. Those of you who filled in and returned it (it covered all sections we need information for) can ignore this email. This is our request for contribution/suggestions for items that demonstrate the School's "Leadership, Innovation and Collaboration". I've listed the few items below which I'm aware of. Other activities that would count are coordination of major multi-partner research projects, and links to other universities (exchanges of staff/students, joint courses for example). We'd like to hear about these and other things that might qualify, and are worth publicising. Examples: -------- Peter Liss, Chair of the ERC's Earth System Science Committee Mike Hulme appointed editor in Chief of "Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change" UEA/CEFAS parnership ENV involvement in the MRC Centre of Excellence at the Epidemiology Unit in Cambridge (physical activity, diet, and obesity). ENV involvement ELSA (Earth and Life Systems Alliance) Global Environmental Change moves close to the top of "premier league journal tables" Please enter your suggestions below, and reply to Simon Clegg. Description of item for this section: ------------------------------------ Are pictures available? ---------------------- Thank you, Simon Clegg Steve Dorling Carrie White Dawn Turnbull Rosie Cullington ************************************** Simon L. Clegg, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. email: s.clegg@uea.ac.uk phone: (0)1603 593185 fax: (0)1603 591327 Skype: slclegg (with video) SkypeIn: 919-975-4901 (USA) Professor Clegg is also a member of the Air Quality Research Centre at the University of California at Davis. ************************************** _______________________________________________ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5188. 2009-03-09 16:39:21 ______________________________________________________ date: 9 Mar 2009 16:39:21 +0000 from: "J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys." subject: ATP1392R1, Invitation to review to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Jones, The manuscript Solar radiation, sea surface temperature and global warming by Prof. Antonino Palumbo has been submitted (or re-submitted) for publication, and given your knowledge of this subject I feel I would like to request your review (see below a copy of the abstract). I would be grateful if you could let me know via our website if you would be willing to meet this request. As a reviewer you are entitled to access references, abstracts, and full-text articles in Scopus and ScienceDirect for 30 days. Full instruction details will be provided upon accepting this invitation to review. To view our invitation, please visit the website at http://ees.elsevier.com/atp/ and log onto the system as a Reviewer. Your username is: PJones-376 If you can't remember your password please click the "send password" link on the login page. Accepting the request will allow the entire manuscript to appear under the Pending Assignments menu on your Main Menu page. You will then be able to download the manuscript as well as submit your review. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this review request. Regards, Meta Ottevanger, on behalf of John M.C. Plane, Editor Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics PS: When entering the journal site, please have a look in 'change details' to check and, if necessary, complete or update your personal data. .......................................................... Solar radiation, sea surface temperature and global warming Abstract: Solar Radiation income (R) increases Sea Surface Temperature (SST), that in turn decreases the solubility of the greenhouse gases and increases the Evaporation (E), responsible respectively of the increase of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and water vapour (WV) both increasing the global air Temperature (T). This paper shows that the variations of SST, related to R, explain all the examined past cycles of T and that the mankind activity contributes to the recent global warming by much less than 15%. For revised manuscripts: If applicable, your earlier blind comments to the author of this manuscript: If applicable, your earlier comments to the editor (review form): For more information about Scopus and ScienceDirect, please visit www.info.scopus.com/ees/ 4240. 2009-03-09 17:03:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Matthews J.A." , David Frank date: Mon Mar 9 17:03:57 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of to: Eugene Wahl Eugene and Dave sorry not to get back to you before (but this was my really heavy teaching period - now running down). In fact generally what you intend is fine though perhaps with a bit more focus on philosophy rather than mechanics. Let me try to explain - First let me say that the I agree with John about not using the Appendix route. So your plan as outlined as 3 sections is ok. The brief illusion to specific proxies and cross-referencing is the way to go but "good" examples of various types is very acceptable. Let me say though that we do not need too much "standard" stuff on trees that can be found elsewhere - just appropriate focus on issues and signposts to literature - but rather a discussion of concepts that show potential and current difficulties of high-resolution data (including specifically intra-annual as well as inter-annual) as distinct from other types of (less-resolved) proxies. Major stress on the ubiquitous use of empirical interpretation of climate controls of proxies (and inferred assumption of the stability of uniformitarianism underlying these regression approaches) would is important (as is lack of true process understanding to date in many studies - or at least demonstrable evidence in consistency of such with regression-based results in existing studies). Also we need discussion of how current methods emphasise climate variability, potentially loosing or attenuating evidence of (multi-century) climate change. Yes you could discuss how the precision enables hypothesis testing about very -short time scale forcings and responses and the definition of precisely delineated patterns of reconstructed change in space also - because of the facility to average accurately , while less resolved data , calibrated with spatial regression - possibly over state the latter evidence or at least produce reconstructions with such wide confidence bands that they effectively tell us nothing useful about medium time scales of change , say centuries. However, this begs the question of the Hockey-Stick debate (the Von Storch , Burger stuff) and the limited basis (in terms of proxies and coverage) that it provides (because of the need to respect resolution and climate sensitivity issues). Don't be afraid to attack this issue head on. I like your section 3 by the sound of it . In practise, it will be hard to judge the appropriate level of detail needed for specific proxy types - so think in concepts with examples rather than the rigid proxy type approach (such as was used in our recent Holocene review) - and if in doubt , do less now and leave it to the authors to juggle the balance between chapters later. Your focus though on the dendro will , however , be in this chapter only. Basically , what you are doing is fine , but think what you believe limits our understanding of current proxies and what we need to do and remember that the future ideals are what you are trying to identify and , so facilitate. I know this sounds a lot like what we tried to do in that review paper - and perhaps it is - but it gives you the chance to put your stamp on the debate. Good luck and thanks for taking this on Keith At 17:02 06/03/2009, Eugene Wahl wrote: OK, I will await guidance from you on settling this question. Inclusion of the material on dendro methods in the main text would take us back to the original 3 main sections, just with section 2 on Methods focused largely on dendro -- with the various other high-resolution methods briefly mentioned and then referenced to the other relevant chapters on them for more detail. This structure is fine with me. By the way, please include David Frank, my co-author, on this correspondence as it develops. Thanks very much. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch Keith Briffa wrote: Have been very busy with teaching will send comments next week Keith At 10:04 06/03/2009, Matthews J.A. wrote: Dear Eugene OK, but I would prefer the `tree-ring proxy' material to be integrated into the chapter (rather than an add-on appendix). Perhaps this could be achieved by describing section 2 as a case study of the most important proxy. I am very disappointed th\at Keith Briffa has failed to send me any editorial comments on any chapter - I know he expressed particular interest in your chapter (perhaps this will prompt some comments). John 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[1]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Eugene Wahl [[2]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov] Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 1:09 AM To: Matthews J.A.; David Frank Subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of Environmental change) Hello Dr. Matthews: I have looked over the outline of the chapter I am co-authoring with David Frank (c. 15), and note that the one editor's comment suggests a significant abbreviating of the description of proxy methods that is set forth in section 2 of the outline. I think this is a valuable suggestion, and based on it, I want to suggest that David and I implement it with one important change. The change would be this: we would mention the various methods in an introduction and reference the other relevant chapters on them for more detail, with the exception of dendrochronological data, which we would describe in some detail in a "Tree-Ring Proxy Methods" section that would act as a kind of appendix to the chapter. Please let us know what you think of this alteration. The outline as set forth in sections 1 and 3 would otherwise remain unchanged, except that the former "section 3" would now constitute the actual section 2 -- with what had been the second section before becoming the ending methods section described above. 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 <[3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html>[4]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.ht ml Matthews J.A. wrote: Dear All Now find attached one more set of Editors' comments (Anne de Vernal) added to the Chapter Outlines file. Note also that we now have a confirmed author for Chapter 42 (Andy Morse). So all we have to do now is write the chapters! Enjoy!! John 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[5]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk Dear Authors The attachment `Chapter outlines' now contains some comments from four of the editors of the Handbook, which will hopefully be of some use to you as you write your chapters. Please note that it is now only a month to the deadline for writing the first complete draft of your chapters! I am still awaiting the comments of three of my editors - but please do not delay. Also attached are the full list of `Chapters and authors', which includes authors' contact details. Please contact authors of other chapters if you need to discuss unresolved questions about coverage and overlap. (I am still happy to discuss these aspects too.) I look forward to receiving your chapters by the end of March according to the timetable included in the third attachment - `Notes for Contributors'. With thanks to Mike Walker and Patrick Nunn whose chapters have already arrived! Best wishes and good luck with the writing!! John 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[6]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Matthews J.A. Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 7:05 PM To: Matthews J.A.; <[7]mailto:stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk>stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk; <[8]mailto:k.alverson@unesco.org>k.alverson@unesco.org; <[9]mailto:A.F.Lotter@uu.nl>A.F.Lotter@uu.nl; <[10]mailto:walker@lamp.ac.uk>walker@lamp.ac.uk; <[11]mailto:J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk>J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk; <[12]mailto:j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk>j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk; <[13]mailto:yackel@ucalgary.ca>yackel@ucalgary.ca; <[14]mailto:alisonjs@kent.edu>alisonjs@kent.edu; <[15]mailto:mason@geography.wisc.edu>mason@geography.wisc.edu; <[16]mailto:mandel@kgs.ku.edu>mandel@kgs.ku.edu; <[17]mailto:MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu>MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu; <[18]mailto:Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk>Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk; <[19]mailto:betty@psi.edu>betty@psi.edu; <[20]mailto:berger@astr.ucl.ac.be>berger@astr.ucl.ac.be; <[21]mailto:Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se>Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se; <[22]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[23]mailto:jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk>jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk; <[24]mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk>richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; Los S.O.; <[25]mailto:iain.gordon@csiro.au>iain.gordon@csiro.au; <[26]mailto:Chris.Margules@csiro.au>Chris.Margules@csiro.au; <[27]mailto:zippy@itm.su.se>zippy@itm.su.se; <[28]mailto:mbush@fit.edu>mbush@fit.edu; <[29]mailto:xpyang@263.net.cn>xpyang@263.net.cn; <[30]mailto:xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn>xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn; <[31]mailto:mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz>mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz; <[32]mailto:matthews@gsi.gov.il>matthews@gsi.gov.il; <[33]mailto:ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de>ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de; <[34]mailto:marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca>marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca; <[35]mailto:Martin.Beniston@unige.ch>Martin.Beniston@unige.ch; <[36]mailto:nunn_p@usp.ac.fj>nunn_p@usp.ac.fj; <[37]mailto:PearsallD@missouri.edu>PearsallD@missouri.edu; <[38]mailto:georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk>georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk; Barrow C.J.; <[39]mailto:ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk>ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk; <[40]mailto:shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca>shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca; <[41]mailto:chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au>chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au; <[42]mailto:Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk>Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk; <[43]mailto:dnelson@uga.edu>dnelson@uga.edu; <[44]mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl>w.hoek@geo.uu.nl; <[45]mailto:Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au>Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au; <[46]mailto:john.birks@bio.uib.no>john.birks@bio.uib.no; <[47]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; <[48]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch>david.frank@wsl.ch; <[49]mailto:jmelosh@Ipl.arizona>jmelosh@Ipl.arizona; <[50]mailto:efischer@ucar.edu>efischer@ucar.edu; <[51]mailto:mathias@atmos.albany.edu>mathias@atmos.albany.edu; <[52]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[53]mailto:p.gell@ballarat.edu.au>p.gell@ballarat.edu.au; <[54]mailto:benjamindaley@hotmail.com>benjamindaley@hotmail.com; <[55]mailto:pstahl@binghamton.edu>pstahl@binghamton.edu; <[56]mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.cat>rainer.zahn@uab.cat; <[57]mailto:h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk>h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk; <[58]mailto:n.rose@ucl.ac.uk>n.rose@ucl.ac.uk; <[59]mailto:reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch>reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch; <[60]mailto:siwan.davies@abertawe.ac.uk>siwan.davies@abertawe.ac.uk Cc: <[61]mailto:bartlein@uoregon.edu>bartlein@uoregon.edu; <[62]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; <[63]mailto:a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk>a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk; <[64]mailto:Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au>Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au; <[65]mailto:oldfield.f@gmail.com>oldfield.f@gmail.com; <[66]mailto:devernal.anne@uqam.ca>devernal.anne@uqam.ca; <[67]mailto:sfritz2@unl.edu>sfritz2@unl.edu Subject: RE: Outline for chapter 20 now added (Handbook of Environmental change) Outline for Chapter 20 from Siwan Davies now added to the attached. Only one more chapter to go - 'Human health and environmental change', for which we still need a confirmed author! 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[68]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Matthews J.A. Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 4:37 PM To: Matthews J.A.; <[69]mailto:stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk>stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk; <[70]mailto:k.alverson@unesco.org>k.alverson@unesco.org; <[71]mailto:A.F.Lotter@uu.nl>A.F.Lotter@uu.nl; <[72]mailto:walker@lamp.ac.uk>walker@lamp.ac.uk; <[73]mailto:J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk>J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk; <[74]mailto:j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk>j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk; <[75]mailto:yackel@ucalgary.ca>yackel@ucalgary.ca; <[76]mailto:alisonjs@kent.edu>alisonjs@kent.edu; <[77]mailto:mason@geography.wisc.edu>mason@geography.wisc.edu; <[78]mailto:mandel@kgs.ku.edu>mandel@kgs.ku.edu; <[79]mailto:MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu>MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu; <[80]mailto:Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk>Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk; <[81]mailto:betty@psi.edu>betty@psi.edu; <[82]mailto:berger@astr.ucl.ac.be>berger@astr.ucl.ac.be; <[83]mailto:Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se>Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se; <[84]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[85]mailto:jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk>jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk; <[86]mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk>richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; Los S.O.; <[87]mailto:iain.gordon@csiro.au>iain.gordon@csiro.au; <[88]mailto:Chris.Margules@csiro.au>Chris.Margules@csiro.au; <[89]mailto:zippy@itm.su.se>zippy@itm.su.se; <[90]mailto:mbush@fit.edu>mbush@fit.edu; <[91]mailto:xpyang@263.net.cn>xpyang@263.net.cn; <[92]mailto:xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn>xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn; <[93]mailto:mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz>mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz; <[94]mailto:matthews@gsi.gov.il>matthews@gsi.gov.il; <[95]mailto:ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de>ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de; <[96]mailto:marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca>marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca; <[97]mailto:Martin.Beniston@unige.ch>Martin.Beniston@unige.ch; <[98]mailto:nunn_p@usp.ac.fj>nunn_p@usp.ac.fj; <[99]mailto:PearsallD@missouri.edu>PearsallD@missouri.edu; <[100]mailto:georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk>georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk; Barrow C.J.; <[101]mailto:ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk>ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk; <[102]mailto:shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca>shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca; <[103]mailto:chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au>chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au; <[104]mailto:Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk>Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk; <[105]mailto:dnelson@uga.edu>dnelson@uga.edu; <[106]mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl>w.hoek@geo.uu.nl; <[107]mailto:Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au>Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au; <[108]mailto:john.birks@bio.uib.no>john.birks@bio.uib.no; <[109]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; <[110]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch>david.frank@wsl.ch; <[111]mailto:jmelosh@Ipl.arizona>jmelosh@Ipl.arizona; Davies Siwan.; <[112]mailto:efischer@ucar.edu>efischer@ucar.edu; <[113]mailto:mathias@atmos.albany.edu>mathias@atmos.albany.edu; <[114]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[115]mailto:p.gell@ballarat.edu.au>p.gell@ballarat.edu.au; <[116]mailto:benjamindaley@hotmail.com>benjamindaley@hotmail.com; <[117]mailto:pstahl@binghamton.edu>pstahl@binghamton.edu; <[118]mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.cat>rainer.zahn@uab.cat; <[119]mailto:h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk>h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk; <[120]mailto:n.rose@ucl.ac.uk>n.rose@ucl.ac.uk; <[121]mailto:reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch>reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch Cc: <[122]mailto:bartlein@uoregon.edu>bartlein@uoregon.edu; <[123]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; <[124]mailto:a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk>a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk; <[125]mailto:Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au>Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au; <[126]mailto:oldfield.f@gmail.com>oldfield.f@gmail.com; <[127]mailto:devernal.anne@uqam.ca>devernal.anne@uqam.ca; <[128]mailto:sfritz2@unl.edu>sfritz2@unl.edu Subject: RE: Outline for chapter 6 now added (Handbook of Environmental change) Outline for Chapter 6 (Modelling by Reto Knutti) now added 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[129]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Matthews J.A. Sent: Fri 2/6/2009 4:41 PM To: Matthews J.A.; <[130]mailto:stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk>stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk; <[131]mailto:k.alverson@unesco.org>k.alverson@unesco.org; <[132]mailto:A.F.Lotter@uu.nl>A.F.Lotter@uu.nl; <[133]mailto:walker@lamp.ac.uk>walker@lamp.ac.uk; <[134]mailto:J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk>J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk; <[135]mailto:j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk>j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk; <[136]mailto:yackel@ucalgary.ca>yackel@ucalgary.ca; <[137]mailto:alisonjs@kent.edu>alisonjs@kent.edu; <[138]mailto:mason@geography.wisc.edu>mason@geography.wisc.edu; <[139]mailto:mandel@kgs.ku.edu>mandel@kgs.ku.edu; <[140]mailto:MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu>MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu; <[141]mailto:Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk>Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk; <[142]mailto:betty@psi.edu>betty@psi.edu; <[143]mailto:berger@astr.ucl.ac.be>berger@astr.ucl.ac.be; <[144]mailto:Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se>Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se; <[145]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[146]mailto:jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk>jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk; <[147]mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk>richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; Los S.O.; <[148]mailto:iain.gordon@csiro.au>iain.gordon@csiro.au; <[149]mailto:Chris.Margules@csiro.au>Chris.Margules@csiro.au; <[150]mailto:zippy@itm.su.se>zippy@itm.su.se; <[151]mailto:mbush@fit.edu>mbush@fit.edu; <[152]mailto:xpyang@263.net.cn>xpyang@263.net.cn; <[153]mailto:xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn>xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn; <[154]mailto:mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz>mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz; <[155]mailto:matthews@gsi.gov.il>matthews@gsi.gov.il; <[156]mailto:ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de>ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de; <[157]mailto:marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca>marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca; <[158]mailto:Martin.Beniston@unige.ch>Martin.Beniston@unige.ch; <[159]mailto:nunn_p@usp.ac.fj>nunn_p@usp.ac.fj; <[160]mailto:PearsallD@missouri.edu>PearsallD@missouri.edu; <[161]mailto:georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk>georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk; Barrow C.J.; <[162]mailto:ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk>ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk; <[163]mailto:shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca>shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca; <[164]mailto:chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au>chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au; <[165]mailto:Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk>Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk; <[166]mailto:dnelson@uga.edu>dnelson@uga.edu; <[167]mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl>w.hoek@geo.uu.nl; <[168]mailto:Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au>Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au; <[169]mailto:john.birks@bio.uib.no>john.birks@bio.uib.no; <[170]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; <[171]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch>david.frank@wsl.ch; <[172]mailto:jmelosh@Ipl.arizona>jmelosh@Ipl.arizona; Davies Siwan.; <[173]mailto:efischer@ucar.edu>efischer@ucar.edu; <[174]mailto:mathias@atmos.albany.edu>mathias@atmos.albany.edu; <[175]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[176]mailto:p.gell@ballarat.edu.au>p.gell@ballarat.edu.au; <[177]mailto:benjamindaley@hotmail.com>benjamindaley@hotmail.com; <[178]mailto:pstahl@binghamton.edu>pstahl@binghamton.edu; <[179]mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.cat>rainer.zahn@uab.cat; <[180]mailto:h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk>h.bennion@ucl.ac.uk; <[181]mailto:n.rose@ucl.ac.uk>n.rose@ucl.ac.uk; <[182]mailto:reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch>reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch Cc: <[183]mailto:bartlein@uoregon.edu>bartlein@uoregon.edu; <[184]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; <[185]mailto:a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk>a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk; <[186]mailto:Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au>Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au; <[187]mailto:oldfield.f@gmail.com>oldfield.f@gmail.com; <[188]mailto:devernal.anne@uqam.ca>devernal.anne@uqam.ca; <[189]mailto:sfritz2@unl.edu>sfritz2@unl.edu Subject: RE: Outline for chapter 11 now added (Handbook of Environmental change) All: Please note the outline of Chapter 11 (palaeohydrology) has now been added to the attached list. Editors: Can I remind my Editors that the deadline for your comments on the outlines is in one week! Also, we now have an author for Chapter 6 (modelling). Best wishes John 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[190]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Matthews J.A. Sent: Tue 1/27/2009 12:26 PM To: Matthews J.A.; <[191]mailto:stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk>stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk; <[192]mailto:k.alverson@unesco.org>k.alverson@unesco.org; <[193]mailto:A.F.Lotter@uu.nl>A.F.Lotter@uu.nl; <[194]mailto:walker@lamp.ac.uk>walker@lamp.ac.uk; <[195]mailto:J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk>J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk; <[196]mailto:j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk>j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk; <[197]mailto:yackel@ucalgary.ca>yackel@ucalgary.ca; <[198]mailto:alisonjs@kent.edu>alisonjs@kent.edu; <[199]mailto:mason@geography.wisc.edu>mason@geography.wisc.edu; <[200]mailto:mandel@kgs.ku.edu>mandel@kgs.ku.edu; <[201]mailto:MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu>MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu; <[202]mailto:Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk>Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk; <[203]mailto:betty@psi.edu>betty@psi.edu; <[204]mailto:berger@astr.ucl.ac.be>berger@astr.ucl.ac.be; <[205]mailto:Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se>Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se; <[206]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[207]mailto:jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk>jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk; <[208]mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk>richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; Los S.O.; <[209]mailto:iain.gordon@csiro.au>iain.gordon@csiro.au; <[210]mailto:Chris.Margules@csiro.au>Chris.Margules@csiro.au; <[211]mailto:zippy@itm.su.se>zippy@itm.su.se; <[212]mailto:mbush@fit.edu>mbush@fit.edu; <[213]mailto:xpyang@263.net.cn>xpyang@263.net.cn; <[214]mailto:xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn>xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn; <[215]mailto:mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz>mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz; <[216]mailto:matthews@gsi.gov.il>matthews@gsi.gov.il; <[217]mailto:ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de>ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de; <[218]mailto:marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca>marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca; <[219]mailto:Martin.Beniston@unige.ch>Martin.Beniston@unige.ch; <[220]mailto:nunn_p@usp.ac.fj>nunn_p@usp.ac.fj; <[221]mailto:PearsallD@missouri.edu>PearsallD@missouri.edu; <[222]mailto:georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk>georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk; Barrow C.J.; <[223]mailto:ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk>ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk; <[224]mailto:shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca>shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca; <[225]mailto:chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au>chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au; <[226]mailto:Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk>Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk; <[227]mailto:dnelson@uga.edu>dnelson@uga.edu; <[228]mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl>w.hoek@geo.uu.nl; <[229]mailto:Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au>Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au; <[230]mailto:john.birks@bio.uib.no>john.birks@bio.uib.no; <[231]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; <[232]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch>david.frank@wsl.ch; <[233]mailto:jmelosh@Ipl.arizona>jmelosh@Ipl.arizona; Davies Siwan.; <[234]mailto:efischer@ucar.edu>efischer@ucar.edu; <[235]mailto:mathias@atmos.albany.edu>mathias@atmos.albany.edu; <[236]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[237]mailto:p.gell@ballarat.edu.au>p.gell@ballarat.edu.au; <[238]mailto:benjamindaley@hotmail.com>benjamindaley@hotmail.com; <[239]mailto:pstahl@binghamton.edu>pstahl@binghamton.edu; <[240]mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.cat>rainer.zahn@uab.cat Cc: <[241]mailto:bartlein@uoregon.edu>bartlein@uoregon.edu; <[242]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; <[243]mailto:a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk>a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk; <[244]mailto:Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au>Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au; <[245]mailto:oldfield.f@gmail.com>oldfield.f@gmail.com; <[246]mailto:devernal.anne@uqam.ca>devernal.anne@uqam.ca; <[247]mailto:sfritz2@unl.edu>sfritz2@unl.edu Subject: Outline for chapter 23 now added (Handbook of Environmental change) One additional outline now available (Chapter 23 - Biochemical cycling) 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: <[248]mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Matthews J.A. Sent: Mon 1/26/2009 9:50 AM To: Matthews J.A.; <[249]mailto:stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk>stephan.Harrison@exeter.ac.uk; <[250]mailto:k.alverson@unesco.org>k.alverson@unesco.org; <[251]mailto:A.F.Lotter@uu.nl>A.F.Lotter@uu.nl; <[252]mailto:walker@lamp.ac.uk>walker@lamp.ac.uk; <[253]mailto:J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk>J.Dearing@soton.ac.uk; <[254]mailto:j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk>j.francis@see.leeds.ac.uk; <[255]mailto:yackel@ucalgary.ca>yackel@ucalgary.ca; <[256]mailto:alisonjs@kent.edu>alisonjs@kent.edu; <[257]mailto:mason@geography.wisc.edu>mason@geography.wisc.edu; <[258]mailto:mandel@kgs.ku.edu>mandel@kgs.ku.edu; <[259]mailto:MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu>MockCJ@gwm.sc.edu; <[260]mailto:Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk>Paul.Bishop@ges.gla.ac.uk; <[261]mailto:betty@psi.edu>betty@psi.edu; <[262]mailto:berger@astr.ucl.ac.be>berger@astr.ucl.ac.be; <[263]mailto:Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se>Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se; <[264]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[265]mailto:jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk>jemma.gornall@metoffice.gov.uk; <[266]mailto:richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk>richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; Los S.O.; <[267]mailto:iain.gordon@csiro.au>iain.gordon@csiro.au; <[268]mailto:Chris.Margules@csiro.au>Chris.Margules@csiro.au; <[269]mailto:zippy@itm.su.se>zippy@itm.su.se; <[270]mailto:mbush@fit.edu>mbush@fit.edu; <[271]mailto:xpyang@263.net.cn>xpyang@263.net.cn; <[272]mailto:xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn>xpyang@mail.igcas.ac.cn; <[273]mailto:mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz>mcglonem@landcareresearch.co.nz; <[274]mailto:matthews@gsi.gov.il>matthews@gsi.gov.il; <[275]mailto:ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de>ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de; <[276]mailto:marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca>marianne.douglas@ualberta.ca; <[277]mailto:Martin.Beniston@unige.ch>Martin.Beniston@unige.ch; <[278]mailto:nunn_p@usp.ac.fj>nunn_p@usp.ac.fj; <[279]mailto:PearsallD@missouri.edu>PearsallD@missouri.edu; <[280]mailto:georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk>georgina.endfield@nottingham.ac.uk; Barrow C.J.; <[281]mailto:ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk>ucfabat@ucl.ac.uk; <[282]mailto:shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca>shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca; <[283]mailto:chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au>chris.cocklin@jcu.edu.au; <[284]mailto:Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk>Simon.Blockley@rhul.ac.uk; <[285]mailto:dnelson@uga.edu>dnelson@uga.edu; <[286]mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl>w.hoek@geo.uu.nl; <[287]mailto:Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au>Ian.Goodwin@els.mq.edu.au; <[288]mailto:john.birks@bio.uib.no>john.birks@bio.uib.no; <[289]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; <[290]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch>david.frank@wsl.ch; <[291]mailto:jmelosh@Ipl.arizona>jmelosh@Ipl.arizona; Davies Siwan.; <[292]mailto:efischer@ucar.edu>efischer@ucar.edu; <[293]mailto:mathias@atmos.albany.edu>mathias@atmos.albany.edu; <[294]mailto:tfp@uvic.ca>tfp@uvic.ca; <[295]mailto:p.gell@ballarat.edu.au>p.gell@ballarat.edu.au; <[296]mailto:benjamindaley@hotmail.com>benjamindaley@hotmail.com; <[297]mailto:pstahl@binghamton.edu>pstahl@binghamton.edu Cc: <[298]mailto:bartlein@uoregon.edu>bartlein@uoregon.edu; <[299]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; <[300]mailto:a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk>a.dawson@abdn.ac.uk; <[301]mailto:Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au>Tim.Denham@arts.monash.edu.au; <[302]mailto:oldfield.f@gmail.com>oldfield.f@gmail.com; <[303]mailto:devernal.anne@uqam.ca>devernal.anne@uqam.ca; <[304]mailto:sfritz2@unl.edu>sfritz2@unl.edu; Matthews J.A. Subject: CHAPTER OUTLINES (Handbook of Environmental change) Dear Editors and Contributors 1) The attached `CHAPTER OUTLINES' contains at least the headings and sub-headings proposed by authors for their chapters. Editors should send me their comments/suggestion by February 14th please so that I can send out a co-ordinated response to authors. Strategic comments are required rather than attention to detail at this stage. Authors should use these outlines to consider strategically their chapter contents in light of the other chapters. I still need a couple of outlines from a few authors (you know who you are!). 2) The attached `CHAPTERS AND AUTHORS' has been updated: I am still working on authors for the two chapters outstanding, namely Chapter 6 (modelling approaches) and Chapter 42 (human health). All please note some changes to chapter numbers resulting from an added and merged chapters. 3) The attached `NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS' is unchanged but please note we are trying to keep to the schedule, which involves first drafts of chapters being compled by end of March. Belated New Year greetings to you all! John -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [305]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 [306]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1278. 2009-03-09 17:26:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Mar 9 17:26:51 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: citations and comments on draft to: Darrell Kaufman Darrell am only trying to play devil's advocate. As for the df problem (and I agree it is) , I think some direct reference to it in the text is preferable to letting referee use it as a stick to beat you. Yes, do try higher resolution regression , obviously for the proxies that allow this. To be honest, when I look at Figure 2 , I can see that decadally-smoothed data (or band-passed data) would show some inverse correlation between temp. and proxy average though - so you may be accused of cherry picking your time scale . Nevertheless, the logic of justifying how you are building from local high-resolution association, to regional lower-resolution interpretation should be attempted. We do not expect high-resolution association on Arctic average scale to be strong without very dense coverage of proxies, as is shown by instrumental analyses ( Briffa and Jones , 1993 ) - while at decadal scales coherence is greater (Jones and Briffa , 1996) so we can get away with less records - and presumably even less for long-term trend , provided it is captured in records . I find that I do not have pdfs of the papers I have mentioned - so will need to get them scanned and sent to you . I am not in the office tomorrow but will leave instructions to this effect cheers Keith Briffa, K.R. and Jones, P.D., 1993 Global surface air temperature variations during the twentieth century: Part 2, Implications for large-scale high-frequency palaeoclimatic studies. The Holocene 3, 77-88 Jones, P.D. and Briffa, K.R., 1996 What can the instrumental record tell us about longer timescale paleoclimatic reconstructions? pp.625-644 in: Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last 2000 Years (Eds. P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and J. Jouzel), NATO ASI Series Vol. 141. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. (R) At 16:49 09/03/2009, you wrote: Keith: Thank you for your insights. I think I can deal with nearly all of your suggestions. You picked up on the plug for proxies from lakes at high latitudes. I'll try to tone that down, but do want to retain the message. I'll see whether our NCAR co-authors can address your suggestion about using an energy balance model to relate Milankovitch forcing to temperature. That will take some time, but I'd rather submit a manuscript with a high probability of success than to have to go back to the drawing board. Most importantly: You commented about the significance of the regression used to scale the proxy values to temperature. This is the weakest point of the paper, in my view. Because the focus is on the 20-year intervals, we only have 5 points for the regression, which is a serious limitation, and I doubt would hold up to statistical scrutiny. On the other hand, I am confident that the proxy values do correlate with temperature and the correlation is significant at even the annual scale (see Fig 2), and here I mean 'significant' even after accounting for autocorrelation effects on the df. Would it be valid to present the statistics for the annual correlation, then use this to support the scaling for the 20-year means, even though the n (= 5) for the 20-year means is too small to derive statistical significance? Or can you see another way around this issue? It's important to scale the proxy data to temperature, and I believe that our data can support this, I'm just not sure how best to make the case. I'll append the values for the five, 20-year intervals that I used to calculate the scaling in case you have some ideas to try. Also, could you please forward a pdf of your 1990 Nature paper? Our electronic subscription picks up at 2000 and I wanted to follow up on your suggestion that we place some probabilistic estimate on the significance of the recent warming. Thanks again; the paper will be much stronger with your input. Darrell JJA(C) Proxy 0.26 1.66 -0.05 1.35 0.09 1.54 0.11 1.32 -0.31 0.29 On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Darell perhaps a short piece in the Supp. Inf. could give a little more detail on RCS , cite the original refs and show a Figure? but CAN NOT do for now , so let's go with it as is to make your deadline. This could be done later if referees say so. Attached is a tracked version with my comments (forwarded only to Ray also for hard-nosed comment!). Cheers Keith At 16:54 08/03/2009, you wrote: Also: Would it be important to cite the original sources for the tree-ring data, or do you think citing your new compilation would suffice? thanks. Darrell -- 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/ <2k synthesis v6-KRB.doc> -- 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/ 1396. 2009-03-11 12:47:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 11 12:47:06 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: confidential to: "K Turner" , "'Lenton Timothy Prof \(ENV\)'" , "'Harrison Chris Dr \(VCO\)'" , Kerry et al, Here's some text on ice sheets and SLR. IPCC didn't have anything to review about rapidly discharging glaciers from Greenland and the Antarctic in 2006. Although there are papers being presented in Copenhagen, none of these have been published yet. Have added in bits about the Eemian and Arctic sea-ice reductions. Cheers Phil At 12:01 10/03/2009, K Turner wrote: Dear Colleagues, As always things change at the last minute. We have just been advised that the SOS will not want to be briefed on mitigation but only on adaptation. In particular the following topice need to be covered: Broads and National Park response; Coastal Change; Other greeenhouse gases (not just CO2) from landfill,farming and land management practices; Food security; Changed cropping practices (eg food or energy). So Phil can we say something about ice sheets and SLR? (Andy Watson is not able to come ). Chris/Simon can we cover agric/landfill? Tim I still think 'tipping points' should be covered but could you include bio char? I will deal with Nat Parks and something on coastal change. Let me know what you think. Kerry. -----Original Message----- From: K Turner [[1]mailto:R.K.Turner@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 March 2009 12:20 To: 'Phil Jones'; 'Harrison Chris Dr (VCO)'; 'Lenton Timothy Prof (ENV)'; 'Jacquie.Burgess@uea.ac.uk' Subject: FW: confidential Dear Colleagues, The visit is still on and the timing is now 1pm to 1.45pm but this includes the opening of the building. We have to be there just before 1pm, say 12.45. Parking is very difficult but I intend to drive there leaving UEA at 12.15 approx. If you want a lift let me know. Given the very short time available I thought we should all produce a brief (one page or so ) summary of our main message. If you let me have them this week I will include them all in a folder which will also have the general ENV blurb in it Cheers, Kerry. -----Original Message----- From: K Turner [[2]mailto:R.K.Turner@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 February 2009 10:38 To: 'a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk' Cc: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'; 'chris.harrison@uea.ac.uk'; 'Lenton Timothy Prof (ENV)'; 'Jacquie.Burgess@uea.ac.uk' Subject: confidential Dear Colleagues, The Sec of State for the Environment Hilary Benn is planning to visit Norwich on March 16th. He will be opening the new Broads Authority/Natural England and Env Agency Building on the Jarrold's site. I have been given the opportunity to brief him over a working lunch on Climate change science and policy. I will be telling him about a joint climate adaptation panel that I chair for the three agencies and local authorities as well as my own reseach on the RED mechanism and coastal zone policy. Would you be prepared to come along and give him some 'headline' findings/issues based on your research? I anticipate that we will get about 5mins each plus questions ( the usual Ministerial briefing format). If you are able to participate I need a very rapid response in order to get the names processed through the inevitable offical processes the accompany such visits. We could then perhaps have a brief chat before the event to get the running order and our overall message into shape. Let me know what you all think asap. Cheers, Kerry. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3431. 2009-03-13 16:00:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 13 16:00:23 2009 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Away from my desk Re: NERC Consortium Proposal to: "chris turney" Chris have now read and mused on outline - generally ok but a few things to ponder on - need to be clear that this sort of work is incremental - i.e. that not every (or any) proposed data/model project can really produce "comprehensive" data or answer to question of what is effective climate sensitivity -- but we are at a stage now where we need to move beyond the IPCC situation (chapters 6 and 10) to one where we can update critical data sets or use recent understanding of their uncertainty to make a significant move forward in attempts to constrain likely range of climate futures . In other words timeliness and group expertise come together now. We do not put enough focus on the practical way we have the power to achieve this last ideal. Saying we will reconstruct circulation (implying surface pressure maps) is too vague and ambitious , unless we clarify that this more feasible for extended 19th century (instrumental) data base - perhaps , at least for proxies , only attempts to reconstruct aspects of circulation may work (trade winds, monsoon variability (ITCZ), Arctic and Antarctic Oscillation ). We have no hope of doing anything genuine and useful for Africa. May nee to expend some funds on updating series in other ares (as said above) - In Russia , a lot can be done along these lines for little money - and anyway , given the importance of high-latitude (especially Arctic) in terms of proxy input to syntheses and in terms of model projections (and contribution to overall warming estimates) , I believe we should stress the need to work on these ares just as much as the other (southern and lower-latitude) areas you single out. In fact the proposal (even for a consortium bid) might appear over ambitious / vague with respect to climate variable focus. Is there a reason for not including Simon Tett among Edinburgh names - he has expertise in running unified model ? Cheers Keith At 12:32 09/03/2009, you wrote: Hi, I'm afraid I'm away in Copenhagen for most of this week and will only be able to check my email intermittently. I'll be back in on Friday 13 March and will get to your message then. If you are contacting me regarding a media issue, please call the University of Exeter Press Office on 01392 262062; they have my contact details and will be able to help you reach me. Alternativeley, if it's urgent and you have my mobile number, I can be reached by phone or text. With best wishes, Chris -- 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/ 696. 2009-03-13 17:42:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , Phil Jones , Dick Dee date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:42:56 +0000 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: ERA Analysis to: Kate Willett Dear Kate I've no problem at all with you discussing this with Steve Sherwood. The latest version is attached. You can see I've a first version of the introductory sections, the discussions of temperature, and about a third of the discussion on the humidity results. Compared with earlier: (i) I've dropped the remark in the abstract about the ERA-Interim background being clearly better than ERA-40 for temperature. The only thing clear when I looked at it in more detail was that I had made a programming error. (ii) I've followed advice in an earlier email from Phil, and switched from CRUTEM3v to CRUTEM3. There are a few extra grid boxes with meaningful values in CRUTEM3, and it fits ERA slightly better than CRUTEM3v. I also added a table with some least-squares-fit linear trends - I'm not a fan of linear fits in general, but it seemed a convenient way of summarising things. (iii) I've put in some figures in Table 5 which show some correlations (all positive, though not too exciting) between the humidity and precipitation time series. (iv) I've a plot (Figure 11) of the number of gauges entering the GPCC analysis. But the later stuff may change when I get round to writing the text. I'm open to comments on the text that is already there, though you might be better to wait until a complete draft is available, as I'm likely to go back and change a few things in any case when I get to the end. Best regards Adrian Kate Willett wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > We have Steve Sherwood visiting us next week to work with us on some > heat-stress work and radiosonde data. We thought his input might be > interesting/useful on the ERA analysis, especially in terms of the > apparent drop in RH. We'd make it clear that this is work to be > published soon. How do you feel about this? If you think it might be > useful and are happy for us to do this then please could you email a > copy of the most recent version to date. I understand if you'd rather we > hold back though. > > Getting a bit snowed under at the moment so I won't have chance to do > anymore to HadCRUH for a week or so but its still on my list. > > Kate -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\qpaper1.pdf" 1298. 2009-03-14 14:47:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: Bradley Ray date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:47:39 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: citations and comments on draft to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith (cc: Ray): I'm working through your comments on the Arctic 2k synthesis paper and wanted to point out some comments that I'm having trouble addressing. I don't think they require any action on your part, but I wanted to make sure you were comfortable with the way I've dealt with them. The good news is that I have now expanded the calibration/scaling period back to 1860 and subdivided the record into 10-year averages. With n = 14, the calibration is statistically robust, and it's comforting that the result is essentially identical to the 20-year averages based on a smaller calibration set. ------------- Regarding the sentence: "In contrast, temperature changes during the penultimate millennium are only sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic" Your comment: "The wrong impression is given here, because what little evidence we do have for this period IS ALL from the Arctic". I agree that a major share of ice cores come from the Arctic, but I don't think that high-latitudes are especially well covered by proxy data. For example, only a couple of the long-term records in the recent Mann et al. (2008) compilation are from >60N. ------------ Regarding the sentence: "The forcing was most pronounced at high latitude where it was amplified by positive feedbacks" Your comment: "Need to be careful here because you are implying content that is not found in this manuscript i.e. evidence for the amplification , and by implication lack thereof in non-Arctic regions". I agree that the paper does not prove Arctic amplification. Instead, we discuss previous studies that show an amplified response in the Arctic to help explain our record. --------- Regarding the last sentence of the abstract, which I have now revised to: "The long-term cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, and the late 20th century was the warmest half-century of the last two millennia." Your comment: "you need to look at the distributuion/frequency of all equivalent warming trends over the last 1950 years to be able to place some probabilistic estimate of the likelihood that this recent warming is significant" I understand the rationale for the quantitative approach, but am not sure we have space for this analysis in this short paper, unless we add it to the Supporting Online Materials. I think that the plot of the temperature history speaks for itself. Also, the single greatest shift of 200 decades was between 1980-90, which seems significant in itself. ------ Regarding the sentence: "Because climate change is amplified in the Arctic (Serreze & Francis, 2006), warming during these historical intervals may be more easily detected in Arctic paleoclimate records than in global datasets" Your comment: "Many including me would argue against this. It is a question of signal and noise and other authors have discussed that tropical areas are better region for detecting change because low natural variability outweighs magnitude of expected signal in artic that is at least until major (non-linear) effects of ice melt kick in perhaps- but then timescale critical and could not be realistically invoked up until present day". I agree that it is a question of signal:noise (detection). The fact that the arctic has warmed much faster than the rest of the globe is good evidence for amplification in the arctic, and I believe that we can defend this position. ------- Regarding the sentence: "A simple forward projection of the linear trend based on the proxy data from 1-1900 AD (Fig. 3C) indicates that the summer temperature should have been about -0.5C by mid 20th century relative to the 960-1800 reference period." Your comment: "Why do this ? More logical to project a forward temperature curve based on a simple energy balance model tuned to some GCM driven by projected irradiance change from Milankovitch forcing?" I brought this up with our NCAR collaborators, and with Ray. They think that it will be difficult to isolate the regional impact of changes in insolation forcing. We discussed possible strategies, but I'm afraid that they will have to wait for the next publication. -------- Regarding the sentence: "Temperatures were 1.2C higher than the projected value based on the linear cooling trend, and even more anomalous than has been previously documented" Your comment: "This also begs the question about Mann et 1999 where they postulated a long-term cooling (over 1000 years) for the globe - that they said was orbitally driven." I'm not sure how to respond to this. Others have pointed out the overall cooling trend since the Holocene thermal maximum and I have discussed this for the Arctic in the paper. -------- Let me know if you have any strong reactions to any of this, otherwise I'm hoping to submit the paper in the next couple of days. Thanks. Darrell On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: > Darrell > am only trying to play devil's advocate. As for the df problem (and I > agree it is) , I think some direct reference to it in the text is > preferable to letting referee use it as a stick to beat you. Yes, do > try higher resolution regression , obviously for the proxies that > allow this. To be honest, when I look at Figure 2 , I can see that > decadally-smoothed data (or band-passed data) would show some inverse > correlation between temp. and proxy average though - so you may be > accused of cherry picking your time scale . Nevertheless, the logic > of justifying how you are building from local high-resolution > association, to regional lower-resolution interpretation should be > attempted. We do not expect high-resolution association on Arctic > average scale to be strong without very dense coverage of proxies, as > is shown by instrumental analyses ( Briffa and Jones , 1993 ) - > while at decadal scales coherence is greater (Jones and Briffa , > 1996) so we can get away with less records - and presumably even less > for long-term trend , provided it is captured in records . > I find that I do not have pdfs of the papers I have mentioned - so > will need to get them scanned and sent to you . I am not in the > office tomorrow but will leave instructions to this effect > cheers > Keith > > > Briffa, K.R. and Jones, P.D., 1993 > "Global surface air temperature variations during the twentieth > century: Part 2, Implications for large-scale high-frequency > palaeoclimatic studies." > The Holocene 3, 77-88 > > Jones, P.D. and Briffa, K.R., 1996 > "What can the instrumental record tell us about longer timescale > paleoclimatic reconstructions?" > pp.625-644 in: Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last > 2000 Years (Eds. P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and J. Jouzel), NATO ASI > Series Vol. 141. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. (R) > > > At 16:49 09/03/2009, you wrote: >> Keith: >> Thank you for your insights. I think I can deal with nearly all of >> your suggestions. You picked up on the plug for proxies from lakes >> at high latitudes. I'll try to tone that down, but do want to retain >> the message. >> >> I'll see whether our NCAR co-authors can address your suggestion >> about using an energy balance model to relate Milankovitch forcing >> to temperature. That will take some time, but I'd rather submit a >> manuscript with a high probability of success than to have to go >> back to the drawing board. >> >> Most importantly: You commented about the significance of the >> regression used to scale the proxy values to temperature. This is >> the weakest point of the paper, in my view. Because the focus is on >> the 20-year intervals, we only have 5 points for the regression, >> which is a serious limitation, and I doubt would hold up to >> statistical scrutiny. On the other hand, I am confident that the >> proxy values do correlate with temperature and the correlation is >> significant at even the annual scale (see Fig 2), and here I mean >> 'significant' even after accounting for autocorrelation effects on >> the df. Would it be valid to present the statistics for the annual >> correlation, then use this to support the scaling for the 20-year >> means, even though the n (= 5) for the 20-year means is too small to >> derive statistical significance? Or can you see another way around >> this issue? It's important to scale the proxy data to temperature, >> and I believe that our data can support this, I'm just not sure how >> best to make the case. I'll append the values for the five, 20-year >> intervals that I used to calculate the scaling in case you have some >> ideas to try. >> >> Also, could you please forward a pdf of your 1990 Nature paper? Our >> electronic subscription picks up at 2000 and I wanted to follow up >> on your suggestion that we place some probabilistic estimate on the >> significance of the recent warming. >> >> Thanks again; the paper will be much stronger with your input. >> Darrell >> >> >> JJA(C) Proxy >> 0.26 1.66 >> -0.05 1.35 >> 0.09 1.54 >> 0.11 1.32 >> -0.31 0.29 >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: >> >>> Darell >>> perhaps a short piece in the Supp. Inf. could give a little more >>> detail on RCS , cite the original refs and show a Figure? but CAN >>> NOT >>> do for now , so let's go with it as is to make your deadline. This >>> could be done later if referees say so. Attached is a tracked >>> version >>> with my comments (forwarded only to Ray also for hard-nosed >>> comment!). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At 16:54 08/03/2009, you wrote: >>>> Also: >>>> Would it be important to cite the original sources for the tree- >>>> ring >>>> data, or do you think citing your new compilation would suffice? >>>> >>>> thanks. >>>> Darrell >>> >>> -- >>> 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/ >>> <2k synthesis v6-KRB.doc> > > -- > 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/ > 2864. 2009-03-16 02:55:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:55:52 -0000 from: "Scott Betts" subject: RE: to: Thankyou for your reply, and my apologies for the late response. I read it with interest. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with any of the factors mentioned, or present a detailed explanation of the argument or the crucial calculations backing the assumptions behind temperature calculations as they relate to c02, so I therefore assume that they are not in the public domain. Sincerely Scott Sincerely scott -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 01 January 2009 15:40 To: scott@scottbetts.wanadoo.co.uk Subject: Re: Scott, Have you looked at the 2007 IPCC Report - especially Chapter 2 on Radiative Forcing? Cheers Phil > Dear Sir, > > > > I would be interested in some sort of response to the following question: > So far I haven't found any sources which can empirically verify the causal > causal connection between Carbon dioxide and temperature > > > > Given 80 millions tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, (22 million tons > of > carbon) what, in your understanding in terms of the climate, its > sensitivity, and the proportion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to all > c02, > and in turn, to the whole atmosphere does this represent, and what does it > do to the temperature? > > > > As I understand it the following factors should be taken into account > > > > 1) all c02 is 0.038% of the atmosphere, > > > > 2) that some 3% of that fraction is annually anthropogenic > > > > 3) c02 delays outgoing heat at 15microns in the spectroscopic absortion > range > > > > 4) outgoing radiation is between 0 and 1% of the heat budget, > > > > 5) c02 moves bewtween air and oceans, soils and other sinks quite quickly. > > > > 6) There are 3067 gigatons of c02 in the atmosphere > > > > 7) the first 50ppm of c02 delays that fractional (5% of 0-1% heat budget) > heat transfer into space, and anything additional only increases the > metric > range of this delay, and not the heat absorption, due to its logarithmic > absorption factor. > > > > 8) only the carbon particle, and not the 2 oxygen particles have this > effect. > > > > 9) given natural variability, over 98% of carbon dioxide fluctuations are > naturally occurring. 10) At a constant temperature, the amount of a given > gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly > proportional > to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. > (oceans), and finally > > > > 11) that oceans and vegetation absorbs c02 exponentially and not > logarithmically. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Scott Betts > > 3565. 2009-03-16 09:26:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:26:41 -0000 from: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI\)" subject: FW: Global Air Temperature Chart to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" -----Original Message----- From: Bruce KELLIE [mailto:bruce.kellie@telus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:37 AM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Global Air Temperature Chart Hello! Isn't it time to update your Global Air Temperature Chart, as published at the NASA website? We need to see the latest tend as the earth is passing-through changing times - either a further increase in temperature due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, or a drecrease in temperature due to natural temperature oscillation. In ten years, we will have enough data to know what's going-on?! But right-now, what's the latest temperature direction? Thanks! Bruce KELLIE P.Eng. ABBOTSFORD, B.C. CANADA 300. 2009-03-16 14:08:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:08:31 +0100 from: Bo Christiansen subject: Paper on climate reconstructions to: gerd.buerger@met.fu-berlin.de, wahle@alfred.edu, Francis.Zwiers@ec.gc.ca, ammann@ucar.edu, ycen@bgc-jena.mpg.de, geqs@igsnrr.ac.cn, guiot@cerege.fr, boli@ucar.edu, mschofield@maths.otago.ac.nz, jsmerdon@ldeo.columbia.edu, zhengjy@igsnrr.ac.cn, storch@gkss.de, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mann@psu.edu, stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca, srutherford@gso.uri.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, eduardo.zorita@gkss.de, anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Juerg Luterbacher , Andrew Weaver , Alexey Kaplan , john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu, g-north@tamu.edu, fbiondi@unr.nevada.edu, bloomfield@stat.ncsu.edu, kcuffey@berkeley.edu, robted@eas.gatech.edu, edruffel@uci.edu, nychka@ucar.edu, ottobli@ucar.edu, C.N.Roberts@plymouth.ac.uk, karl.turekian@yale.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, Peter Thejll , Torben Schmith , riedwyl@giub.unibe.ch, boc@dmi.dk Dear All, Our paper "A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: Stochasticity and robustness" has now been published in J. Clim. It is here: or here A VERY brief summary: Methods: 1) Seven different reconstruction methods are tested on the same data. These methods include both direct reconstructions of the NH mean temperature and field reconstruction methods. The field methods include both the original method of Mann et al. 1998, the RegEM Ridge and RegEM TTLS methods used in more recent work. 2) We use a field surrogate method to estimate the stochasticity that is always present in regression methods. Results: 1) All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period. 2) There is a large element of chance in the reconstructions. This might also explain some of the opposing results obtained in previous studies. In a new paper we have submitted to J. Clim. (under review) we use the the same methodology to test sea level reconstruction methods. The paper is here: These methods are closely related to the temperature reconstruction methods. Now tide-gauge measurements take the place of temperature proxies, and satellite altimetry the place of temperature observations. For the sea level reconstructions the situation is simpler than for temperature reconstructions because the tide gauges are direct measurements of sea level and do not include noise. We can therefore easier identify the sources of the errors in the reconstructions and stratify the errors into contributions from limited spatial coverage of gauges and non-stationarity of the sea level field. Best wishes -Bo -- Bo Christiansen E-mail: boc@dmi.dk Danish Climate Centre Phone : (+45) 39 15 74 29 Danish Meteorological Institute Fax: (+45) 39 15 74 60 Lyngbyvej 100, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark http://www.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/boc/homepage.shtml 2360. 2009-03-16 18:57:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:57:43 +0100 from: Bo Vinther subject: Re: PAGES OSM talk to: Edward Cook Hi Ed I have attached the data files for you - one file corresponding to the figure on slide 2 (vdO18_50.xls) - and two files containing the ice core data that went into the GRIP (6 cores) and DYE-3 (2 cores) averages.... Note that GISP2 data are based on deuterium measurements (instead of oxygen-18) - this make the variability increase by a factor of 8 - but the signal should be the same. In general the more southerly cores experience higher annual accumulation rates and therefore have the better signal to noise ratios. Looking forward to hearing about what you find in the data.... Cheers.....Bo Edward Cook wrote: > Hi Keith, > > Very helpful. Bo, if you would be so kind to send me the individual > ice core records I would have more freedom to play some games with > them with respect to replication and signal strength issues for the > OSM. Keith, any good examples from your Scandinavian tree-ring stuff > would be useful as well. > > Thanks! > > 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 Mar 15, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Keith Briffa wrote: > >> Bo >> thanks for this - Joe Osborne is away at present but said he will >> send the MSc report on tuesday - when I will pass it on to you and >> Ed . Perhaps Ed might like the data used in your second slide - to >> plot selected high and medium frequency curves separately ? >> Whatever, it is important to stress other examples than tree rings >> and this is a nice example- the coral work of Janice Lough and >> others is also relevant here. Ed do you want any simple examples of >> replication and quantification of signals from our Scandinavian tree- >> ring stuff? >> >> cheers all >> Keith >> >> At 09:08 16/03/2009, Bo Vinther wrote: >> >>> Dear Keith and Ed >>> >>> I have attached some ppt-slides showing the work on winter season >>> ice core data that I have done together with Keith and Phil. >>> Relationships with Greenland winter temperatures and the NAO for >>> the past 150-200 years are also shown. >>> Note (final slide) that whereas the PC1 of the ice core data is >>> excellent for reconstructing Greenland temperatures - it tend to be >>> less able to capture decadal NAO trends. But so does Greenland >>> temperature data.... >>> If something is unclear/missing or you have any questions, then >>> please feel free to ask.... >>> >>> Cheers......Bo >>> >>> >>> >>> Keith Briffa wrote: >>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> Wondered if you might have something separate to send him - I will >>>> send copy of Joe Osborne MSc report to you also - to ask if we >>>> might publish anything from it? >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Edward Cook >>>>> To: Keith Briffa >>>>> Subject: PAGES OSM talk >>>>> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:13:51 +0800 >>>>> Cc: Edward Cook >>>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) >>>>> X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >>>>> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >>>>> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 >>>>> X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >>>>> X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023) >>>>> X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from UEA: >>>>> 10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >>>>> X-Canit-Stats-ID: 18660043 - 322317b146c7 >>>>> X-Antispam-Training-Forget: X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: X- >>>>> Antispam-Training-Spam: >>>>> Hi Keith, >>>>> >>>>> I am giving an invited talk at the PAGES Open Science Meeting (OSM) >>>>> being held in Corvallis, OR on July 8-11, 2009. (I did not notice >>>>> your >>>>> name as a participant, so I guess you will not be there.) The >>>>> title of >>>>> my talk is "Reconstructing climate over the past millennium: the >>>>> need >>>>> for replication, calibration, and verification from a tree ring >>>>> perspective". While I will emphasize replication, calibration, and >>>>> verification using some tree-ring examples, I would also like to >>>>> include some other proxies like ice cores. Several weeks ago you >>>>> indicated some great success in using a well-dated d18O ice core >>>>> stack >>>>> from Greenland for reconstructing the NAO and also local >>>>> temperatures. >>>>> I believe a student of yours was doing this with you. It would be an >>>>> excellent example of replication and calibration with a annually >>>>> resolved (true?) proxy other than tree rings. Can you provide me >>>>> with >>>>> some figures I can use for presentation? All would be properly >>>>> attributed to you and your student, others too if you so indicate. >>>>> >>>>> You also indicated that you would send me the NAO recon paper you >>>>> did >>>>> with your student. Can you send it to me? I would not give it out to >>>>> anyone else of course without your permission. >>>>> >>>>> Am presently in Taiwan and go to Hawaii on March 11 to meet up with >>>>> Michele. Of course the winter has been bad back in NY while I am >>>>> over >>>>> in Taiwan and Vietnam. I think Michele needs a break. >>>>> >>>>> I hope all is going well for you. Give my regards to Sarah and >>>>> daughters when you see them. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> ================================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Professor Keith Briffa, >>>> Climatic Research Unit >>>> University of East Anglia >>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>>> >>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>>> >>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Professor Keith Briffa, >> Climatic Research Unit >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >> Phone: +44-1603-593909 >> Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\vdO18_50.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\DYE3_vdO18_50.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\GRIP_vdO18_50.xls" 4825. 2009-03-17 09:21:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" ,"Keith Briffa" date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:21:40 +0000 from: Dimitrios Efthymiadis subject: Re: ENSEMBLES RT2B DMI-HIRHAM5 outliers to: "Ole Bssing Christensen" Dear Ole, Thank you for your reply. I look forward to receiving the reprocessed simulations. Meanwhile, I could mention that there are also some other minor issues with the units of the output fields. For instance, Sunshine duration (sund) fields looks to be expressed in hours/day (not in seconds/day, as stated in the header of the NetCDF file). In addition, although Precipitation (pr) is expressed in kg m-2 s-1, Snowfall (prsn) looks as to be expressed in kg m-2 hour-1. I will come back with a detailed list of these minor problems as soon as the DMI-HIRHAM5 fields analysis being done at CRU is completed. Best regards, Dimitrios At 08:36 17/03/2009, Ole Bssing Christensen wrote: >Dear Dimitrios, > >This is new to me and certainly very serious for our simulation. Thank you >very much for diagnosing the problem and making us aware of it! > >To our luck, we are rerunning the simulation anyway, since we had to "patch" >it up originally: In order to reach the deadline for data 1/1/09, the >simulation had to be restarted wrt. soil water etc. some time around 2050 due >to different errors discovered along the way. To fix this inconsistency, we >have been redoing the simulation in a more proper continuous fashio, and we >will update the archive when postprocessing has been completed. But we were >certainly not aware of problems of the magnitude you have noticed! > >Greetings and thanks, Ole > >On Monday 16 March 2009 16:54, you wrote: > > Dear Dr Christensen, > > > > I have been analyzing the DMI-HIRHAM5 model output fields (monthly > > means) from the ENSEMBLES RT2B experiments and found some surface > > field outliers for November and December 2050. These fields (tas, > > tasmin, tasmax, rss, rls, hfso) exhibit excessively high values over > > the whole model domain (~Europe). By checking the "Top downward SW > > radiation" (rsdt), I realised that the solar forcing in November 2050 > > resembles a July-like situation, whereas the December 2050 solar > > field is similar to what typically occurs in June. Are you aware of > > this issue? Has the DKC modelling group tackled this problem? I would > > appreciate if you could provide me some information on this case. > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Dimitrios > > ...................................... > > Dr Dimitrios Efthymiadis > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK > >-- >Ole Bssing Christensen, senior scientist E-mail: obc@dmi.dk >Danish Climate Center Phone : (+45) 39 15 74 26 >Danish Meteorological Institute Fax: (+45) 39 15 74 60 >Lyngbyvej 100, DK-2100 Copenhagen , Denmark >Home page: http://glwww.dmi.dk/f+u/klima/klimasektion/obc.html 2078. 2009-03-17 14:58:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:58:26 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley] to: Thomas C Peterson Dear Tom, I saw - to my horror - that I had left your name off the list of invitees to Tom Wigley's Retirement Symposium. I plead advanced senility, induced by excessive exposure to folks like Steven McIntyre. I am now remedying my mistake, and forwarding the announcement of the Symposium. I hope you'll be able to attend! 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 X-Mozilla-Keys: $label1 Return-Path: Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:01:29 -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 n2DM1SCf015967; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:01:28 -0700 X-Attachments: None Received: from dione.llnl.gov ([128.115.57.29]) by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2009 15:01:27 -0700 Message-ID: <49BAD7B4.9000804@llnl.gov> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:01:24 -0700 From: Ben Santer Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov Organization: LLNL User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Krishna Achutarao , "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , Myles Allen , Caspar Ammann , president@ucar.edu, Rick Anthes , t.atkinson@ucl.ac.uk, "t.atkinson" , "David C. Bader" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Tim Barnett , barron@ucar.edu, Andr Berger , Ray Bradley , Keith Briffa , p.brimblecombe@uea.ac.uk, southern@ucar.edu, "'Ken Caldeira'" , charlson@chem.washington.edu, adai@ucar.edu, t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk, j.churchill@uea.ac.uk, Clara Deser , Phil Duffy , "Edmonds, James A (Jae)" , ienting@unimelb.edu.au, grahamfarmer@yahoo.com, Graham.Farmer@fao.org, "Folland, Chris" , dford@mcmaster.ca, Peter Foukal , Andrew Gettelman , wlgates@gmx.net, peter gent , glantz@ucar.edu, peter gleckler , chris.green@mcgill.ca, Jonathan Gregory , harvey , Klaus Hasselmann , marty.hoffert@nyu.edu, thosholt@googlemail.com, mhughes , mike , James Hurrell , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au, mick.tiempo@googlemail.com, jtkon@ucar.edu, killeen , kleypas@ucar.edu, Knutti Reto , wily@ucar.edu, jaleggett@crs.loc.gov, Janice Lough , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Jerry Mahlman , mark.meier@colorado.edu, "Michael E. Mann" , michael.manton@sci.monash.edu.au, mcginnis@ucar.edu, Linda Mearns , carl mears , Jerry Meehl , Malte Meinshausen , "Mitchell, John FB" , neville.nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, Doug Nychka , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" , Tim Osborn , j.palutikof@griffith.edu.au, "Parker, David (Met Office)" , tad.pfeffer@colorado.edu, rpielkejr@gmail.com, hugh.pitcher@pnl.gov, Niel Plummer , Sarah Raper , philip.rasch@pnl.gov, Andy Revkin , "Richels, Richard" , Alan Robock , "Terry L. Root" , j.salinger@auckland.ac.nz, j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, m.salmon@uea.ac.uk, Ben Santer , john@pik-potsdam.de, "'Michael Schlesinger'" , schimel@ucar.edu, Stephen H Schneider , prslawso@mecheng1.uwaterloo.ca, Richard Smith , Joel Smith , ssmith@pnl.gov, Susan Solomon , kenneth.strzepek@colorado.edu, David Taplin , Karl Taylor , Simon Tett , "'Kevin E. Trenberth'" , Chris Vincent , r.warrick@waikato.ac.nz, Warren Washington , Robert.Watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk, peter.webster@eas.gatech.edu, Michael Wehner , Frank Wentz , r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk, Julie Arblaster , eholland@ucar.edu, Lisa Butler Subject: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear friends of Tom Wigley, As many of you may know, Tom Wigley recently retired from his position as Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Tom remains affiliated with NCAR, but increasingly will be shifting his base of operations to Australia and the University of Adelaide. In an illustrious scientific career spanning over 45 years, Tom has made major contributions to our understanding of past, present, and future environmental (particularly climatic) change. His contributions are unique in terms of both scope and impact. They have been made in such diverse areas as aqueous geochemistry, plume rise theory, the origin of life, dendroclimatology, the construction and analysis of observed surface temperature datasets, climate change detection and attribution, the development and application of energy balance models, integrated assessment, climate impacts, CO2 and climate stabilization, and geoengineering. He also has made significant scientific contributions to all four IPCC reports, and to a number of other national and international assessments of various aspects of climate science. Professor Phil Jones and I are organizing a one-day "Wigley Symposium" to honor Tom. This is an opportunity to thank Tom for advancing and enriching our field. It is also an opportunity to celebrate his past accomplishments, to look forward to new ones, and to wish him well for the future. We hope you will be able to attend the Symposium, which will take place at NCAR on June 19, 2009, immediately following the annual NCAR Community Climate System Modeling Workshop in Breckenridge. With assistance from Tom, Phil Jones and I are in the process of finalizing a program for the Symposium. The intent is to have a series of thirty-minute lectures on various aspects of climate science, highlighting Tom's contributions to our field. Several lectures will also cover other scientific areas in which Tom has worked. Within the next two weeks, we will be circulating an agenda for the Symposium and some logistical information. In the interim, please mark June 19th on your calendars! With best regards, Ben Santer and Phil Jones (P.S.: There will be funding to cover the cost of a Symposium dinner on the evening of June 19th. Save in exceptional cases, however, most Symposium participants will have to pay their own travel and accommodation expenses). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4468. 2009-03-18 08:52:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Roger Street" , "Bryden, Clare" , "Jenkins, Geoff" date: Wed Mar 18 08:52:54 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: updated UKCP09 project plan and instructions for PMG to: "Maresh, Jennifer (ACC)" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Lowe, Jason" Jenny, The WG Briefing Report was sent to Geoff late yesterday afternoon. The main WG report has also been sent back to Steph as well. I'm going to look through the latter again whilst it is being proof read. This should mean that the WG is almost done. I'm around this week if Geoff needs any clarifications on the Briefing Report. The version sent yesterday has the final maps and tables, and includes comments made by Kathryn before she left for Canada. On Monday I met Hilary Benn with a few others from UEA when he opened the new Broads Authority building in Norwich. We discussed sea level rise and what had happened in Copenhagen. He mentioned UKCP09 saying it would bring the reality of climate change home to everyone in the UK! Let's hope it does! He didn't say whether this would include Lenny! Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 19:34 17/03/2009, Maresh, Jennifer (ACC) wrote: Chris/Phil (on WG input into briefing report) Jason (on Marine input into briefing report) [cc Geoff, Roger, Clare] Could you all give an update on when you will be able to provide Geoff with the remaining text for the briefing report? I know that Jason is working up comments from Karl Hardy to clarify the messages in the marine section, but understood that this would still be able to be finalised this week. Any news on the WG front? Thanks, Jenny Jenny Maresh Adapting to Climate Change Programme Defra Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 2JR tel 0207 238 3387 [1]www.defra.gov.uk/adaptation From: Jenkins, Geoff [[2]mailto:geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: 17 March 2009 13:43 To: Maresh, Jennifer (ACC); Chris Kilsby; Bryden, Clare; Lowe, Jason; Phil Jones; Roger Street Cc: Packer, Kathryn (ACC) Subject: RE: updated UKCP09 project plan and instructions for PMG I still have no input to the Briefing Report from either the Marine Projections or the Weather Generator, so Friday looks unlikely. Geoff ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Maresh, Jennifer (ACC) [[3]mailto:Jennifer.Maresh@defra.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 16 March 2009 16:25 To: Ag Stephens; Anna Steynor; Bryan Lawrence; Chris Kilsby; Bryden, Clare; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David; Geoff Jenkins; Lowe, Jason; Kevin Marsh; Elkington, Mark; Paul Bowyer; Phil James; Phil Jones; Roger Street; Sarah Callaghan Cc: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Shippey, Katie (ACC) Subject: RE: updated UKCP09 project plan and instructions for PMG Dear UKCP Project Management Group, <<2009-03-13 UKCP09 outputs project plan.xls>> Attached is an updated project plan with revised dates for completion of milestones. Milestones currently delayed are in red. Dependencies are highlighted. I have added updates against tasks on the critical path in a separate column rather than change Kathryn Hs text from the mail she sent out on 27^th Feb. 13^th March was identified in Kathryn Hs last project plan as a key date for a number of tasks. Since then, a number of these have slipped back by a week. I have spoken to many of you over the last few days, and it looks as though 20^th March (i.e. this Friday) is going to be a key date. By then the following things should have been completed: Remaining Projections Report text to Steph and Defra (Geoff) Briefing Report text to Steph and Defra (Geoff) User Guidance out to Scientific Review (Roger) Pre-prepared maps and graphs to UKCIP (Ag) Final tweaks on report graphs (Ag) Jason to address Karls points in the Marine report (and associated briefing report) More details on your specific elements of the project can be found in the attached spreadsheet. Please send any updates on these dates, progress, or problems, to me for the next week. Kathryn Humphrey is back from holiday on 23^rd March. Jenny 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2149. 2009-03-18 12:42:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:42:51 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: This and that to: ian renfrew ,"Andrew Watson" > Ian, Andy, Keith Briffa and I have just come back from a 2hour meeting with Jacquie, Alastair and also Mike Hulme. As expected given the statement at School Board the week before last, we're not going to be able to get a replacement for Nathan Gillet for some years. We're also not going to get a replacement for Saffron O'Neill either. Issue for WW is that a Nathan replacement was down for the new Climate Feedbacks course. We either need to drop this idea, or find someone else. You'll have heard from Jacquie that she thinks the WW group is too big. She's also worried that ENV's Climate Science and Climate Change (the whole Climate agenda) is not that coherent. We have expertise across all areas of IPCC WGs and beyond this as well, but we don't co-ordinate ourselves. This is moving target as the climate agenda/debate is continually evolving. If any faculty were asked, they probably would all say they are working on some aspect of climate. I don't want to start a debate on how we can improve co-ordination, but the issue is going to continually resurface. We're we any better in the past? Is our size the issue? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4206. 2009-03-18 15:45:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 18 15:45:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R3 to: Weather - UK Alex, So Bob is not talking to me now! Can you ask him some more questions? He has not responded to my comments in the email. I hope you can get some quick responses as I don't want this to drag on and on. They can be simple one word responses to a) and b). a) does he accept that Heathrow Airport has not moved its site - in other words the reviewer was wrong? b) that LWC has only moved once - which was stated, so the reviewer is again wrong. These are important points! c) The discussion of the results is interesting but it could be organised rather better. No serious attempt has been made to discuss the geographical aspects of the UHI and would no doubt be very interesting to 'Weather' readers. If the authors think this outside their remit, and/or that they think it has been done adequately by Chandler, then it would be helpful simply to say so. This is what the reviewer said (all these are the 3rd reviewer). How does this reconcile with removing all the sites except WIS, ROTH and SJP? It is impossible to discuss any geographical aspects of the UHI without data. I will say it is outside the remit. The paper would be a lot poorer without the other sites, as people would just say I've cherrypicked the sites that show the effect. What about LHR, Kew, LWC? I will probably rewrite the paper, but I want it to include all the sites, just to show that they have been looked at. I will say why they have been included and what is wrong with them, but they need to be there. I just want to check that Bob is OK with this - subject to a re-review? d) Finally I don't see that using a degree sign instead is deg C is a serious flaw. How else can temperature differences be expressed except as in degrees C? AMS uses the degree sign, it is just a preference, but it allows people to use K. I thought this was too far for Weather readers. I put deg C in a paper to a journal a few years ago and they were changed to the degree sign. I have to say I cannot believe that Bob has called this a serious flaw. I would like an answer to a, b and c though. d is not a serious flaw at all - it is just editorial style. I will change it to what you want. The attached was sent to me by Bob. Word says it is owned by Dennis Wheeler. I wasn't looking to see who owned it. Word just told me, when I opened it. I thought it was Dennis Wheeler anyway, as we've worked together on a paper a few years ago. Cheers Phil At 15:06 18/03/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. The proofs of this month's Weather have been going to press and absorbing much of my time. Bob has got back to me with his responses to your concerns. He asked me to let you know that the Major Revision verdict still stands. He states that ' A large proportion of all the reviewers' comments were not acted on (which is why the process was extended); amongst the more trivial were a request to amplify a reference to 'adiabats' (not done) - and a remark that you 'prefer' 'warmer temperatures' to 'higher temperatures'. You may prefer it - but it is wrong, certainly in a scientific paper. And use of C for temperature differences is most definitely wrong. Such flaws do not encourage reviewers to comment favourably even if the data is entirely faultless. A fair amount of the reason for 'major revision' is, therefore, just to get the article much better presented. It also does not read as if the other sites are there for 'completeness'; they degrade the integrity of the data from the acceptable sites (WIS, ROTH and SJP). Why is the paper poorer if peripheral data is excluded? Since that data includes an acknowledged (highly) non-standard site, it must be better without it. These points have also been made in review. Therefore, as previously advised, the paper needs revision in line with the comments made in the reviews, and will not be reconsidered unless this is done I apologise that the initial review information was incomplete which caused much of the misunderstandings during the review process. This was due to technical glitch in the system that we will look out for in future. I am concerned though that you were able to ascertain who was the reviewer on the paper. As I am sure you appreciate, the peer-review system is reliant on the confidentiality of the reviewer. Are you able to let me know how you knew Dennis Wheeler was one of the reviewers? Best wishes, Alex Alexandra Owen Associate Journals Editor John Wiley & Sons Ltd Southern Gate Chichester West Sussex PO19 8SQ, UK Tel:+44 1243770585 Fax:+44 1243770450 E-mail: alowen@wiley.com NEW ONLINE! WIREs Climate Change website: [1]www.wiley.com/wires -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:00 To: Weather - UK Subject: Re: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R3 Bob, I've not done anything as I was waiting for a response to this email. If you want me to resubmit saying all this in a response then let me know. Cheers Phil Bob, I must say I am getting fed up with your extra reviews. This last one hasn't read the paper. The whole point of the paper is the analysis of SJP, ROTH and WIS. The main conclusions come from these three sites. The other sites are included for completeness. I have looked at the Tyrrell letter and Moffitt's response. Moffitt's analysis wasn't flawed and his response wasn't arrogant. Tyrrell's letter is p348 in 1972 and the response is on p42 in 1973. Moffitt's response seems quite restrained and quite logical. We reproduced his results when ROTH was compared with KEW. The whole point is that the entire ROTH comparisons with SJP are supported by WIS. Also the entire ROTH record is one of the three stations that constitute the Central England temperature record. So there is nothing to doubt in the ROTH record, whatsoever. It is totally supported by WIS, and has been looked at in detail by Manley and others putting the updates of CET together. The Hampstead record is not digitally available. It is in the 30-year books (for 1931-60) but is less complete than SJP and CAM for 1901-30 (where it only has 1911-30). It is only possible to look at spatial aspects of the UHI across London with long time series that are digitally available. We have used these in this paper. There aren't any others. We've been through the BADC archives, which allow us access to the Met Office database. Geographical aspects of the UHI can't be discussed without data. We make allusions based on LHR and Kew, but that is all that can be done. Another point of the paper is that the UHI doesn't change since 1901 for SJP and has appeared to reach a limit for LHR. Hunt (2007) makes no mention of a site change at LWC in 2002. It isn't evident in the plots, shown in the paper, nor in others we have produced. No move is mentioned in the attached produced by John Prior (Met Office) in 2008. The site is non standard, but we stated that. There is no mention of a move at Camden Square in 1957 in the Met Office book with the 1931-60 averages in. As for Heathrow, the attached gives the site history. The anemometer moves several times, but there is no indication of the thermometer moving. Anyway, Heathrow is peripheral to the paper, which is about SJP, ROTH and WIS. I have answered all these in the comments above. Do you want me to strip down the paper to just SJP, ROTH and WIS? The paper would be a lot worse if I were to do this. I hope you will reply fairly quickly. Cheers Phil At 12:41 09/03/2009, weather@wiley.co.uk wrote: >09-Mar-2009 > >Dear Professor Jones, > >I thought it best to send this paper to a third independent reviewer >and accept any recommendation then made. The comments of the reviewer >are included at the bottom of this letter. > >A revised version of your manuscript that takes into account the >comments of the reviewers and mine from my earlier letter will be >reconsidered for publication. Please note that submitting a revision of >your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your >revision will be subject to re-review before a decision is rendered. > >You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your >Author Center. Log into [3]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/weather and >enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title >listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". > >When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to >the comments made by the reviewers 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: >[4]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/113388511/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. > > >Yours sincerely, > >Mr. BOB PRICHARD >Editor, Weather >weather@wiley.co.uk > > >Reviewer's Comments to Author: > >I am concerned that not enough attention has been paid to the effects >on temperature régimes of changes in site and site characteristics. >These have certainly been alluded to, but no attempt has been made to >quantify them. I suspect there are several additional site changes that >the authors may not be aware of ... >certainly no mention has been made of them (eg LWC 2002 approx, Camden >Square 1957, Heathrow several times). Without proper treatment of these >site changes, the rest of the analysis becomes questionable. > >I think using LWC data in this sort of study is inadmissable. Data >recorded on an asphalted rooftop site with air-conditioning ducts >nearby brings a range of additional variables. > >Although it does not affect the post-1930 analysis, the several >references to the Moffitt article are worrying, in particular the >quotation from an unpublished and no-longer-available letter. Moffitt's >analysis was flawed; this was pointed out by Tyrrell in the Aug 1972 >edition of 'Weather', but Tyrrell's objections were arrogantly >dismissed by Moffitt a few months later (about March 1973, I think). >Manuscript copies of daily temperature records at the two Rothamsted >sites between 1915 and >1927 actually show substantial differences - as one would expect >between a walled garden on the fringe of the town and an open field >site well outside the built-up area. > >Further, I'm slightly surprised that one inner London site which has >not moved at all since it was set up in 1909 has not been utilised. >Hampstead, that is. > >The discussion of the results is interesting but it could be organised >rather better. No serious attempt has been made to discuss the >geographical aspects of the UHI and would no doubt be very interesting >to 'Weather' readers. >If the authors think this outside their remit, and/or that they think >it has been done adequately by Chandler, then it would be helpful >simply to say so. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5061. 2009-03-19 08:45:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Glenn McGregor" , David Parker , Ben Santer date: Thu Mar 19 08:45:33 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: See the link below to: "Chief Exec" Paul, I sent you this last night, but in another email. I should have sent you two emails - apologies. The issues were not linked. This email is to bring your attention to the link at the end. The next few sentences repeat what I said last might. I had been meaning to email you about the RMS and IJC issue of data availability for numbers and data used in papers that appear in RMS journals. This results from the issue that arose with the paper by Ben Santer et al in IJC last year. Ben has made the data available that this complainant wanted. The issue is that this is intermediate data. The raw data that Ben had used to derive the intermediate data was all fully available. If you're going to consider asking authors to make some or all of the data available, then they had done already. The complainant didn't want to have to go to the trouble of doing all the work that Ben had done. I hope this is clear. Another issue that should be considered as well is this. With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases. This email came overnight - from Tom Peterson, who works at NCDC in Asheville. [1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warmi ng-by-a-major-climate-scientist/ "Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK." We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in JGR last year. The paper is Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916. The paper clearly states where I work - CRU at UEA. There is no mention of the Hadley Centre! There is also no about face as stated on the web page. Sending this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS. Several years ago I decided there was no point in responding to issues raised on blog sites. Ben has made the same decision as well. There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more main stream in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider. I just think you should be aware of some of the background. CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well - many related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes, but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century. Cheers Phil -- 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1423. 2009-03-19 17:02:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: See the link below to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would send something to their Chief Exec. In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park), but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit of a UHI and it has go bigger. I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI! Cheers Phil At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote: Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals. Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: Paul, I sent you this last night, but in another email. I should have sent you two emails - apologies. The issues were not linked. This email is to bring your attention to the link at the end. The next few sentences repeat what I said last might. I had been meaning to email you about the RMS and IJC issue of data availability for numbers and data used in papers that appear in RMS journals. This results from the issue that arose with the paper by Ben Santer et al in IJC last year. Ben has made the data available that this complainant wanted. The issue is that this is intermediate data. The raw data that Ben had used to derive the intermediate data was all fully available. If you're going to consider asking authors to make some or all of the data available, then they had done already. The complainant didn't want to have to go to the trouble of doing all the work that Ben had done. I hope this is clear. Another issue that should be considered as well is this. With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases. This email came overnight - from Tom Peterson, who works at NCDC in Asheville. [1]http:// wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-ma jor-climate-scientist/ "Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK." We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in JGR last year. The paper is Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. /J. Geophys. Res/. *113*, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916. The paper clearly states where I work - CRU at UEA. There is no mention of the Hadley Centre! There is also no about face as stated on the web page. Sending this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS. Several years ago I decided there was no point in responding to issues raised on blog sites. Ben has made the same decision as well. There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more main stream in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider. I just think you should be aware of some of the background. CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well - many related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes, but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century. Cheers Phil -- 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 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) 422-3840 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1486. 2009-03-19 18:14:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:14:47 +0000 from: Rachel Warren subject: AVOID WS1 deliverable: Literature review to: Chris Hope , "Jesse O'Hanley" , Lowe Jason , "Lowe, Jason" , Lynn Dicks , Maria Noguer , Nigel Arnell , Pamela Berry , Robert Nicholls , Robin Hankin , Santiago de la Nava Santos , Sarah Raper , Serban Scrieciu , Tim Osborn , "Van Der Linden, Paul" Dear AVOID-WS1-ers Followng the Copenhagen science conference it is not time to initiate our work on the literature review of new science for AVOID WS1. 1. This message concerns plans for delivering our literature review to DECC by mid-May. We need to deliver a SHORT report (a few pp). Each person involved should provide a SHORT (half page) summary of the situation. 2. We are not each writing a new IPCC chapter, nor are we collectively writing an IPCC chapter. Rather, imagine that the WGII SPM has to be updated in the light of the new literature. What changes would we make to it? In each case we need to search and read literature with a view to finding out whether the new work is consistent with IPCC AR4, or does it show that we have over/underestimated impacts in AR4? Have any new threats been uncovered? We do NOT need to repeat what is the AR4 working group II report. If you do not have a copy of that it may be found in the IPCC website. When writing, report inferences from the PUBLISHED PEER_REVIEWED literature separate from inferences from UNPUBLISHED work which is either not perr-reviewed or still going through the peer-review process. 3. Envisaged sections in the report: - observed changes in climate - observed changes in impacts on natural and human systems - attribution of climate change, extreme weather and climate impacts to anthropogenic causes - new understanding on economics of mitigation - new understanding on the damage costs of climate change impacts - impacts on tipping points in the earth system - extreme weather - ocean acidification - impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems - impacts on agriculture & food security - impacts on water stress - impacts on human health - impacts on coasts - impacts on cities/industries As we do not have experts on impacts in particular regions in the consortium, I would instead suggest that when writing each person take to care to mention any particular regions stand out as being more vulnerable than was thought in AR4. 4. WORKPLAN: Stage 1: I have set a deadline of Easter for stage 1, which is assembling pdfs of literature to be included (and where that is not possible, abstracts) in a directory on our closed AVOID-WS1 website. Stage 2: After Easter we have a few weeks to read the references in our given subject area and write review. 5. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS: Please can the following people begin now to search for litearture and start save pdfs to their pcs: I will send round instructions on how to place these on the web site later. Pdfs should be uploaded by Easter, so you should all complete literature searching process by then. Please save GREY or UNPUBLISHED data separately. The Copenhagen conference abstracts, which I trust you all have access to , will be an important source. Rachel: observed impacts, and impacts of ocean acidification on marine systems Jesse, Pam: biodiversity Nigel/QUEST GSI: hydrology, water stress, flooding Nigel: Can QUEST-GSI cover the recent agricutural impact literature? Lynn Dicks/Robin/Serban: economics of mitigation (costs, policies, etc) focusing on non-equilibrium approaches Nigel/Lynn: If Nigel is able to provide health input, please do so, if not, I suggest that Lynn follows this issue. Chris Hope: economics of mitigation (costs/policies) focusing on equilibrium approaches and damage costs I have asked Jason Lowe to assemble post IPCC AR4 work from the Hadley Centre, on this site by next Friday March 27th. Since Hadley Centre work may relate strongly to other impacts areas, I would suggest that the following people add their search results to the database after this date, to avoid unnecessary duplication. Robert Nicholls (with Jason) - sea level rise, coasts Jason Lowe, Sarah Raper and Tim Osborn - any non-Hadley WG1 work dividing as follows: Jason: tipping points, carbon cycle, reversibility of climate change, attribution, ocean acidfication, any new insights from palaeoclimatic work Tim: downscaling issues, projection of drought Sarah: I understand that you are ill, so I have not allocated you a task, but if you feel well enough please tell us about any literature you know of that we may have missed. Most of the work will involve finding and reading the litearture, and our reaching a considered view based upon that, not the final writing. Thanks Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren NERC Advanced Research Fellow Tyndall Centre School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail [1]r.warren@uea.ac.uk 4362. 2009-03-20 08:32:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 20 08:32:51 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: READ THIS ONE FIRST to: "Chief Exec" Paul, Hope you have read this one first. The issue I have with Bob Prichard has been almost resolved - see below. So ignore that. Apologies for the earlier email, but he just seems to wind me up at every step. I'll have to try to be more restrained. I'll resubmit a revised version trying to take all the points on board. So the only issue for you to consider is the one about changes to any data availability and access after papers have been published. Glenn raised the issue following the response to the Santer et al paper in IJC, This paper was in Vol 28 (1703-1722). The paper before this (Douglas et al 28, 1693-1701) had been online for a while - the authors did a press release when Glenn accepted the final version. There were no requests for the intermediate data from that study. Ben Santer managed to reproduce all their results without contacting the authors from original raw data. This is what the requesters from the Santer et al paper should have done. It is possible that Douglas et al and Santer et al made the same mistake going from the raw to the intermediate data. I know this is unlikely, but the fact that they both got the same results, shows it can be done. Anyway - happy to discuss at any time. Cheers Phil Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:46:35 -0400 (EDT) From: weather@wiley.com To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Weather - WEA-09-0001 X-Errors-To: dbibby@wiley.com Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com 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: 19346195 - e4b3ef80fe11 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=19346195&m=e4b3ef80fe11&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=19346195&m=e4b3ef80fe11&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=19346195&m=e4b3ef80fe11&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 19-Mar-2009 WEA-09-0001 - The Urban Heat Island in Central London and urban-related warming trends in Central London since 1900 Dear Professor Jones, Following your recent emails and in order to bring this saga to an end, if you care to submit a revised article that you are happy with, we will publish it. Please follow Weather's style guidelines to the extent that you are aware of them as it otherwise makes for a lot of extra work at the proofing stage. Yours sincerely Mr. BOB PRICHARD Editor, Weather Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1808. 2009-03-20 18:44:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:44:40 -0600 from: "Eugene.R.Wahl" subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, David Frank Hi Keith and David: Sorry for the delay in responding. Quite a lot it going on, and I was out for a week teaching in Indiana (environmental ethics, which I do once per year to graduate students -- fun but demanding as I teach a half-term in 5-6 days). Keith, thanks. You are gracious in the note below, and we weren't daunted by your responses. They are helpful, and know we are considering them carefully in our writing. Sorry I don't have more time right now, but know that we are writing away. Hi David: Sorry to you also re: no communication for over a week. I'm pushing along with all dispatch I can create. I'll get in touch just after this with some more specific replies to your last message. Thanks to you both. Peace, Gene [1]K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: Thanks Gene and Frank sorry about the rambling style and lack of proof reading in my message - was just rushing to send before leaving work. On re-reading it myself, it sounds too dictatorial - I would not presume to tell you what to write - sorry if it came over like that . My intention was to try to be helpful but I sound rudely prescriptive! Honestly this was not meant - I really look forward to reading your text cheers Keith > Thanks a lot Keith, in particular for the detail. We will make good use of this direction. David and I are already talking about it. Peace, Gene Keith Briffa wrote: Eugene and Dave sorry not to get back to you before (but this was my really heavy teaching period - now running down). In fact generally what you intend is fine though perhaps with a bit more focus on philosophy rather than mechanics. Let me try to explain - First let me say that the I agree with John about not using the Appendix route. So your plan as outlined as 3 sections is ok. The brief illusion to specific proxies and cross-referencing is the way to go but "good" examples of various types is very acceptable. Let me say though that we do not need too much "standard" stuff on trees that can be found elsewhere - just appropriate focus on issues and signposts to literature - but rather a discussion of concepts that show potential and current difficulties of high-resolution data (including specifically intra-annual as well as inter-annual) as distinct from other types of (less-resolved) proxies. Major stress on the ubiquitous use of empirical interpretation of climate controls of proxies (and inferred assumption of the stability of uniformitarianism underlying these regression approaches) would is important (as is lack of true process understanding to date in many studies - or at least demonstrable evidence in consistency of such with regression-based results in existing studies). Also we need discussion of how current methods emphasise climate variability, potentially loosing or attenuating evidence of (multi-century) climate change. Yes you could discuss how the precision enables hypothesis testing about very -short time scale forcings and responses and the definition of precisely delineated patterns of reconstructed change in space also - because of the facility to average accurately , while less resolved data , calibrated with spatial regression - possibly over state the latter evidence or at least produce reconstructions with such wide confidence bands that they effectively tell us nothing useful about medium time scales of change , say centuries. However, this begs the question of the Hockey-Stick debate (the Von Storch , Burger stuff) and the limited basis (in terms of proxies and coverage) that it provides (because of the need to respect resolution and climate sensitivity issues). Don't be afraid to attack this issue head on. I like your section 3 by the sound of it . In practise, it will be hard to judge the appropriate level of detail needed for specific proxy types - so think in concepts with examples rather than the rigid proxy type approach (such as was used in our recent Holocene review) - and if in doubt , do less now and leave it to the authors to juggle the balance between chapters later. Your focus though on the dendro will , however , be in this chapter only. Basically , what you are doing is fine , but think what you believe limits our understanding of current proxies and what we need to do and remember that the future ideals are what you are trying to identify and , so facilitate. I know this sounds a lot like what we tried to do in that review paper - and perhaps it is - but it gives you the chance to put your stamp on the debate. Good luck and thanks for taking this on Keith At 17:02 06/03/2009, Eugene Wahl wrote: OK, I will await guidance from you on settling this question. Inclusion of the material on dendro methods in the main text would take us back to the original 3 main sections, just with section 2 on Methods focused largely on dendro -- with the various other high-resolution methods briefly mentioned and then referenced to the other relevant chapters on them for more detail. This structure is fine with me. By the way, please include David Frank, my co-author, on this correspondence as it develops. Thanks very much. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch Keith Briffa wrote: Have been very busy with teaching will send comments next week Keith At 10:04 06/03/2009, Matthews J.A. wrote: Dear Eugene OK, but I would prefer the `tree-ring proxy' material to be integrated into the chapter (rather than an add-on appendix). Perhaps this could be achieved by describing section 2 as a case study of the most important proxy. I am very disappointed th\at Keith Briffa has failed to send me any editorial comments on any chapter - I know he expressed particular interest in your chapter (perhaps this will prompt some comments). John 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 Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: [2][3]J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Eugene Wahl [[4]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov] Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 1:09 AM To: Matthews J.A.; David Frank Subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of Environmental change) Hello Dr. Matthews: I have looked over the outline of the chapter I am co-authoring with David Frank (c. 15), and note that the one editor's comment suggests a significant abbreviating of the description of proxy methods that is set forth in section 2 of the outline. I think this is a valuable suggestion, and based on it, I want to suggest that David and I implement it with one important change. The change would be this: we would mention the various methods in an introduction and reference the other relevant chapters on them for more detail, with the exception of dendrochronological data, which we would describe in some detail in a "Tree-Ring Proxy Methods" section that would act as a kind of appendix to the chapter. Please let us know what you think of this alteration. The outline as set forth in sections 1 and 3 would otherwise remain unchanged, except that the former "section 3" would now constitute the actual section 2 -- with what had been the second section before becoming the ending methods section described above. 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 [5][6]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html 266. 2009-03-23 11:13:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:13:15 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley to: Ian Graham Enting Dear Ian, I'm sorry you won't be able to make it, but understand why attending would be difficult. I just wanted to point out that some of the other invitees to the Symposium are in a similar situation. We will therefore have some time reserved (after the Symposium dinner on the 19th) to read out letters, poems, limericks, etc. from absent friends. So if you'd like to send your best wishes to Tom, or otherwise exercise your creative talents, feel free to do so! Tom had a "discernible influence" not only on the field of climate science, but also on the lives and careers of many climate scientists. It will be nice to have the opportunity to say "thanks!" to him on June 19th. With best regards, Ben Ian Graham Enting wrote: > HI Ben > thanks for the invitation, but I can't > really justify the bodily stress nor the greenhouse emissions > to go to USA for a one-day event (and it doesn't seem to > fit in with anything else) > > regards > >> Dear friends of Tom Wigley, >> >> As many of you may know, Tom Wigley recently retired from his position >> as Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research >> (NCAR). Tom remains affiliated with NCAR, but increasingly will be >> shifting his base of operations to Australia and the University of >> Adelaide. >> >> In an illustrious scientific career spanning over 45 years, Tom has made >> major contributions to our understanding of past, present, and future >> environmental (particularly climatic) change. His contributions are >> unique in terms of both scope and impact. They have been made in such >> diverse areas as aqueous geochemistry, plume rise theory, the origin of >> life, dendroclimatology, the construction and analysis of observed >> surface temperature datasets, climate change detection and attribution, >> the development and application of energy balance models, integrated >> assessment, climate impacts, CO2 and climate stabilization, and >> geoengineering. He also has made significant scientific contributions to >> all four IPCC reports, and to a number of other national and >> international assessments of various aspects of climate science. >> >> Professor Phil Jones and I are organizing a one-day "Wigley Symposium" >> to honor Tom. This is an opportunity to thank Tom for advancing and >> enriching our field. It is also an opportunity to celebrate his past >> accomplishments, to look forward to new ones, and to wish him well for >> the future. >> >> We hope you will be able to attend the Symposium, which will take place >> at NCAR on June 19, 2009, immediately following the annual NCAR >> Community Climate System Modeling Workshop in Breckenridge. >> >> With assistance from Tom, Phil Jones and I are in the process of >> finalizing a program for the Symposium. The intent is to have a series >> of thirty-minute lectures on various aspects of climate science, >> highlighting Tom's contributions to our field. Several lectures will >> also cover other scientific areas in which Tom has worked. >> >> Within the next two weeks, we will be circulating an agenda for the >> Symposium and some logistical information. In the interim, please mark >> June 19th on your calendars! >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben Santer and Phil Jones >> >> (P.S.: There will be funding to cover the cost of a Symposium dinner on >> the evening of June 19th. Save in exceptional cases, however, most >> Symposium participants will have to pay their own travel and >> accommodation expenses). >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1575. 2009-03-23 15:29:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:29:59 -0000 (GMT) from: R.Bellamy@uea.ac.uk subject: Urgent PhD Testimonial to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith, Hows things? I'm applying to the joint NERC-ESRC research council for funding on the PhD project with Mike Hulme examining the efficacy of the climate 'tipping point' metaphor in public discourse. I'm getting my undergraduate dissertation supervisor to fill in the first testimonial, is it still ok for you to provide the second? It has to be provided embedded within the NERC-ESRC application form - I've attached a copy of it to this e-mail (pages 13 and 14). It says to be no longer than 300 words with a few specific questions to address. I've attached a working copy of my PhD proposal also in case you want a bit more background on what I'd be doing. Sorry to emphasise the urgency but the deadline is approaching fast! Please could you return your testimonial embedded in the form to Mike (m.hulme@uea.ac.uk) by this Friday (27th March)? Many thanks, Rob Bellamy Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2009esrc-form.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\PhD Proposal.doc" 4126. 2009-03-23 16:49:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:49:16 -0000 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - ICO Investigation to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Michael, Today I received a letter dated 19 March from the Information Commissioners Office confirming that Mr. Holland has appealed our decision to the Information Commissioners Office. (Copy in internal post to you tomorrow). Please note that we will have to prepare the information requested for submission to the ICO as part of the appeal. They have given us 20 working days to prepare the information; i.e.. by 21 April 2009. They will also undoubtedly wish to see our administrative file on the matter. I will draft a 'holding response' to this letter and will liaise further when we have been contacted by the ICO case officer. We need to go back to the original request and assemble the information requested. There is no 'appropriate limit' applicable to the ICO so we have to do this regardless of the time & effort. The key document is the letter of Mr. Holland of 5 May (copy forthcoming with copy of ICO letter). I am happy to meet asap to discuss the most efficient and hopefully least burdensome way of addressing this investigation. Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 3686. 2009-03-23 22:32:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:32:56 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Two questions to: "Ellen Mosley-Thompson" Ellen, Here's attachment. What it is is this. The black line is the HadSST2 (i.e.e what we're using now). The grey is the raw data - showing the bucket/intake correctsions we have been applying for years up to 1941 - in fact right up to Pearl Harbour. The red is what global SST will look like after we make the adjustments. This is still being worked on. We are adding in extra British data for the years 1938-1950 as the same time. These data have yet to be added. This is SST, so when the land is added, the difference will be reduced by about 40%. So the cooling is moved to slightly later by about 10 years. I'll also send a pdf Cheers Phil > Phil, > > Thank you very much for the reply regarding question 2. > I look forward to your slide highlighting the effect. > I will share it with John Brooke (assume that is acceptable). > > I regret that we will not see you in Toronto - but I am sure we will > cross paths somewhere else in the near future. > Best regards, > Ellen > > > > At 05:31 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote: >> Ellen, >> I'm at a meeting in Puebla, Mexico this week. >> The answer to 1) is no. I had a long standing engagement >> for a meeting in Finland - on the same day. >> >> On 2) I can send you a ppt when I get back to the hotel. >> What will happen to SSTs is that they will be warmer during the >> period from 1945 to about 1955. Then they will cool. >> This is better for the sulphate aerosol argument , as >> industry did not really pick up until the early 1950s >> following WW2. It was always quite difficult to explain >> the rapid cooling 1945/46 from the sulphate aerosol >> argument. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> > Hi Phil, >> > >> > I have two questions - one easy and quick and the other slightly more >> > involved. >> > >> > 1) Are you planning to attend the Joint Assembly in meeting in Toronto >> in >> > May? >> > >> > 2) This question has to do with the paper published in mid 2008 by you >> and >> > others in Nature with David Thompson as the lead author. I have not >> read >> > the paper - it somehow did not get on my radar screen until now, so I >> will >> > be reading it soon. The paper came to my attention through a >> colleague of >> > mine here at OSU. John Brooke is a Professor of History who is very >> > interested in the relationship between climate and human history. >> John is >> > writing a book that is nearing completion. In his discussion of 20th >> > century climate history and the mid-century (1940s to 1960) period in >> > which >> > temperatures remained relatively flat or cooled slightly, he was >> invoking >> > the increase anthropogenic sulfate aerosol argument. Then he >> stumbled >> > onto your paper in Nature. He has sent me a question (see below) but >> not >> > having read the paper in question I am reluctant to comment. Would >> you be >> > willing to provide John with a brief summary of your thoughts >> regarding >> > the >> > intersection of this measurement difficulty versus sulfate aerosol >> > forcing? I could have asked John to contact you directly but I >> thought >> > if >> > maybe with an introduction from me you might be more inclined to >> reply. If >> > you want to reply to this message I would be happy to forward it, but >> > alternatively you might just add John to the reply. His email is >> > brooke.10@osu.edu. >> > >> > I hope you might shed some light on whether this is a major issue for >> the >> > anthropogenic sulfate argument. I am also interested in this as I just >> > finished teaching my honors course on climate change and I used the >> > argument myself. If it is in doubt then I need to modify my class >> slides >> > for next year. >> > >> > Thank you in advance for any help you might provide. >> > Best regards, >> > Ellen >> > >> > Here is John's question: >> > Dear Ellen: >> > > I have run into a problem. In the last several weeks I have >> arrived >> > at >> > the 20th century, in my manuscript, with the end in sight. >> > > BUT.... I find that the understandings about decadal temperature >> > warming >> > and cooling in the 20th century have been cast in some doubt by the >> > article >> > by David Thompson, et al., in Nature, May 2008, who demonstrate that >> the >> > big 1945 cooling is an anomaly produced by too many British sailors >> > dipping >> > too many buckets in the water during the war (or their retreat from >> the >> > oceans with post-war budget cuts]. Thus the cooling might be a >> mirage, >> > and >> > the sulfate argument for that cooling might be up in the air. This >> > creates >> > a few problems for my finishing this up quickly... I find that this >> is >> > all so recent that there is nothing published yet, providing a >> > recalculation of temperature, or a reanalysis of forcing factors.... >> > > Would you have any ideas as to what is going on, and who might >> have >> > something that might give me an advance picture of the emerging >> > "consensus"? >> > Thanks, >> > John >> > >> >> >> >> >>-- > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\forellen.ppt" 3352. 2009-03-24 10:59:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 24 10:59:17 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Northern Latitude differences to: Deborah Hemming Hi Debbie, I took at look at the 1951-2000 Jan pattern -- as you say, it is still amplified at the poles compared to our CMIP3 HadCM3 pattern. Chris suggested this could be due to a genuine difference in model versions. Have you got the other 11 months for the longer 1951-2000 period yet? I'll take a look at them if you have. Cheers Tim At 19:40 06/03/2009, you wrote: Tim, Sorry I havnt been able to finish the patterns, attached is the January pattern for the standard run 1951-2100 30 year running mean, it is improved but still too amplified in the poles. Unfortunately, I am away now for 2 weeks so will have to sort this out when i'm back. Sorry again for the delay. Cheers, Debbie. On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 14:27 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote: > Thanks for that Debbie. Please note that I did *not* used 1900-2100 > for the regressions. We used 1951-2099 or 1951-2100 depending on > which year the runs finished in. Feel free to also do 1900-2099/2100 > to investigate sensitivity to this further, if you want, but with > 1951-2099 you've already replicated our analysis period so you could > just send those new patterns if you like. > > re. sensitivity. yes, the 20th century has lower slope in the local > changes, but also lower slope in the global-mean temperature that is > being regressed against. So, you wouldn't definitely get a > sensitivity to period of analysis. However in sea-ice areas this > might be more non-linear and hence the biggest local changes might > only occur after some degree of global warming, which could lead to > the effect that you describe. This also invalidates the > pattern-scaling concept, but for surface air temperature I only > pattern-scale over land, so the Arctic sea-ice area isn't much of a > concern. Of more concern are the N. American differences in Jan-May, > which are over land. It would be nice to see if your new 1951-2099 > patterns match mine better in this region. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 14:19 04/03/2009, Deborah Hemming wrote: > >It seems that the difference may be because of the different time period > >over which the regression was performed. I've just compared my previous > >output (2000-2099 period 30 year running mean) with the same but for the > >period 1951-2099, which is closer to the 1900-2100 period Tim uses. > >This second pattern is ~2C lower (more comparable with Tim's) in the > >polar regions than the first. > > > >This completely makes sense to me because the lower slope of the > >relationship during the 20th century is forcing the regression slope to > >be lower...esp in the high change regions. However, I really hadn't > >expected it to be so sensitive, which is somewhat disturbing! I want to > >check a couple more ideas and extend the time to cover the whole > >1900-2100 period, which i'll probably have to do overnight, but should > >be able to send some more reasonable QUMP patterns, at least for average > >temperature, to Tim tomorrow. > > > >Sorry this is taking so long to sort out, but it's very useful for me at > >least to appreciate the scale of differences that subtle variations in > >the methods used for pattern scaling can make. I think this also > >justifies us being very careful to use the same method for all data in > >QUEST-GSI. > > > >Cheers, > >Debbie. > > > >On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 13:38 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote: > > > something like Chris' suggestion below seems more likely than a bug > > > in your code, Debbie. A bug would more likely either make the > > > results unrecognisable or, if more minor, affect results more widely > > > rather than having a high-latitude focus. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > At 19:23 03/03/2009, Chris Huntingford wrote: > > > >Dear Debbie (cc Ben Booth) > > > > > > > >I can cover on Thursday. > > > > > > > >I was thinking about the GCM differences. There were a couple of > > > >small bugs that we found in HadCM3 land surface description that we > > > >didn't think made much difference when tested back in a full GCM > > > >simulation. Martin Best knows what the problems are, but I do have > > > >the vague memory of somebody saying they are most likely to make the > > > >largest differences in Northern Latitudes, mainly due to snow > > > >interactions. The "correct" simulation, hopefully bug-free, was made > > > >by Spencer Liddicoat, and the patterns are those that I sent you. > > > >Job number "afsyb". > > > > > > > >When we fitted the patterns to the QUMP runs, I cannot remember > > > >whether Ben Booth made patterns for the standard run too - I'm happy > > > >to make an intercomparison. Ben, do you have IMOGEN patterns for the > > > >control i.e. for each month - I'm struggling to remember?. Failing > > > >that, I could look at the very old patterns we used in the original > > > >HadCM3 simulation i.e. by Peter and I back in year 2000. > > > > > > > >I'm in CEH tomorrow morning after 10am if you want to ring. It's > > > >quite likely that you have not made an error, but in fact finding > > > >differences due to physics enhancement. > > > > > > > >All the best, > > > >Chris. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Chris Huntingford > > > >Climate Change Modeller > > > >+44 (0)1491 692389 > > > >+44 (0)7884437138 > > > >Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, U.K. > > > >[1]http://www.ceh.ac.uk/staffWebPages/DrChrisHuntingford.html > > > > > > > > >>> Deborah Hemming > > 03/03/2009 18:23 >>> > > > >Nigel, > > > > > > > > I'm currently checking with Tim and Chris to ensure that the patterns > > > >i'm producing with QUMP (using the ClimGen approach) are reasonable > > > >compared to those Tim has done already. > > > > > > > > Tim has made a comparison of the temperature patterns generated from > > > >the Standard run (HadCM3) from his code for ClimGen and mine using the > > > >QUMP standard run (basically similar to HadCM3 standard). We are > > > >concerned that my pattern was ~2C amplified in the N Polar region > > > >compared to Tim's ClimGen. Currently i'm running tests to diagnose > > > >where the problem/error may be and should have some answers on this over > > > >the next 2 days. > > > > > > > > I am very pushed for time and will be away for the following 2 weeks, > > > >so think it will be more worthwhile if I spend Thursday trying to sort > > > >this out rather than attend the meeting. Hope that doesnt cause any > > > >problems. I will update you on the latest at end of day tomorrow. > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > >Debbie. > > > > > > > >On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 14:37 +0000, Nigel Arnell wrote: > > > > > Debbie / Tim, > > > > > > > > > > Will you be able to update us on the status of the QUMP/ClimGen > > > > > scenarios on Thursday? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Nigel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Professor Nigel Arnell > > > > > Director > > > > > Walker Institute for Climate System Research > > > > > University of Reading > > > > > Earley Gate > > > > > RG6 6BB > > > > > UK > > > > > > > > > > +44-118-378-7392 > > > > > [2]www.walker-institute.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Dr Deborah Hemming (Manager, Climate Impacts Analysis) > > > >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change > > > >Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB > > > >tel: +44 (0)1392 885715 fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > >web: [3]http://www.hadleycentre.co.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. > > > > > > 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: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > > > sunclock: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > > > > > >-- > >Dr Deborah Hemming (Manager, Climate Impacts Analysis) > >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change > >Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB > >tel: +44 (0)1392 885715 fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > >web: [6]http://www.hadleycentre.co.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: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > -- Dr Deborah Hemming (Manager, Climate Impacts Analysis) Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB tel: +44 (0)1392 885715 fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 web: [9]http://www.hadleycentre.co.uk 515. 2009-03-24 19:29:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:29:28 -0000 (GMT) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: [Fwd: Climate Science in ENV] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil i is very difficult for me to make this meeting because I have a builder and contractor arranged - but it sounded important so I thought I should try to make it for a short time. I have to get back to Deopham by 12 at the latest though- so hardly worth it. Tim did NOT get accepted on that NERC sandpit - surprisingly- but Simon Tett did! Ridiculous. Well done on that EU application. My NERC application got through the first screening and has gone out for review - better than my last two attempts at least! Still , do not hold out much hope even though the work is really important and Tom is depending on it. I broke down 30 miles away (well car did - though I am not actually that far away myself!) taking Sarah to Yarmouth yesterday to the dentist. We were eventually rescued but the altenator needs repair. This is being done tomorrow so I will be working from home. Keith > Keith, > I thought as it was Saturday you might not be able to go. > > It is hot here in Puebla. > > The interactive aspect of the wrokshop is on now. > One the of guys I'm helping - I can only help the few > who speak English - was tree coring last week with > Dave Stahle in Quereterao in Mexico. They found some > bald cypress up to 1200 years old. > > That EU grant - the one I showed you - looks certain. > We are 3rd on the list and the top ranked in the > climate area (all within the space program). > > Cheers > Phil >> Phil I have no idea. I'd better go. >> Keith >> >>> Keith, >>> I can make this - I should be back in on Friday. >>> Any more news about what this might be about? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>> ---------------------------- >>> Subject: Climate Science in ENV >>> From: "Carver Rachel Miss \(SCI\)" >>> Date: Tue, March 24, 2009 2:16 pm >>> To: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Watson Andrew Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Renfrew Ian Dr \(ENV\)" >>> "Lenton Timothy Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Sturges Bill Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Dorling Stephen Dr \(ENV\)" >>> "Hulme Michael Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)" >>> "Minns Asher Mr \(ENV\)" >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Jacquie has called an urgent meeting with Bob Watson, Trevor Davies and >>> Kevin Anderson to discuss the future of Climate Science in the School. >>> Due to diaries, the meeting has been called for this Saturday 28th >>> March >>> at 10.00am. Please would you let me know, by return, whether you are >>> able to attend this meeting? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Rachel >>> >>> >>> >>> Rachel Carver >>> >>> Secretary to the Head of School >>> >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> >>> Room 0.37 >>> >>> University of East Anglia >>> >>> Norwich NR4 7TJ >>> >>> >>> >>> Tel: 01603 592836 >>> >>> Rachel.Carver@uea.ac.uk >>> >>> Office Hours Monday to Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > 1064. 2009-03-24 20:24:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:24:38 +0000 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: [supranet] Re: NERC Quantifying Uncertainty Sandpit to: Keith Briffa , Caitlin Buck Hi Keith, it will be interesting to see who will be playing in the sandpit!!! Rob Keith Briffa wrote: Caitlin Sorry to here this .Tim Osborn from the Climatic Research Unit also applied but unsuccessfully - really seems to me that there should be some disquiet about this process ( lack of widespread notification, obscure basis of selection criteria, and subsequent exclusion of non-participants from funding eligibility). What do others think? Keith At 14:32 23/03/2009, Caitlin Buck wrote: Dear Colleagues, This message is only of relevance to colleagues in the UK. Those who have been selected to attend the NERC Quantifying Uncertainty Sandpit should have had notification today. Unfortunately, I am not on to the list. Did any of you get a place? If so, would you be prepared to "carry the SUPRAnet flag"? Best wishes Caitlin -- Prof Caitlin E. Buck Department of Probability and Statistics University of Sheffield Hicks Building Hounsfield Road Sheffield S3 7RH Tel: +44 114 222 3715 (direct line) Tel: +44 114 222 3731 (secretary) Fax: +44 114 222 3809 -- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2678. 2009-03-25 18:51:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ben Santer" , "Tom Wigley" , "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:51:58 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: Wigley Symposium - Logistics so far to: lbutler@ucar.edu Many thanks Lisa At this time of year I am inclined to gamble and go for the tree plaza which can be nice. Need to check on backup if weather inclement. We can request funds from NCAR and UCAR: two classes, one to support breaks and one separate for alcohol. Suggest a draft program and speakers would help make the case. Should go to Bill (CGD), NCAR, and UCAR. Bill does not have much in funds for alcohol, but can and should support breaks. I actually feel strongly about this as it sets a bad precedent for others if no such request is made. Maybe we can argue it should come from "stimulus" package? Kevin > Dear Ben et al., > I want to bring you up-to-date where we are so far with logistics for > Tom's retirement symposium (not very far, actually, but a good start). > > 1) Room Reservations: > a) For the symposium itself, I have the Mesa Lab Main Seminar Room > booked on June 19th from 8 AM - 6 PM > b) For a reception, I have the Mesa Lab Damon Room booked on June > 19th from 5:30 PM - 8 PM > c) For dinner, I have a double booking (we will have to let one go > eventually) on June 19th, either the Mesa Lab Tree Plaza or the Mesa Lab > Cafeteria (which can be "dressed up" fairly nicely), both are reserved > from 5:30 PM - 9 PM. If we do decide to have the dinner here on the > Mesa we probably want to let the Damon Room go and have the reception > and dinner in the same location. > > 2) Dinner: we can have it here (our Event Services and catering staff > are available) and we can direct bill LLNL (or DOE or however it works > with Ben's DOE Fellowship money). There are some distinct advantages to > this. If NCAR/CGD was to pay for the dinner and then recoup from Ben's > DOE funds we would have to submit a mini proposal (not a big deal but > really slow wending it's way through the bureaucracy) AND we would have > to pay NCAR overhead on the costs (at 51.9% that IS a big deal). The > cost to bill outside parties is the same basic charge that we at NCAR > would pay, plus a 10% surcharge -- a big savings over the 51.9% > overhead! The mechanics of this can be flexible. I can be the > contact/coordinator and still have LLNL as the paying party, or Ben &/or > his admin can work directly with NCAR Event Services, whichever is best > for you. The other big advantage is transportation cost savings: $76.87 > per hour plus overhead for a 44 passenger bus, minimum 2 hour charge, > which we would incur to transport out-of-towners to restaurant. This > would be in addition to the bus cost I expect we will incur transporting > people to and from hotels to NCAR. > If everyone is in agreement about having the dinner here then we just > need (1) to decide whether to use the Tree Plaza or the ML Cafe -- a > tough call in afternoon shower season. However, I *think* that we may be > able to reserve the Tree Plaza as our 1st choice with the cafe as > back-up for inclement weather. I'll confirm that if the Tree Plaza is > our first choice. Personally, it would be my first choice; and (2) who > will be the point of contact (me or Ben or his admin) for NCAR Event > Services. > If everyone is not in agreement about having the dinner here I will > check on price and availability at the St. Julien and a couple of other > places (Chautauqua, Millennium, Broker -- whatever anyone wants). > > 3) Recording: we can both record and present live webcast the symposium > (for free!) and archive it on a web page for posterity. The webcast and > archive will have both sound and video so people can both see the slides > and the speakers and hear the presentations. I will have to have consent > forms signed by all speakers, but if anyone doesn't want to give their > consent I can just turn it off during that particular talk. A couple of > caveats: as I understand it, people at DOE labs cannot view the live > webcast due to the DOE firewalls, but they can access the archived web > version after the fact (usually takes about a week or two to get the > archive up). Also, this is only available for free in the Main Seminar > Room. If we want to record speeches at dinner it will cost us (I don't > know how much -- I need decision on dinner location before I can pursue > cost details of recording dinner). Let me know if I should look into > recording the dinner speeches. > > 4) Potential charges to CGD (coffee break catering, bus transportation, > reception, alcohol for dinner and/or reception, registration). I haven't > put any real time into this yet. I feel it's too dependent on how much > the dinner will cost (i.e., what Ben will have "left over"), and > regarding the bus transport; where we will have the dinner and how many > out-of-towners we will have. As soon as we make a decision about the > dinner and I get an estimate from Ben re out-of-towner numbers I will > put pencil to paper. > > 5) Registration: note I put registration as a potential cost to CGD > above. If we want to I can set up an on-line registration that will cost > us $1.95 per person (plus overhead). The main advantage would be to get > a firm count and names and contact details if we wanted to have a > participants list. This would be a "no fee" registration for the > participants. Alternatively, for more money (I think $3.75 per person, > but I need to confirm if that rate is still current) we can set up a > registration wherein people have to pay a registration fee and we can > use the fee to pay for alcohol. I think we would only want to do the > more expensive registration if we can't get enough discretionary funds > from NCAR to pay for the alcohol. Just something to chew on. > > 6) Alcohol: I should probably get the discretionary request in for > alcohol in ASAP, at least partly so we can decide if we need to charge a > registration fee. Ben, can you confirm that 100 is a safe guess for > number of participants? Again, how much we need for alcohol will depend > on deciding whether we are going to have *both* a reception and dinner, > and where we will have the dinner. > > 7) Hotels: waiting on Ben's out-of-towner estimate. It can be a rough > guess for now. > > Again, I will develop and post on the web detailed logistics info as > soon as we are far enough along for it to be meaningful. We can post the > agenda on the web too, I can make flyers in PDF that can be distributed > to colleagues and institutions for posting on bulletin boards if we want > the symposium (not dinner or reception!) to be open to the public. > Before we decide to advertise widely we might want to give a little more > time to collecting responses from Ben's invitation -- the Main Seminar > room holds 115 people. > > That's it for now. Any and all input appreciated. > > Best, > Lisa > > > > -- > Lisa Butler > Administrative Assistant > AIMES Program and Climate Analysis Section > Climate and Global Dynamics Division > National Center for Atmospheric Research > P.O. Box 3000 > Boulder, CO 80307, USA > > Tel: 303-497-1366 > Fax: 303-497-1333 > Email: lbutler@ucar.edu > Web: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/lisa/ > > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 5030. 2009-03-27 12:23:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:23:34 +0800 from: Edward Cook subject: Fwd: Confirmation of document submission to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, The review is in. It was very strong in support of what you want to do: Alpha5. I can't wait to sip an Adnams with you. Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Begin forwarded message: From: [2]JeSHelp@rcuk.ac.uk Date: March 27, 2009 12:16:31 PM GMT+08:00 To: [3]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Subject: Confirmation of document submission This confirms that a Peer Review document submitted by you has been routed to NERC. Title: The dendroclimatic divergence phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction Funders Reference: NE/G018863/1 Research Council contact: Mrs Christine Embling: 1745: [4]paneld@nerc.ac.uk Date and time of action: Mar 27 2009 4:16AM You may review the form by visiting this site: [5]https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/Jes2WebLoginSite/Login.aspx Regards Je-S Helpdesk E-mail:[6]JeSHelp@rcuk.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0) 1793 44 4164 (Out of hours: leave a Voice Mail message) ********************************************************************** 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: [7]firstname.lastname@rcuk.ac.uk ********************************************************************** 2298. 2009-03-30 16:08:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:08:47 +0100 from: "Parker, David" subject: RE: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects] to: "Phil Jones" Phil Thanks - I've saved this into a safe place! David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:50 PM To: Parker, David Subject: RE: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects] David, surfacestations.org seem to have picked this up a few weeks ago, when they made me the Director of the Hadley Centre - a job that I know doesn't exist! I was asked by someone at DECC on Friday to write a few sentences to help them respond to the following question, which came to Ed Milliband. You'd better not pass this on to anyone, but this is what I sent back. I don't know, if any of what I said below, was used. The reply had to sent today by noon, but I didn't hear back from anyone at DECC this morning. I got the impression that there were other questions/issues that DECC didn't send me. Cheers Phil What the questioner asked: Surface records exaggerate warming, due to urban encroachment on recording stations. Satellite records (available only since 1979) agree with stations distant from towns that temperatures have been growing much slower than is alleged by alarmists. Indeed, temperatures in the USA (the only reliable data series of any large land mass) were as high in the 30s as in the 90s. Even Hansen accepts this. The IPCC `correction' for this `heat island' is inadequate being largely based on unreliable Chinese records. The Director of the Met Office's Hadley Centre finally admitted this last autumn. My reply Every sentence in the above is wrong! There is more than one satellite record of MSU temperatures since 1979. They are almost certainly referring to the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) dataset. There is also a dataset developed at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS, also in the USA) that shows more warming than UAH since 1979. Differences relate to the way numerous issues with the sensors and the satellite orbits have been adjusted for. The MSU instruments on these polar-orbiting satellites also measure temperature in the lower troposphere (centred about 700hPa) so are not directly comparable with what is measured at the surface. The best discussion of all this is in Ch 3 of 2007 IPCC AR4 (Section 3.4.1.2 and also Figure 3.17). The USA is not the only region to have good reliable series. It is the most studied record, only because the data are more freely available than elsewhere and there are a lot of scientists there. There are excellent records also across Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Russia, and they are considerably longer in Europe than the USA. Although coverage could be better in other regions of the world, all records from across world have been assessed for long-term homogeneity (including the effects of urbanization). The reference to Jim Hansen indicates that they place great emphasis on the records produced by GISS. There is another US dataset (developed by NCDC in Asheville), which I think is better and this has the contiguous US (lower 48 states) warmer in the 1990s compared to the 1930s. The CRUTEM3 data (the land component of HadCRUT3) agree better with the NCDC data than it does with GISS. A figure from AR4 to illustrate this is Fig 9.12 from Ch 9. This shows observed decadal mean temperatures since 1900 for three parts of North America (west, central and east) and all show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the 20th century. IPCC doesn't have a correction, just like it doesn't have a data set or a climate model. IPCC assesses the scientific literature, it doesn't do research. The penultimate sentence refers to a recent paper (Jones et al., 2008). This looks at urbanization issues across China. This paper shows that urban-related warming is about 0.1 deg C/decade (for the period 1951-2004). Accounting for this, the remaining warming is 0.81 deg C over the period from 1951-2004. Combining these two bits of information means that 60% of the warming is not due to urban effects. This result is just for China, and cannot be applied elsewhere in the world. The paper shows, for example, that there is no urban-related warming at sites in the centres of London and Vienna. The contrast between the effects in China and those in London and Vienna highlight the fact that urban-related warming cannot be assumed to be occurring just based on a city's population. It is imperative to look at the data and compare urban with rural sites. AR4 of IPCC referred to several studies which looked at the effect of urbanization during the last 50-70 years. These studies include Parker (2004, 2006) and Peterson and Owen (2005), the latter showing hardly any urban-related warming across the contiguous United States (see this in Fig 3.3 of AR4). The Jones et al. (2008) study does not conflict with the earlier Jones et al. (1990) study, but instead confirms its findings, which were based on the 1954-1983 period. Figures 6 and 7 clearly show that much of the temperature rise across China has occurred since the mid-1980s, the period after the 1990 study. Finally, the paper gives the affiliation of the first two authors, namely the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The first author is not the Director of the Hadley Centre at the Met Office. In fact, no such position actually exists. References Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916. Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang and T.R. Karl, 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172. Parker, D.E., 2004: Large-scale warming is not urban. Nature, 432, 290-290. Parker, D.E., 2006: A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban. J. Climate, 19, 2882-2895. Peterson, T.C. and T.W. Owen, 2005: Urban heat island assessment: Metadata are important. J. Climate, 18, 2637-2646. At 14:17 30/03/2009, you wrote: Barry No, we have not changed our estimates. We already knew that China was undergoing urbanisation, more so than other parts of the world. 0.1C per decade urban warming since 1951 over China would still translate to a very small influence on the global trend. Jones et al also noted that some Western cities are no longer undergoing urban warming so they are contributing zero urban-warming trend in recent decades. Many other parts of the world have rural stations, and 70% of the Earth's surface is unaffected by cities because it is ocean. David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: [2]www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ -----Original Message----- From: Gromett, Barry On Behalf Of Press Office Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:35 PM To: Parker, David Subject: FW: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects] David Do you have any comment on this? Thanks very much Barry -----Original Message----- From: David Appell [[4] mailto:appell@nasw.org] Sent: 29 March 2009 02:25 To: Press Office Subject: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Chinese urban heat island effects Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:59:57 -0700 From: David Appell Reply-To: appell@nasw.org To: pressoffice@metoffice.gov.uk Hello. Did the revision of Chinese Urban Heat Island effects in the 2008 paper by PD Jones et al (Jones, P. D., D. H. Lister, and Q. Li (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916) have any effect on overall global temperatures in any of your temperature time series (especially HadCRUT3)? Thank you, David -- David Appell, freelance science journalist e: appell@nasw.org p: 503-975-5614 w: [5]http://www.nasw.org/users/appell m: St. Helens, OR -- David Appell, freelance science journalist e: appell@nasw.org p: 503-975-5614 w: [6]http://www.nasw.org/users/appell m: St. Helens, OR Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1115. 2009-03-30 17:16:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:16:23 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - ICO to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, An array of documents for you as follows: 1. Original request of 5 May 2008 2. Email by Mr. Holland of 8 May 2008 3. Email of T. Osborn of 12 May 2008 (with attachments; email of S. Solomon, IPCC responses) 4. Clarification letter by us of 19 May 2008 5. David Holland letter of 27 May 2008 6. Original response by us of 3 June 2008 7. David Holland letter of 4 June 2008 8. My initial appeal response of 20 June 2008 9. David Holland letter of 27 June 2008 10. Response by J. Colam of 18 July 2008 11. David Holland letter of 23 July 2008 12. J. Colam response of 30 July 2008 13. David Holland letter of 31 July 2008 14. J. Colam response of 15 August 2008 15. David Holland letter of 20 August 2008 16. David Holland letter of 13 October 2008 17. J. Colam response of 29 October 2008 This pretty much is the substance of the exchange between Mr. Holland and ourselves. You have probably seen all of these communications previously but I thought bringing them together would allow you to see the development of the disagreement between ourselves and Mr. Holland. The essence of the argument is what Act we consider this request under, and the issue for us is the effect an unfavourable finding by the ICO would have on us. A secondary issue, but of great immediate importance, is the necessity of providing the ICO with the requested information so that they can conduct a review, determine the appropriate Act and direct us accordingly. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:56 AM >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - >ICO Investigation > > >I have had problems finding a room at 3.30, so can we move the >meeting to 4.00 on Thursday 2nd and we can then meet in the >LGMAC meeting room? (Dave - I will meet you in ENV reception >just before 4.00 and take you there.) > >No need to reply if this time is suitable to you - I will >assume that we will all be there unless I hear otherwise. > >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 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk [mailto:K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 7:02 PM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \" , "Osborn >Timothy Dr \" , "Briffa Keith Prof \" >, "Jones Philip Prof \" >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - >ICO Investigation > >OK - thanks all > >Keith > >> Lets go for 3.30 next Thursday. The SCI meeting room is booked so I >> will see if I can find another room. >> >> 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: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:04 PM >> To: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith >> Prof (ENV) >> Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - ICO >> Investigation >> >> Any time that day works for me so I'm happy with the afternoon. >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >>>Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:59 PM >>>To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); >>>Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>>Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - >>>ICO Investigation >>> >>>Keith and I are teaching from 10-12 that day, so can't really make >>>9.30 unless it's really quick. The afternoon is ok with me. >>> >>>Tim >>> >>>At 13:54 24/03/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >>>>How about 9.30 next Thursday (2nd April)in the Science Meeting Room >>>>(0.22D)? >>>> >>>>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: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:33 AM >>>>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >>>>Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>>>Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - ICO >>>>Investigation >>>> >>>>Dave , Michael et al >>>>I suggest we might hold a brief meeting to review this next week >>>>-Unfortunately, I am in Bangor on Monday and Tuesday , examining a >>>>PhD , so I suggest Wednesday or preferably Thursday >>>> >>>>Keith >>>> >>>>At 16:49 23/03/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>>> >>>> >Michael, >>>> >Today I received a letter dated 19 March from the Information >>>> >Commissioners Office confirming that Mr. Holland has appealed our >>>> >decision to the Information Commissioners Office. (Copy >in internal >>>> >post to you tomorrow). >>>> > >>>> >Please note that we will have to prepare the information requested >>>> >for submission to the ICO as part of the appeal. They >have given us >>>> >20 working days to prepare the information; i.e.. by 21 April >>>> >2009. They will also undoubtedly wish to see our administrative >>>> >file on the matter. I will draft a 'holding response' to this >>>> >letter and will liaise further when we have been contacted by the >>>> >ICO case officer. >>>> > >>>> >We need to go back to the original request and assemble the >>>> >information requested. There is no 'appropriate limit' applicable >>>> >to the ICO so we have to do this regardless of the time & effort. >>>> >The key document is the letter of Mr. Holland of 5 May (copy >>>> >forthcoming with copy of ICO letter). I am happy to meet asap to >>>> >discuss the most efficient and hopefully least burdensome way of >>>> >addressing this investigation. >>>> > >>>> >Cheers, Dave >>>> > >>>> >____________________________ >>>> >David Palmer >>>> >Information Policy & Compliance Manager >>>> >University of East Anglia >>>> >Norwich, England >>>> >NR4 7TJ >>>> > >>>> >Information Services >>>> >Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >>>> >Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Initial_reqeust_080505.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Palmer_080509.htm" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Osborn-McGarvie[et al]_080512.txt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Advice from Susan Solomon.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOI David Holland colleagues responses.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOIA_referral_letter_080519.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Palmer_080527.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Response_letter_080603.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Appeal_notice_080604.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2nd_level_referral_0806201.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Palmer_080627.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Appeal_review_JC_080717.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Colam_080723.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Appeal_review_JC#2_080730.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Colam_080731.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Colam-Holland_080815.htm.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Colam_080820.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holland-Colam_081013.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Colam-Holland_081029.pdf" 4256. 2009-03-30 22:12:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:12:01 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12384511212790016" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:12:01 UT Message-Id: <9312384511218@gems> Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for your review of "How Will Earth's Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?" by Judith Lean and David Rind [Paper #2009GL038131], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Anne Mueller Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category B Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: In its present it needs significant changes. Formal Review: Review of Lean and Rind I have a number of major and some minor concerns. If all my major comments can be addressed and #4 removed, I'd recommend acceptance. In its present state, the paper is not acceptable. Major - all are important. 1. The second sentence of the introduction falls into the same trap that those that have questioned the reality of global warming have done. If there is a trend from 2002 to 2008 it isn't significant, it isn't even a decade! You need to write this and the next sentence differently. You don't want to have to refer to the non-scientific statements on blogs and op-ed pieces. 2. The use of the word model at the top of p4 is confusing. What you mean here is the statistical or empirical model from the regression analyses. 3. Can you state the amplitude of the solar effect (from solar max to min), just so I don't have to estimate it from Figure 1. More importantly can you explain in some detail (i.e. justify) the ups and downs in the green curve in Figure 1 during periods of solar maxima?. 4. To claim that Europe warms following volcanoes you need some references. It may cool slightly in winter, but it isn't significant. It cools in Europe in summers. See Jones et al. (2003). It's not significant because samples are small and winter temperatures are highly variable. You are looking at annual temperatures. Here, any winter warming (that isn't significant) is countered by summer cooling (that is again insignificant). I'd remove any reference to European warming. If you want to keep it in prove it, and at the same time show where Jones et al (2003) got it wrong. 5. The numbers in the paragraph on p6, lines 1-10 need some error ranges, however difficult to do. 6. The summary section isn't really a summary section. It contains many of the caveats that should have been in the main text. 7. In the regional fits (Figure 2) do you allow the lags to vary spatially? If you do this needs an extra section to show that the varying lags are in agreement spatially. Minor 1. It is important to define what near-term is. 2. line 25 of p1, do you really mean decades on this line. Is it not just a decade or at most two? 3. When you say 'normalization' on line 9 of p2 you probably mean 'initialization'? 4. Coverage is just as good back to 1951. There is no rationale for starting in 1981. I see later that the regressions are calculated over 1970-99. The base period and the regression period should be brought together. 5. It would be possible to run the regressions over the period from 1951-70 to see if the regression weights stand up. Another use of the 1951-70 period would be use the regression estimate (from the fit from 1970-99) to calculate global mean temperatures and then compare with those measured. This latter use an excellent way of validating the regression weights. 6. The Brohan et al (2006) data on p3 is called HadCRUT3(v) and it is a joint venture between CRU and the Hadley Centre. As you've got the data from the CRU web site, you can see that there are a number of datasets there. They have names, so use them. There is no such thing as CRU data, just like there isn't a single GISS model or data! 7. For projections/forecasts you could do a range of possible ENSO and volcanic projections. Could do a worst case, which might be a volcano coinciding with a La Nina event. 8. IPCC's 0.2 on line 24 of p4 was probably rounded. Your 0.17 would round to the same number. I wouldn't make a big thing of the difference. 9. No idea what 'past is prologue' on p6, line 23 means. Refs 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 Earth's Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. 3605. 2009-03-31 09:26:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 31 09:26:21 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Latest CCPP Science Team Meeting Agenda to: Christine McCallister Christine, Just picked up the details from the web site. A couple of things 1. I'm down for Thursday am, which is fine. You've NOT got me on the list for the dinner. Can you add me? So Phil Jones U East Anglia 4/5/2009 (arrival) 4/9/2009 (departure) Yes No No Just so I get the dinner on the Monday (April 6)!! 2. I'm also going to be presenting something from the IDAG group. This is a project led by Gabi Hegerl, who is not coming. She obviously didn't say that I was coming to present (for the 2-3ppts and a poster). Can this be added to the same session as I'll be presenting my project at? So add this as the end of the 5 that are there for Thursday April 9 (10.30-12) This project title is 'The International Detection and Attribution Group: Reducing uncertainties in future projections by quantifying human contributions to 20th century climate change. Cheers Phil At 22:01 30/03/2009, you wrote: The latest CCPP Science Team Meeting Agenda is posted on our website at: [1]https://ccpp.llnl.gov/meetings/april2009/meeting_apr_2009.html Thank you, Christine -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christine K. McCallister Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) Physical and Life Sciences (PLS) Directorate Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory L-103; P.O. Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 Voice: (925) 422-3840 Fax: (925) 422-7675 E-mail: mccallister4@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 342. 2009-04-01 13:14:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Apr 1 13:14:41 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Effect of human activity upon global warming to: "Lucy and Dom" There are lots of issues that relate to this 90% probability statement. I'd suggest you read Ch 9 of the IPCC Report and/or the Technical Summary. [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html You can download the pdfs from the above. One simple way of thinking about this. Climate scientists are 100% confident that they can detect an anthropogenic signal in surface temperature data. Climate models also predict changes in precipitation, but these are much harder to detect in the observations. Another way of thinking about this is - if climate scientists were 100% certain, then we'd know what the climate sensitivity is and we'd know exactly how much temperatures would increase this century (if the greenhouse gas projections were correct). Phil At 13:03 01/04/2009, you wrote: Thanks Phil From this I see that the IPCC report implies there is a 90% probability that human activity has contributed to observed global warming. I find that rather odd though. If the IPCC is not 100% certain that human activity contributes to global warming how can the IPCC know there is a 90% probability that it does have this effect? Any ideas? I agree with your second point observed temperature has warmed unequivocally over the past few decades relative to the 1961-90 mean. Regards Dom ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 9:52 PM To: Lucy and Dom Subject: Re: Effect of human activity upon global warming Dom, IPCC's likelihood language is defined in the attached. Table 4 is the key to where the CRU use of likely and very likely come from. We used the IPCC statements from Chapter 9 of the 2007 AR4 Report. Unequivocal was used with respect to the observed warming. In the context here this means beyond doubt. Cheers Phil At 12:34 01/04/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil Another question for you if I may. Beneath the graph at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ is the following notation: 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' I am interested in the use of the words very likelyby the IPCC. Does this mean it has not been proven beyond a doubt that human activity is contributing to global warming? From my reading of the popular media I thought it had been proven that human activity contributes to global warming. Thanks Dominic Mether ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2008 2:42 AM To: lucydom@bigpond.com Cc: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: FW: Global cooling? Dominic, The anthropogenic component of global warming is currently raising temperatures at about 0.2 deg per decade (rounded to one decimal place). Estimate comes from the trend of temperatures over the period from the 1970s in the real world and more importantly from climate models. This change per year is 0.02 deg C per year. This change is quite small given the size of year-to-year variability evident in the historic record of global temperatures. Some of this variability stems from El Nino's and La Nina's, some from the effects of explosive volcanic eruptions, and some from other factors related to internal variability of the climate system (changes in ocean currents and the winds). Whatever the exact reasons, we expect similar rates of year-to-year variability in the future. So there is absolutely no difficulty with the annual global mean temperature values not increasing year on year. 0.02 deg C per year is also small compared to the error of the global temperature estimates. This is about +/- 0.10 at 95% confidence level. As the anthropogenic component is small on the year to year basis, you'd expect to see it more easily on decadal timescales. 2001-2007 is 0.21 deg C warmer than the 1991-2000 period. Cheers Phil -----Original Message----- From: lucydom [ [5]mailto:lucydom@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:53 AM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Global cooling? Hi The graph at [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ seems to suggest the planet has been cooling since 1998. What can explain this obvious downward trend, and how can this recent global cooling be explained within the broader context of global warming? Regards, Dominic Mether Brisbane, Australia Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2588. 2009-04-01 15:13:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: phil Jones date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:13:22 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Titles for presentations at Wigley Symposium to: Malcolm Hughes Dear Malcolm, It was great to talk to you and commiserate about our experiences with Steven $%&*@#+ McIntyre. It will be fun to get together in Boulder and share a few beers. I'm delighted that you'll be able to make it Tom's Symposium. I know Tom will be, too. The title is fine - no worries about the length. With best regards, Ben Malcolm Hughes wrote: > Ben - it was good talking with you. As for a title, how about: "When is > enough enough? Tom Wigley and the quantitative analysis of proxy climate > records." > Let me know if this is too long, Cheers, Malcolm > > Ben Santer wrote: >> My apologies - here is the latest version of the agenda. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> Ben Santer wrote: >>> Dear prospective speakers, >>> >>> I'm appending the latest version of the agenda for Tom Wigley's >>> Symposium on June 19th. Phil Jones and I would like to distribute >>> this agenda to all Symposium participants by no later than the end of >>> this week. We'd be very grateful if you could confirm the (tentative) >>> presentation title we have listed for you - or send us a more >>> creative title instead. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> Ben Santer and Phil Jones >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4865. 2009-04-02 10:35:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Apr 2 10:35:07 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Final version of agenda? to: Tom Wigley Tom, We have to waste time when someone sends in an FOI request. It is against the law not to reply - and we have a limited time to reply (20-30 days - can't remember the exact time). He is David Holland. He is a retired engineer living in Northampton. He thinks there is a cover up on how Ch 6 of AR4 was written. He wants to know why some text was changed in the various drafts and in response to what comments. All relates to the last 1000 years proxy series. He seems to think that Keith shouldn't have referred to papers by Ammann/Wahl and Wahl/Ammann that have now appeared in Climatic Change. He also specifically wants to know if we were sent these by Caspar/Gene or Mike Mann or IPCC! Doing IPCC you get sent loads of papers by people who think they ought to be referred to in Chapters. Kevin and I got quite a few sent when we were doing Ch 3. Holland seems to think we should be logging these somehow. Holland has never done any reviewing. There is another way to receive papers before they come out..... Here's a link that comes up if you google David Holland Climate. He writes to places like this and Climate Audit and sends submissions to reports such as the Garnaut Review is Australia. If the latter has any sense they ignore the missives. [1]http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0830755GeneralSubmission-David Holland-DeficienciesintheIPCCFourthAssessmentReportofTheScientificBasisofClimateChange/$Fil e/D08%2030755%20General%20Submission%20-%20David%20Holland%20-%20Deficiencies%20in%20the%20 IPCC%20Fourth%20Assessment%20Report%20of%20The%20Scientific%20Basis%20of%20Climate%20Change .pdf The above is awful, so don't bother to wade through it - not even if you're stuck at an airport. Cheers Phil At 10:09 02/04/2009, you wrote: Phil, Don't waste time replying to this in detail, but who is Holland and what is his reason for wanting the emails? Tom. ++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Ben, Glad that Malcolm is able to come. I've sent on Malcolm's acceptance to Keith here. Agenda looks good and having all - reception/dinner as well at NCAR will enable all to discuss/mingle, whatever. Let's hope the long June day is sunny. Would seem as though you can send this out to all those who've said they can come and to those who've not responded so far. We just need to decide if the video link is possible. The 7/8 hr time difference with the UK/Europe means that any here will likely not stay beyond the mid-afternoon. See you on Monday! Cheers Phil PS talking of McIntyre, Keith, Tim and I have a meeting with the FOI people here at UEA later today. A UK person (David Holland) has appealed UEA's refusal to send emails about who said what/changed what re Ch 6 of AR4. We have emails from all on Ch 6 saying that they don't want their emails sent on, so don't think there are any grounds. Holland is trying also on EIR (Environmental Information Regulations) as well as FOI. He also included emails from Caspar Ammann and Mike Mann as well. Will let you know Monday what happens. The whole thing is a pain. The FOI person sent all the correspondence yesterday - ~ 25 emails, including the UEA responses each time. Has been going on since March 2008! At 01:27 02/04/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Lisa, Your edited version of the agenda looks great to me. I'm happy with all the changes you've made. I fully approve of having the dinner at NCAR. Incidentally, I'll be meeting Anjuli Bamzai at next week's Climate Change Prediction Program meeting in Washington D.C., and at that time I'll try to clarify the most efficient way of using my DOE Fellowship money to cover the Symposium expenses. Regarding the musical entertainment - Karl Taylor and I had something specific in mind. Karl is currently writing some form of musical tribute to Tom (I don't want to give too much away here!) Karl and I both play the guitar, and have provided similar "musical interludes" in the past (e.g., at Larry Gates' retirement dinner). So we would not need to make arrangements with an outside venue to cover the musical entertainment. It would be very helpful, however, if we could borrow two guitars for the evening - this would mean that we wouldn't have to lug our own guitars from Livermore to Boulder. With best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I'm attaching a version here with my info (Wigley_Agenda10-LB). Feel free to use or toss, as you wish -- my stuff is trivial, but here is what I've done: 1) Formatting: I changed the margins and spacing so it would all fit on one page. Just my personal preference. Disregard if you think it looks too crowded. 2) Heading: I just made it a little more formal, added location info. 3) Nit picking: added "noon" after 12:00; added "p.m." after 12:30; added a bit of info re lunch; corrected spelling of "Griffith" (Palutikof). That's it for now, but if we can get a consensus on the dinner we can add that location too (just say "at NCAR" since I still need to tie down Tree Plaza vs. Cafe). ****Does anyone object to having it at NCAR? Speak now or forever hold your peace!**** I think the reception and dinner schedules are fine. Especially the reception -- I find that people start to get antsy after about 45 minutes. If we are going to hold the dinner at NCAR I think I will extend the dinner reservation to 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. (depending on entertainment), just to be on the safe side. Also, a new question from me: do you have something specific in mind for the live music or should I be shopping for it? I didn't realize we were going to have music, but if we are, I think it's another reason to have the dinner at NCAR, rather than having to make arrangements with an outside venue to accommodate our entertainment. Best, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Many thanks, Lisa! Best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I do have a couple of comments, a few informational items you may want to add. I'm working on it now and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Dear Tom, Phil, and Lisa, Here is the complete agenda, with all speakers now confirmed. Is there anything you would like me to change before I send this out to the meeting participants? Lisa, should we say anything about the location of the reception? Do the times look right for the reception (45 minutes) and the dinner (90 minutes)? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1943. 2009-04-02 14:38:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:38:05 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: ICO Investigation - (FOI_08-23) - Correspondence to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, To keep you up to speed, I attach the letter that I sent by surface post yesterday to the ICO acknowledging receipt of their letter confirming Mr. Holland's complaint to them. I will bring copies of the ICO letter to our meeting later today. I also had an opportunity to speak with the ICO Helpline and the contents of the letter reflect their advice to me, specifically in relation to possible disclosure of any information sent to the ICO in connection with this matter. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Investigation_acknowledgement_090331.doc" 1207. 2009-04-03 09:39:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley date: Fri Apr 3 09:39:50 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Final version of agenda? to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, UEA is being very supportive. We need a meeting to respond - it just takes time. We are now going to have to write a 2 page context letter to go to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to explain what IPCC is, how it works, the drafts and their comments and responses - and where these can be accessed. This will all go them once we have an officer assigned. We have emails from all on Ch 6 saying they don't want their emails to Keith/Tim sent on, so this should be enough. The detail that Holland wants is in some of these emails and the attachments, which are parts (or the whole) of Ch 6 in word documents. If we're forced to send these, then we'll send hard copies, so he can't see who changed what - which you can in tracker. One odd thing with the ICO is that in order for them to assess the complaint, they need to see all. We're trying the above with a few examples to circumvent this. If they want to see everything, then they decide to uphold the original UEA decision, the ICO can then be asked for the material by Holland! Seems a bizarre situation. We're claiming we can't comply on several issues. One of these is that if we do, then we'll be ignored by IPCC when it comes to future IPCC CLA/LA assignments. It wouldn't just be UEA, but would then apply to anyone working in the UK. The clause relates to compliance affecting international relations! The whole FOI was set up by government principally for government depts. The ICO generally finds for the complainant, but there are numerous cases where the government dept ignores the decision. The new department of Justice is the principal dept to ignore FOI decisions! Universities have been dragged in as they are public bodies. At UEA we've had to fill in returns for 2 years saying what we do each term (% teaching, research, admin etc). UEA has had a request from the unions for this information and UEA has refused. This has also been appealed and the ICO are dealing with this as well! On the RMS/IJC issue, I spoke to the Chief Exec of the RMS yesterday. Their publications committee is due to meet soon. I've said I'd be happy to talk to the head of this (who is at Reading), but the view seems to be that things will not change. They seem fully aware of who they are dealing with at CA. Paul Hardaker (who is the RMS Chief Exec) has spoken to Glenn. The RMS appointed a new editor of Weather in Jan. I submitted a paper on the UHI of London and how it hasn't got any worse for Central London since 1900 (it has at LHR though). Anyway, I've dealt with numerous editors over the years, but dealing with this person was the worst experience ever. It turns out I'm not alone, everyone who has submitted this year has responded to the RMS. Wiley's who publish all the RMS journals can't deal with the person. So Paul has another difficult issue to deal with! The person has no idea how to deal with authors. It turns out he's never written a paper himself, so never had reviewer's comments! Paper was accepted earlier this week, so I'm now a bit happier. Cheers Phil At 04:11 03/04/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Phil, It's great that we've finally sorted the agenda out - what a relief! I'll try to send it out tomorrow. Probably the simplest thing to do is to send it to every invitee on the original mailing list, and not just to those who have accepted or failed to reply. Given the time difference between Boulder and the U.K., I'm not sure if it's worth our while to check into the video link to the U.K. What do you think? I'm very sorry to hear about the problems that David Holland is causing you. I'm hoping that UEA is providing you with strong support. Please let me know if there's anything I can do from over here. I'd be very happy to write a letter to the University, supporting your decision not to release emails to Mr. Holland. Have a safe trip to D.C. I get in late on Sunday afternoon. I finished my "Tribute to Larry" presentation, but I'm still working hard on the "History and Future of D&A Research". I suspect I won't have this second presentation finished until late on Sunday evening. With best regards, Ben Phil Jones wrote: Ben, Glad that Malcolm is able to come. I've sent on Malcolm's acceptance to Keith here. Agenda looks good and having all - reception/dinner as well at NCAR will enable all to discuss/mingle, whatever. Let's hope the long June day is sunny. Would seem as though you can send this out to all those who've said they can come and to those who've not responded so far. We just need to decide if the video link is possible. The 7/8 hr time difference with the UK/Europe means that any here will likely not stay beyond the mid-afternoon. See you on Monday! Cheers Phil PS talking of McIntyre, Keith, Tim and I have a meeting with the FOI people here at UEA later today. A UK person (David Holland) has appealed UEA's refusal to send emails about who said what/changed what re Ch 6 of AR4. We have emails from all on Ch 6 saying that they don't want their emails sent on, so don't think there are any grounds. Holland is trying also on EIR (Environmental Information Regulations) as well as FOI. He also included emails from Caspar Ammann and Mike Mann as well. Will let you know Monday what happens. The whole thing is a pain. The FOI person sent all the correspondence yesterday - ~ 25 emails, including the UEA responses each time. Has been going on since March 2008! At 01:27 02/04/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Lisa, Your edited version of the agenda looks great to me. I'm happy with all the changes you've made. I fully approve of having the dinner at NCAR. Incidentally, I'll be meeting Anjuli Bamzai at next week's Climate Change Prediction Program meeting in Washington D.C., and at that time I'll try to clarify the most efficient way of using my DOE Fellowship money to cover the Symposium expenses. Regarding the musical entertainment - Karl Taylor and I had something specific in mind. Karl is currently writing some form of musical tribute to Tom (I don't want to give too much away here!) Karl and I both play the guitar, and have provided similar "musical interludes" in the past (e.g., at Larry Gates' retirement dinner). So we would not need to make arrangements with an outside venue to cover the musical entertainment. It would be very helpful, however, if we could borrow two guitars for the evening - this would mean that we wouldn't have to lug our own guitars from Livermore to Boulder. With best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I'm attaching a version here with my info (Wigley_Agenda10-LB). Feel free to use or toss, as you wish -- my stuff is trivial, but here is what I've done: 1) Formatting: I changed the margins and spacing so it would all fit on one page. Just my personal preference. Disregard if you think it looks too crowded. 2) Heading: I just made it a little more formal, added location info. 3) Nit picking: added "noon" after 12:00; added "p.m." after 12:30; added a bit of info re lunch; corrected spelling of "Griffith" (Palutikof). That's it for now, but if we can get a consensus on the dinner we can add that location too (just say "at NCAR" since I still need to tie down Tree Plaza vs. Cafe). ****Does anyone object to having it at NCAR? Speak now or forever hold your peace!**** I think the reception and dinner schedules are fine. Especially the reception -- I find that people start to get antsy after about 45 minutes. If we are going to hold the dinner at NCAR I think I will extend the dinner reservation to 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. (depending on entertainment), just to be on the safe side. Also, a new question from me: do you have something specific in mind for the live music or should I be shopping for it? I didn't realize we were going to have music, but if we are, I think it's another reason to have the dinner at NCAR, rather than having to make arrangements with an outside venue to accommodate our entertainment. Best, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Many thanks, Lisa! Best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I do have a couple of comments, a few informational items you may want to add. I'm working on it now and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Dear Tom, Phil, and Lisa, Here is the complete agenda, with all speakers now confirmed. Is there anything you would like me to change before I send this out to the meeting participants? Lisa, should we say anything about the location of the reception? Do the times look right for the reception (45 minutes) and the dinner (90 minutes)? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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) 422-3840 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3563. 2009-04-03 13:57:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 3 13:57:09 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Final version of agenda? to: Tom Wigley Tom, The wheel is often forgotten after a few years! Also, for some reason, people think that if work was done ages ago, it must be out of date. I wrote the paper for two reasons: 1. To show that for London, the temperature in the centre is not getting any higher than in rural areas. Used much more data than anyone else. I did have to get some data digitized. I could use the St. James's Park record in the global T calculations. It wouldn't make any difference anyway, but the combination is with anomalies. Even people I used to think were good, think all city records are affected and shouldn't be used. 2. There is a widespread belief that in the future, the temperatures in London will rise even higher than the increase elsewhere in SE England. I don't know where this comes from, but almost everyone who says they have thought about it thinks so. The HC have run RCMs for Europe with cities in with an urban tiling scheme to try to simulate a city. They also add excess heat (25 and 50 w/m-2) in over the city. When the comparisons are done properly, there is no significant difference between squares in the centre and on the periphery. The HC always show the effect on conducive days! City centres will pass certain thresholds more regularly than rural areas, but that is all. Many people still think that if someone shows an 8 deg C difference on a single day or even at a single hour between a city centre site and a rural one, this is the size of the UHI! I know it's stupid, but I keep hearing this. I just wanted something for idiots like this to read. Cheers Phil At 13:30 03/04/2009, you wrote: Phil, Do you remember the paper Peter Brimblecombe wrote in the late 1970s explaining that the clean air act was not effective because the main reductions in pollution were because industry moved out of London? Seems similar to the Weather paper mentioned below. Re-inventing the wheel? Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Ben, UEA is being very supportive. We need a meeting to respond - it just takes time. We are now going to have to write a 2 page context letter to go to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to explain what IPCC is, how it works, the drafts and their comments and responses - and where these can be accessed. This will all go them once we have an officer assigned. We have emails from all on Ch 6 saying they don't want their emails to Keith/Tim sent on, so this should be enough. The detail that Holland wants is in some of these emails and the attachments, which are parts (or the whole) of Ch 6 in word documents. If we're forced to send these, then we'll send hard copies, so he can't see who changed what - which you can in tracker. One odd thing with the ICO is that in order for them to assess the complaint, they need to see all. We're trying the above with a few examples to circumvent this. If they want to see everything, then they decide to uphold the original UEA decision, the ICO can then be asked for the material by Holland! Seems a bizarre situation. We're claiming we can't comply on several issues. One of these is that if we do, then we'll be ignored by IPCC when it comes to future IPCC CLA/LA assignments. It wouldn't just be UEA, but would then apply to anyone working in the UK. The clause relates to compliance affecting international relations! The whole FOI was set up by government principally for government depts. The ICO generally finds for the complainant, but there are numerous cases where the government dept ignores the decision. The new department of Justice is the principal dept to ignore FOI decisions! Universities have been dragged in as they are public bodies. At UEA we've had to fill in returns for 2 years saying what we do each term (% teaching, research, admin etc). UEA has had a request from the unions for this information and UEA has refused. This has also been appealed and the ICO are dealing with this as well! On the RMS/IJC issue, I spoke to the Chief Exec of the RMS yesterday. Their publications committee is due to meet soon. I've said I'd be happy to talk to the head of this (who is at Reading), but the view seems to be that things will not change. They seem fully aware of who they are dealing with at CA. Paul Hardaker (who is the RMS Chief Exec) has spoken to Glenn. The RMS appointed a new editor of Weather in Jan. I submitted a paper on the UHI of London and how it hasn't got any worse for Central London since 1900 (it has at LHR though). Anyway, I've dealt with numerous editors over the years, but dealing with this person was the worst experience ever. It turns out I'm not alone, everyone who has submitted this year has responded to the RMS. Wiley's who publish all the RMS journals can't deal with the person. So Paul has another difficult issue to deal with! The person has no idea how to deal with authors. It turns out he's never written a paper himself, so never had reviewer's comments! Paper was accepted earlier this week, so I'm now a bit happier. Cheers Phil At 04:11 03/04/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Phil, It's great that we've finally sorted the agenda out - what a relief! I'll try to send it out tomorrow. Probably the simplest thing to do is to send it to every invitee on the original mailing list, and not just to those who have accepted or failed to reply. Given the time difference between Boulder and the U.K., I'm not sure if it's worth our while to check into the video link to the U.K. What do you think? I'm very sorry to hear about the problems that David Holland is causing you. I'm hoping that UEA is providing you with strong support. Please let me know if there's anything I can do from over here. I'd be very happy to write a letter to the University, supporting your decision not to release emails to Mr. Holland. Have a safe trip to D.C. I get in late on Sunday afternoon. I finished my "Tribute to Larry" presentation, but I'm still working hard on the "History and Future of D&A Research". I suspect I won't have this second presentation finished until late on Sunday evening. With best regards, Ben Phil Jones wrote: Ben, Glad that Malcolm is able to come. I've sent on Malcolm's acceptance to Keith here. Agenda looks good and having all - reception/dinner as well at NCAR will enable all to discuss/mingle, whatever. Let's hope the long June day is sunny. Would seem as though you can send this out to all those who've said they can come and to those who've not responded so far. We just need to decide if the video link is possible. The 7/8 hr time difference with the UK/Europe means that any here will likely not stay beyond the mid-afternoon. See you on Monday! Cheers Phil PS talking of McIntyre, Keith, Tim and I have a meeting with the FOI people here at UEA later today. A UK person (David Holland) has appealed UEA's refusal to send emails about who said what/changed what re Ch 6 of AR4. We have emails from all on Ch 6 saying that they don't want their emails sent on, so don't think there are any grounds. Holland is trying also on EIR (Environmental Information Regulations) as well as FOI. He also included emails from Caspar Ammann and Mike Mann as well. Will let you know Monday what happens. The whole thing is a pain. The FOI person sent all the correspondence yesterday - ~ 25 emails, including the UEA responses each time. Has been going on since March 2008! At 01:27 02/04/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Lisa, Your edited version of the agenda looks great to me. I'm happy with all the changes you've made. I fully approve of having the dinner at NCAR. Incidentally, I'll be meeting Anjuli Bamzai at next week's Climate Change Prediction Program meeting in Washington D.C., and at that time I'll try to clarify the most efficient way of using my DOE Fellowship money to cover the Symposium expenses. Regarding the musical entertainment - Karl Taylor and I had something specific in mind. Karl is currently writing some form of musical tribute to Tom (I don't want to give too much away here!) Karl and I both play the guitar, and have provided similar "musical interludes" in the past (e.g., at Larry Gates' retirement dinner). So we would not need to make arrangements with an outside venue to cover the musical entertainment. It would be very helpful, however, if we could borrow two guitars for the evening - this would mean that we wouldn't have to lug our own guitars from Livermore to Boulder. With best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I'm attaching a version here with my info (Wigley_Agenda10-LB). Feel free to use or toss, as you wish -- my stuff is trivial, but here is what I've done: 1) Formatting: I changed the margins and spacing so it would all fit on one page. Just my personal preference. Disregard if you think it looks too crowded. 2) Heading: I just made it a little more formal, added location info. 3) Nit picking: added "noon" after 12:00; added "p.m." after 12:30; added a bit of info re lunch; corrected spelling of "Griffith" (Palutikof). That's it for now, but if we can get a consensus on the dinner we can add that location too (just say "at NCAR" since I still need to tie down Tree Plaza vs. Cafe). ****Does anyone object to having it at NCAR? Speak now or forever hold your peace!**** I think the reception and dinner schedules are fine. Especially the reception -- I find that people start to get antsy after about 45 minutes. If we are going to hold the dinner at NCAR I think I will extend the dinner reservation to 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. (depending on entertainment), just to be on the safe side. Also, a new question from me: do you have something specific in mind for the live music or should I be shopping for it? I didn't realize we were going to have music, but if we are, I think it's another reason to have the dinner at NCAR, rather than having to make arrangements with an outside venue to accommodate our entertainment. Best, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Many thanks, Lisa! Best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: Ben, I do have a couple of comments, a few informational items you may want to add. I'm working on it now and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Lisa Ben Santer wrote: Dear Tom, Phil, and Lisa, Here is the complete agenda, with all speakers now confirmed. Is there anything you would like me to change before I send this out to the meeting participants? Lisa, should we say anything about the location of the reception? Do the times look right for the reception (45 minutes) and the dinner (90 minutes)? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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) 422-3840 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2076. 2009-04-05 16:06:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:06:28 +0100 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: First draft of ERA/HadCRUH paper to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil Are you at the PCMDI dinner tomorrow night? If so, I'll see you there. I'm attending the WCRP JSC meeting at ESSIC, University of Maryland, and attending the PCMDI dinner was an optional extra that I have booked. Adrian P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Adrian, > I'm on my way to Washington today as well. I'll > be in Bethesda at a USDoE meeting to Thursday. > The first day is a session to honour Larry Gates. > I'll be looking through the draft and send you some > comments early next week. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Peter >> >> I used the last stage of a flight to Washington to run through your >> comments. The attached document includes my comments on your comments. I >> disagree with a few, but not many. Thanks for spotting some howlers, and >> for leading me to spot another small error. Earlier in the flight I >> found a few more small things in my first rereading of the text. >> >> I'll start making the changes in a week or so's time. There are a couple >> of points you raise that I would appreciate Phil's comments on, as >> indicated in the attached. >> >> Thanks again for a very careful and thoughtful reading. >> >> Adrian >> >> >> peter.thorne wrote: >>> Dear Adrian, >>> >>> there's some really interesting stuff in here. I'd definitely suggest >>> JGR as first home with J. Clim as a reserve. JGR would probably put the >>> appendix as Supp Info and allow some of your other "not shown"s to be >>> submitted as supp info if inclined which may be a way forwards if its >>> felt any is sufficiently important. >>> >>> As Phil or Kate will confirm, my modus operandi is to provide lots of >>> suggestions so please don't be alarmed at the amount of inline comments >>> when you open the attached. I don't foresee any show stoppers based upon >>> taking most of today to read through it. >>> >>> Major suggestions would be: >>> >>> 1. Alight on a central theme to re-order around so that the paper >>> narrative is clearer as that will make it easier for a reader. The >>> RH/=constant is an obvious theme. Then rewrite in particular your >>> abstract and discussion around such a theme. At the moment the text >>> feels a little directionless in some places I guess because you wrote it >>> in half hour availability slots and whilst the analysis was ongoing. >>> >>> 2. Do more on your sea leads land hypothesis so we can back it up more >>> quantitatively. A lead lag correlation analysis should support it and >>> seems relatively trivial. There may be other analyses that we could do >>> relatively easily that provide some better quantitative support. We >>> don't want another Wentz et al precip trends type situation where >>> something goes out and gets high profile and then later nobody truly >>> believes. >>> >>> 3. Pull out your ERA-40 ERA_interim differences discussion that occurs >>> in several places into a table (and maybe figure) that clearly >>> encapsulates the differences between the two products (model spec, obs >>> input, treatment of obs etc.) in one place. I think this would make it >>> more useful as a resource and more understandable to the target audience >>> and reduce the text somewhat. >>> >>> 4. Try to reduce cross-talk between text and figure captions for brevity >>> and for readability. >>> >>> 5. Cut out cases where we are leaving obvious low hanging fruit issues >>> that interested parties with a political persuasion could abuse. We're >>> better to avoid leaving ourselves open incase we suddenly find this >>> paper at the centre of a blogstorm (Phil will attest to this). >>> >>> Lastly, procedural issues that we have to abide by so you have a heads >>> up now rather than a last minute panic: >>> >>> 1. The inserted acknowledgement is required. >>> >>> 2. We need to push it through internal Met Office review before it can >>> be submitted. This means putting it under David Parker and Peter Stott's >>> noses and our making changes to their satisfaction. On the plus side >>> this soft review means less probability of heartache when we come to >>> gambling at the external reviewer long table. >>> >>> 3. We will have to sign crown copyright forms and the work will be crown >>> copyright as a result of our involvement. Both candidate journals have >>> well bedded down procedures in place to this end. >>> >>> Peter >>> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------- >> > > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- 561. 2009-04-06 14:47:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:47:18 +0200 from: "Eric BARDOU" subject: Dear Sir, to: Dear Sir, In charge of a project trying to inevstigat the link between debris flow and rock glacier in high alpine environement, I am seraching for publication about the potential increase of rainfall intensity due to climate warming. I have seen your paper (Evidence for trends in heavy rainfall events over the UK), but also other papers (related to the Alps) that show either a "non-trend" behaviour for the 20th century or even a decrease (based on prevision). May I ask you if you think that : * there will be increase in intensity everywhere in the world (this is what we could think from a simple energetical point of view) * that the non-trend behaviour for alpine region could be also due to weakest data (or shorter time serie) or any other artefacts (simplification) * that maritime region could react more straightforward to change than mountineous area where meteorology is dependant from more variable (topography, changing albedo across season, thermal inertia due to snow and ice, etc.) Do you know if there is a paper that make the summary (from a scientific point of view) of the possible evolution of the rainfall characteristics around the world Thank you in advance Best regards Eric ************************** Dr Eric Bardou CREALP (Alpine environment research center) av. de l'Industrie 45 CH-1950 Sion Switzerland phone +41 27 324 03 80 GSM +41 79 423 45 42 2634. 2009-04-08 16:27:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:27:44 +0100 from: Kathy Maskell subject: Invite: Walker Institute Annual Lecture, 2nd June, 5.45 to 7.30pm, to: k.maskell@reading.ac.uk We are delighted to invite you to the Walker Institute Annual Lecture: "From Climate Science to Climate Policy" Prof Robert Watson (Defra Chief Scientific Adviser) On Tuesday 2nd June from 5.45 to 7.30pm The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AG. Running order: 5.45 Registration 6.00 Welcome from Prof Nigel Arnell, Walker Institute Director 6.05 "From Climate Science to Climate Policy", Prof Robert Watson, Defra Chief Scientific Adviser 6.45 Q & A 7.00 Drinks reception and Walker Institute research showcase *Attendance is free, but please reserve a place * by contacting Julie Genney 0118 378 4651, j.genney@reading.ac.uk If you are unable to attend, please forward this invitation to colleagues. We hope that you can join us for our lecture and drinks afterwards. Regards, Kathy Maskell Walker Institute communications and publicity www.walker-institute.ac.uk *About Professor Robert Watson* Professor Robert Watson has been the Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) since September 2007. His main role is to provide ministers with the best possible scientific advice and build on existing measures to ensure that science and technology are used to inform policy. Professor Watson was previously at the World Bank where he was the Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor for Sustainable Development. He has also held senior positions at NASA and, more recently, at the White House, where he was responsible for ensuring that science underpinned policy making. *From Climate Science to Climate Policy* Abstract: The climate change debate has shifted from doubt to certainty. The challenge now is to agree global actions to reduce the worst impacts and to adapt to climate change. At CoP-15 in Copenhagen this December, the world will try to agree greenhouse gas emission reduction targets beyond 2012, so this is a key time in the international climate agenda. Professor Watson will talk about how the latest science is helping to inform these crucial policy discussions. He will also look at how our national climate change policy fits into the international framework and how the UK is influencing the wider discussion. Policymakers need information about the likely impacts of climate change, on food, water security, biodiversity and ecosystem services and crucially, the extent to which impacts are avoided if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Scientific information to inform climate change adaptation decisions is also crucial. Here detailed information at the regional scale about climate change and the frequency of extremes is especially important. Information about climate change over the next 1 to 2 decades as well as likely impacts by the end of the century are needed. Professor Watson will look at the latest science and the key challenges for the future. -- Kathy Maskell Walker Institute communications and publicity 0118 378 7380 www.walker-institute.ac.uk Agriculture building University of Reading Earley Gate Reading, RG6 6AR. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Walker lecture 09.pdf" 745. 2009-04-09 13:25:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:25:51 +0530 from: DR SURAJIT BARUAH subject: Request for information on funding/grant to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Respected [1]Prof. Keith Briffa Season's Greetings from India. I am Surajit Baruah working with WWF-India as State Coordinator for the Assam and Arunachal Pradesh States of India. Sir, as you may be aware the North Eastern Region of India being the part of Eastern Himalaya represents one of the Global Biodiversity Hotspots with rich biological and cultural diversity. This region have been very vulnerable to Global climate change due to unplanned developments, deforestation, poverty and other anthropogenic activities. As it is a relatively backward region even from rest of the India and Climate Change being a new focal area of conservation to this part , there are lots of gaps in capacity ,information and Knowledge at different levels. We need to upgrade our knowledge and skills on this emerging threat and its implications through formal training and exposure . I am pleased to inform you that I have been offered a place in the 2 weeks short course on Climate Change and Development to be held in September 2009 at Skills Development & Training Office Overseas Development Group School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ UK As we are in the formative stage of my career from developing countries so, our only difficulty is arranging funding for bearing the course fee and Travel expenses. Sir/Madam as you are an international expert on climate change science with a wide global network, may I humbly request you to kindly suggest some funding agencies which can provide grant for attending such training courses in UK. I would be greatful for your kind help and guidance. With warm regards Surajit -- Dr. Surajit Baruah M.Sc. Ph.D. State Coordinator WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE-INDIA Assam and Arunachal Pradesh State Office 202,Meghmallar House, F.C.Road GUWAHATI- 781001 ,ASSAM,INDIA Emails: [2]sbaruah@wwfindia.net [3]bioclimate@gmail.com Mobile: +919435549091 2118. 2009-04-12 12:29:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , "Kate Willett" , "Phil Jones" , "Dick Dee" , "Kate Willett" date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:29:10 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: First draft of ERA/HadCRUH paper to: "Adrian Simmons" Dear All, Here are a few comments on bthe draft Adrian sent around on Thursday. I've added some comments into the comments from Peter or Adrian's response. When I've done this it is in italics. Hope all is clear. Hope also that you're all enjoying Easter, if the weather (apart from Good Friday when it got to 20C in Norwich) isn't that good. Cheers Phil > Just a brief update. I've done three things to the paper this week: > > (i) Made the simpler of the changes suggested by Peter, and placed the > others on hold for a few days; > (ii) Checked the time-lag of the separate land/sea time series, and > confirmed that correlations between the two series are stronger for land > lagging sea than vice versa; > (iii) Tidied up the comparison of GPCC and GPCP/CMAP. From the GPCC > website I discovered I could download the GPCC's "Monitoring Product" > which according to the site is the version used by GPCP (from 1986 up to > the end of 2006, at least - the downloadable dataset switches to > "Version 2" for 2007 and 2008). It must also be the version used by CMAP > also, as variations over time are very similar for GPCP, CMAP and the > monitoring product. I've modified Fig. 11 to show the (far fewer) gauge > numbers used in the Monitoring product, and made a few changes to the > text accordingly. > > I attach the latest version, though I'm quite happy still to take > comments on the earlier one. > > Adrian > > > peter.thorne wrote: >> Dear Adrian, >> >> there's some really interesting stuff in here. I'd definitely suggest >> JGR as first home with J. Clim as a reserve. JGR would probably put the >> appendix as Supp Info and allow some of your other "not shown"s to be >> submitted as supp info if inclined which may be a way forwards if its >> felt any is sufficiently important. >> >> As Phil or Kate will confirm, my modus operandi is to provide lots of >> suggestions so please don't be alarmed at the amount of inline comments >> when you open the attached. I don't foresee any show stoppers based upon >> taking most of today to read through it. >> >> Major suggestions would be: >> >> 1. Alight on a central theme to re-order around so that the paper >> narrative is clearer as that will make it easier for a reader. The >> RH/=constant is an obvious theme. Then rewrite in particular your >> abstract and discussion around such a theme. At the moment the text >> feels a little directionless in some places I guess because you wrote it >> in half hour availability slots and whilst the analysis was ongoing. >> >> 2. Do more on your sea leads land hypothesis so we can back it up more >> quantitatively. A lead lag correlation analysis should support it and >> seems relatively trivial. There may be other analyses that we could do >> relatively easily that provide some better quantitative support. We >> don't want another Wentz et al precip trends type situation where >> something goes out and gets high profile and then later nobody truly >> believes. >> >> 3. Pull out your ERA-40 ERA_interim differences discussion that occurs >> in several places into a table (and maybe figure) that clearly >> encapsulates the differences between the two products (model spec, obs >> input, treatment of obs etc.) in one place. I think this would make it >> more useful as a resource and more understandable to the target audience >> and reduce the text somewhat. >> >> 4. Try to reduce cross-talk between text and figure captions for brevity >> and for readability. >> >> 5. Cut out cases where we are leaving obvious low hanging fruit issues >> that interested parties with a political persuasion could abuse. We're >> better to avoid leaving ourselves open incase we suddenly find this >> paper at the centre of a blogstorm (Phil will attest to this). >> >> Lastly, procedural issues that we have to abide by so you have a heads >> up now rather than a last minute panic: >> >> 1. The inserted acknowledgement is required. >> >> 2. We need to push it through internal Met Office review before it can >> be submitted. This means putting it under David Parker and Peter Stott's >> noses and our making changes to their satisfaction. On the plus side >> this soft review means less probability of heartache when we come to >> gambling at the external reviewer long table. >> >> 3. We will have to sign crown copyright forms and the work will be crown >> copyright as a result of our involvement. Both candidate journals have >> well bedded down procedures in place to this end. >> >> Peter >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------- > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\qpaper_pwt_ajs_pdj.doc" 4780. 2009-04-12 17:34:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Laurent Labeyrie , Gavin Schmidt date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:34:21 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science to: Tim Osborn , Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , Stefan Rahmstorf , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Ricardo Villalba , Jouzel@dsm-mail.extra.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , 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, Heinz Wanner , Thorsten Kiefer , Eric W Wolff , fatima.abrantes@ineti.pt, j.dearing@soton.ac.uk, jerome@lgge.obs.ujf.grenoble.fr, jose_carriquiry@uabc.mx, moha_umero@yahoo.com, Michael Schulz , nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, Bette Otto-Bliesner , peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca, scolman@d.umn.edu, whitlock@montana.edu, zlding@mail.iggcas.ac.cn Dear friends, The scoping of IPCC AR5 will happen in July this year. In the community there have been opinions raised regarding paleo-science in the next report, e.g. whether to have paleo-science dispersed into various topical chapters, e.g. forcing, model-evaluation, sea level etc., or whether it might be best to do as in AR4 to have a separate Paleo-chapter. There are good arguments for both options, and it is not the intent of this email to voice a specific opinion. Rather it is important to let the scoping process be aware of all the relevant new paleo-science which whould be assessed in AR5, thereby leading to the need for a strong presence of paleoclimate scientists in the LA-team of AR5, particularly in WG1, but also in WG2. In order to make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly relevant for IPCC, Peck and I have agreed to be the editors of a Slide- series (ppt style) which can be used to make the case in the scoping, and which of course could be a useful product for various outreach activities of PAGES and the paleoclimate community at large. The PAGES office will asssist in producing the slides We therefore send this email to you who worked as LAs in AR4 or who are on SSC or other relevant PAGES panels and ask for your input. What we hope you can help with is the following: 1. Provide your best examples of key new IPCC (Policy) relevant new results post AR4, i.e. accepted after July 2006, that provide compelling arguments for paleoclimate science as a key contributor to IPCC. Please limit this to the results which are clearly IPCC-relevant 2. Ongoing projects or programmes that are likely to deliver such results in the next 2-3 years can also be included. The information must, however, be specific and compelling to a non-paleo audience. 3. Send PDF of the paper or other material (like ppt slide) to Peck (jto@u.arizona.edu ), Myself and Thorsten Kiefer (thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch) at PAGES, preferably by May 2. We think this might become a very useful service to our community and to the climate change communities at large, and will be very rewarding. Hoping to hear back from many of you. Best wishes Peck and Eystein __________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allgaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no tel: 55-589803/55-583491 fax: 55-584330 4423. 2009-04-13 09:39:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Simon Tett , susan.solomon@noaa.gov, Gabi Hegerl , John Kennedy date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:39:12 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, thanks for the clarifications on all this - didn't claim originality on my land detection sentence - but its good to have the original citation for that, thanks. this is not part of a paper - just put it together to straighten out some of my own thoughts. seems a little thin for a paper, may try posting on climate.org as a compromise big divergence is during 97-98 ENSO - if it is some instrumental problem from the ocean, perhaps clues from this time interval could unravel why if not instrumental, then maybe an abrupt climate change bogie man came out of the closet to cause 0.5 offset after that time - any ideas? might be too early to look that way unless ocean instrumental uncertainties are put to rest.... Tom > Dear All, > So this is how you all spend your Easter! It seems that > I'm joining you - checking email from home. > > A couple of things > > 1. Argo floats don't go into the surface SST data as they > don't measure at the surface. They stop some metres down, > but come to the surface to transmit. What is likely causing a > part of this divergence is the drifters. These are buoys > that have dramatically improved the number of SST data entering > analyses - and spatially as well. As Simon says, the HC > are working on this. My belief is that the drifters are > about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than the ships. We need to > get a spatial pattern for this, and understand why. There is > also an issue of these drfiters in the Southern Oceans. They > get used but their 61-90 base periods could be off, as they > basically come from interpolations from ships. > > 2. That NH summer is better for D&A has been said before. > > Wigley, T.M.L. and Jones, P.D., 1981. Detecting CO2-induced climatic > change. Nature 292, 205-208. > > We didn't call it D&A then - just good old SNR. > > I don't have a pdf of this paper! > > Have a good Easter! > > Phil > > > I don't think ARGO goes into the SST dataset though there are a lot more > >> buoys in it. When I was at the Hadley Centre we wondered if buoys were >> causing a slight cooling trend. [John Kennedy CCed might have some more >> thoughts on that.] >> >> Simon >> >> Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov wrote: >> >>> Tom >>> The fact that land could be shown to be warming more than ocean was a >>> major conclusion of the AR4. >>> >>> It's good to see the update to 2008. Quite striking. >>> >>> I hate to say this, but I wonder if some of the recent behavior is >>> spurious - the Argo floats just don't seem very consistent with earlier >>> records not only for surface temperature but also for sea level (ie >>> subsurface). What do you think? >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Thomas Crowley >>> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:10 am >>> Subject: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am in the process of producing a new, long (733-1960) paleo >>>> reconstruction at annual resolution for purposes of better >>>> validation >>>> against models. since tree rings are most sensitive to summer half- >>>> year >>>> temperatures, and trees usually grow on land, I am calibrating >>>> against >>>> 30-90N summer (land), using HadCRU data updated through 2008, >>>> kindly >>>> provided by Phil. >>>> >>>> some interesting items jump out from just comparing (attached) the >>>> instrumental reconstructions for 30-90N land, summer vs global >>>> temps >>>> (anomalies based on 1960-1990 mean for each data set): >>>> >>>> 1) the n summer land changes are almost twice as large (1.5 vs. >>>> 0.8C) >>>> as the global - this is not surprising because we know that land >>>> heats >>>> up faster than ocean, but the magnitude is quite striking. >>>> >>>> 2) since most people still live on land, this means the human >>>> impact >>>> factor has been twice as large as normally assumed for close to 3 >>>> billion people >>>> >>>> 3) the divergence between northern land and global temps seems to >>>> be >>>> increasing - both record show the recent decrease in temperatures, >>>> but >>>> on land it only started last year (2008) >>>> >>>> 4) seven large volcanic eruptions can easily be identified in the >>>> northern land record - this again makes sense from an energy >>>> balance >>>> viewpoint, as summer temperatures are more driven by thermodynamics >>>> than >>>> dynamics, so the signal is more easily detectable, especially given >>>> the >>>> added impact of maximized reflection of insolation due to high sun >>>> angle. >>>> 5) this suggests that northern hemisphere land (summer) might be >>>> the >>>> most logical data set to look at for detection of volcanic signals. >>>> as >>>> I have nearly finalized the new paleo reconstruction of volcanos, >>>> it >>>> might be interesting to re-apply detection and attribution to the >>>> new, >>>> longer, and (hopefully improved) data sets. >>>> >>>> fyi, Tom >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> Simon Tett >> Chair of Earth System Dynamics >> School of Geosciences >> The University of Edinburgh >> Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 >> Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 >> email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk >> Room 351, Grant Institute, >> The King's Buildings, >> West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW >> UK >> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1389. 2009-04-14 11:57:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:57:55 -0400 from: Judith Lean subject: Re: preprint request please to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil - excellent!! I have it - it was there on your ftp site... Many thanks! Judith On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:40 AM, p.jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Judith, > I'll put this file on my ftp site. > It may be there from a previous request. The > pdfs we all got were way over the email size. > I'll do this tomorrow. Still off at home after Easter. > Back in tomorrow. > > You could try ftping ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk > > login as anonymous > then email as pw > > then go to people, then philjones > > If it is there it has AGU in its title. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Dear Phil, >> >> Could I ask you please to send me a reprint of your 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 Earth's Atmosphere. American >> Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. >> >> I've been unable to locate a copy on the web - its cited a lot but a >> pdf isn't available anywhere it seems - I would like to learn more >> about if there is/isn't winter warming after a volcanic eruption, I >> had thought - mainly from talking with the guys at GISs who do seem >> to >> think that this is the case (e.g., Shindell, GRL, 2004) - that it was >> more or less agreed that there is, but I mentioned this is a recent >> preprint and the reviewer was not happy at all - indicating that I >> should read your paper. We mentioned it in the preprint by way of >> explantation for evidence of an annual warming response (that is >> stronger in winter) at mid to high Eurasian latitudes in a recent >> empirical analysis of the CRU temperature data. >> >> Thanks very much, >> Judith Lean >> p.s. I saw your latest 2008 Nature paper about the instrument issues >> in the mid 20th century - we akso found that we couldn't accouht for >> the extra warming in the WWII period - nor WWI for that matter... >> > > 3650. 2009-04-14 17:45:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:45:10 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Quoting P.Jones@uea.ac.uk: Phil, I will do that, but there seem to be two problems: 1) why would it all happen in 1997-98? its hard to believe that many new drifters were deployed, starting just that year. 2) there are examples of abrupt shifts in other parts of the time series - why should this be especially suspect? thanks for any additional help on this, tom > Tom, > The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue > of many more drifters providing measurements over the last > 5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where > we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH > between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is > very little ship data there. > Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to > the ocean. > You could try doing an additional plot. Download from > the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if > is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that > still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the > problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real. > > Cheers > Phil > >> >> Phil, do you have any comments with respect to either my note sent >> yesterday to RealClimate.org, or Ray's query below? just want to make >> sure I touch the appropriate bases before I send it back to RCO. >> >> thanks in advance for any help, with regards, tom >> >> ----- Forwarded message from rbradley@geo.umass.edu ----- >> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:17:18 -0400 >> From: "raymond s. bradley" >> Reply-To: "raymond s. bradley" >> Subject: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org >> To: Thomas Crowley >> Cc: mann@psu.edu >> >> Hi Tom, >> The Easterling & Wehner preprint is attached. It would be good if >> you could expand your comment to include some reflections on this. >> One cautionary note--talking to Phil Jones last week, he mentioned >> that the recent addition of SH buoy data has added data from areas of >> the globe hitherto undersampled; it may have "suppressed" the ocean >> area warming relative to land. You might contact Phil to see if the >> rapid warming in land, but not ocean, has anything to do with >> that. I'm always a bit nervous about the ever-changing database of >> obserevational records, particularly with the expansion of the >> network using automated instruments. It may turn out not to be a >> relevant factor to your post, but something to ponder, nevertheless... >> Ray >> >> At 11:48 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote: >> >>> Dear Mike and Ray, >>> >>> attached is a contribution to your website about trends in global >>> temperatures. >>> I realize that you often do not have outsiders comment, but as I >>> explain in my note, the results I show are quite striking and >>> illustrated in a different way than some (many?) may have seen. >>> >>> Since the figure illustrates something of wide interest, I hope you >>> can make an exception to your normal rules. >>> >>> With regards, Tom >>> >>> -- >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ----- End forwarded message ----- >> >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1393. 2009-04-15 11:46:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: wanner@giub.unibe.ch, "'Tim Osborn'" , "'Fortunat Joos'" , "'Jonathan Overpeck'" , "'David Rind'" , "'Bette Otto-Bleisner'" , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, "'Ricardo Villalba'" , Jouzel@dsm-mail.extra.cea.fr, "'Valerie Masson-Delmotte'" , "'Dominique Raynaud'" , "'Keith Briffa'" , "'Phil Jones'" , 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, "'Thorsten Kiefer'" , "'Eric W Wolff'" , fatima.abrantes@ineti.pt, j.dearing@soton.ac.uk, jerome@lgge.obs.ujf.grenoble.fr, jose_carriquiry@uabc.mx, moha_umero@yahoo.com, "'Michael Schulz'" , nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, "'Bette Otto-Bliesner'" , peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca, scolman@d.umn.edu, whitlock@montana.edu, zlding@mail.iggcas.ac.cn, "'Laurent Labeyrie'" , "'Gavin Schmidt'" date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:46:30 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: AW: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science to: "'Eystein Jansen'" Dear Eystein and Peck, I can also see arguments for either version. A full integration of paleo information throughout the report would be great - if done well. But for practical reasons I think a separate paleo chapter is likely to work better, simply because of the expertise of people and the way IPCC works chapter by chapter. You need to bring people with paleo expertise together for discussion and writing of the relevant text. If you want the paleo information spread around all chapters, you need people with paleo expertise on each chapter - and more than one person. Unfortunately, most colleagues dealing with modern climate still have little knowledge about paleo issues. Therefore, getting the paleo people together in one chapter seems the more practical way to proceed and more likely to bring a critical mass of paleo experts together for thorough discussion of the available evidence. However, I think it will be essential then to take some steps to insure a better integration of the paleo information with the rest of the report, especially when it comes to drawing conclusions about the future. We all remember the problems we had with this last time. The future projections chapter 10 dealt almost exclusively with GCM results; no discussion about issues like sea level or risk of abrupt change based on paleo results was included there. On the other hand we were "forbidden" to have such a discussion in the paleo chapter, with the argument that any discussion of the future should be left to chapter 10. One way around this that has been discussed recently is to have one chapter on "Model simulations of future climate change scenarios" which is like the old chapter 10, but then followed by a chapter providing an overall "Assessment of future climate risks". This would be based on a critical discussion of all evidence - the GCM projections shown in the previous chapter, but also recent observations and paleo evidence. It could provide a discussion of what GCMs are not yet good at (sea level / ice sheets / abrupt changes / methane release from permafrost etc) and what we know about those risks. I.e., such a chapter would not just give "best guess" scenarios for future climate but a full risk assessment, as requested by governments. This would overcome the previous chapter 10 attitude (quote: "if it's not in a GCM it is speculation, and IPCC does not deal in speculations") which has lead to the problems the AR4 had e.g. with the sea level issue by focusing only on what current models give. I would strongly support this approach - it would need to be agreed at the scoping meeting; once the chapter structure is fixed, it will be too late to get this right. Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 1821. 2009-04-15 12:14:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Wei-Chyung Wang'" date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:14:14 -0400 from: "Wei-Chyung Wang" subject: FW: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - to: "'Phil Jones'" See SUNYA's response below. My frustration has been that I do not know how to take the legal action. Along this line, I wish he is a US resident so that I can sue him. WCW From: Lynn Videka [mailto:lvideka@uamail.albany.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:04 PM To: Wei-Chyung Wang Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang; John H Reilly; Adrienne D Bonilla Subject: RE: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Wei-Chyung, I spoke to Adrienne this morning about the residency questions re FOIL and she will look into it. I will meet with John and George Philip very soon to discuss the institutions' response. FYI, Keenan has tried to FOIL our misconduct file and the university has determined that he is not eligible to FOIL those files. Lynn Lynn Videka Vice President for Research Distinguished Service Professor University at Albany-State University of New York University Hall, 307 Albany, NY 12222 (518) 956-8170 ; FAX (518)956-8175 Secretary: Terri Casey at the above number ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wei-Chyung Wang [mailto:wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:00 PM To: Lynn Videka Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang Subject: FW: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Hi, Lynn, Sorry for rushing the following e-mail from Phil Jones to you. NSF's deadline is within five days of receiving the e-mail this morning. It turns out that Professor Ray Bradley of Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst (together with Professor Malcolm Hughes of Univ. of Arizona) has encountered similar situation related to Hockey Stick. I will try to contact Ray and will let you know. WCW From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:55 AM To: Wei-Chyung Wang; 'Thomas.R.Karl' Cc: 'Wei-Chyung Wang' Subject: Re: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Wei-Chyung, Do ask them! This looks as though it could get out of control. Look at the tone of some of the recent things on his web site. Also - send an email to Ray Bradley. He has been through this related to the Hockey Stick work with Mike Mann and Malcolm Hughes. They ere asked by a congressman or senator for details of all their grants. Also ask SUNYA if Keenan has to be US (and/or live in the US) to file US FOI requests. Cheers Phil 2729. 2009-04-15 14:29:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org to: Thomas Crowley Tom, To my eye the divergence starts earlier than 97/98. It seems to be the late 1980s. Maybe plot the difference series between these two. Need to place in a context and the difference series may do this. Knowing how the series is put together always makes me suspicious - and knowing what's going on with the SSTs, doubly suspicious. Cheers Phil At 17:45 14/04/2009, you wrote: Quoting P.Jones@uea.ac.uk: Phil, I will do that, but there seem to be two problems: 1) why would it all happen in 1997-98? its hard to believe that many new drifters were deployed, starting just that year. 2) there are examples of abrupt shifts in other parts of the time series - why should this be especially suspect? thanks for any additional help on this, tom Tom, The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue of many more drifters providing measurements over the last 5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there. Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to the ocean. You could try doing an additional plot. Download from the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real. Cheers Phil Phil, do you have any comments with respect to either my note sent yesterday to RealClimate.org, or Ray's query below? just want to make sure I touch the appropriate bases before I send it back to RCO. thanks in advance for any help, with regards, tom ----- Forwarded message from rbradley@geo.umass.edu ----- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:17:18 -0400 From: "raymond s. bradley" Reply-To: "raymond s. bradley" Subject: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org To: Thomas Crowley Cc: mann@psu.edu Hi Tom, The Easterling & Wehner preprint is attached. It would be good if you could expand your comment to include some reflections on this. One cautionary note--talking to Phil Jones last week, he mentioned that the recent addition of SH buoy data has added data from areas of the globe hitherto undersampled; it may have "suppressed" the ocean area warming relative to land. You might contact Phil to see if the rapid warming in land, but not ocean, has anything to do with that. I'm always a bit nervous about the ever-changing database of obserevational records, particularly with the expansion of the network using automated instruments. It may turn out not to be a relevant factor to your post, but something to ponder, nevertheless... Ray At 11:48 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote: Dear Mike and Ray, attached is a contribution to your website about trends in global temperatures. I realize that you often do not have outsiders comment, but as I explain in my note, the results I show are quite striking and illustrated in a different way than some (many?) may have seen. Since the figure illustrates something of wide interest, I hope you can make an exception to your normal rules. With regards, Tom -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4481. 2009-04-15 16:08:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:08:54 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU Radiation data. to: "Juckes, MN (Martin)" Hi Martin, I've tracked down a file of the same name here, it looks to have been generated by Mark New in January 1999. Mark is of course at Oxford now. Mark's 1999 paper suggests that the conventional Doorenbos-Pruit calculations were used to convert between sun hours and cloud cover. More helpfully, I've found an IDL program in Mark New's space, not a million miles from the data file. It looks like this: pro netrad,jday,rlat,albedo,t,sun,ed,rn ; ; calculates net radiation using equations in Shuttleworth (1993) ; ; rlat - latitude ; jday - Julian day ; t - temperature ; sun - sunshine hours (per day) ; ed - vapour pressure (mb) ; albedo ; ac,bc - parameters of cloudiness equation ; rn - net radiation (mm/day) ; ; local variable declarations as=0.25 & bs=0.5 & ae=0.34 & be=-0.14 & bolz=0.000000004903 ac=1.0 & bc=0.0 ; ; first get extraterrestrial solar radiation ; hlat=2.501-0.002361*t solar,jday,rlat,s0,smax s0mj=s0*hlat ; ; now calculate incoming short-wave radiation ; IF smax gt 0.0 THEN begin st=(as+bs*sun/smax)*s0mj ELSE st=0.0 ENDIF ; ; net short-wave radiation ; sn=st*(1.0-albedo) ; ; long-wave radiation ; IF(ed>-5.0)THEN edkpa=ed*0.1 emm=ae+be*sqrt(edkpa) ELSE emm=-0.02+0.261*(exp(-0.000777*t*t)) ENDIF sto=(as+bs)*s0mj IF(abs(sto)>0.0)THEN begin f=ac*(st/sto)+bc endif ELSE begin f=0.0 ENDelse rln=-1.0*f*emm*bolz*(t+273.2)^4 ; ; calculate net radiation ; rnmj=sn+rln IF(rnmj eq 0.0)THEN begin rn=0.0 endif ELSE begin rn=rnmj/hlat ; mm/day ENDelse END ; PRO netrad Hope that helps! Cheers Harry On 8 Apr 2009, at 12:28, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Hi Martin, > I'm in the US and get back on Good Friday. Harry is > off this week. We'll have a look the week after Easter. > > I'd suspect this file might be normals for 61-90 > which are calculated from cloudiness with a formula. > > If this is the case the formula should be in one of > the New et al papers in J. Climate in 1999 ro 2000. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Hello Ian, Phil, >> >> >> >> I have got a user query about some radiation data we have on the IPCC >> DDC. It is the file crad6190.zip available from this page: >> http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/get_30yr_means.html. >> >> >> >> There is no reference to "rad" data on your high resolution page >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg.htm -- do you know where >> crad6190.zip comes from? >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Martin Juckes >> >> >> -- >> >> Scanned by iCritical. >> > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1072. 2009-04-15 20:23:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Kennedy , Simon Tett , Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, Gabi Hegerl date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:23:28 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe to: Phil Jones Quoting Phil Jones : hard to believe such a small region should cause such a dip in the global temperatures - would have to be a very large bias to cause the drop in global temperature > > John, > Another possible issue is the 61-90 ship based SST normals > for the SH oceans in the range 40-60S. I presume you're working on > improving these for the next version. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 12:10 15/04/2009, John Kennedy wrote: >> The ARGO data don't go into SST analyses at the moment. They do make >> measurements at depths that overlap with the deeper ship-based >> measurements, so there's no reason why they couldn't be included in the >> future or used as an independent validation of the SST data once the QC >> issues are sorted out. >> >> Drifting buoys measure SSTs about 0.15C cooler than ships (with some >> geographic variation) probably due to predominantly warm biases in the >> ship data. They are included in SST analyses - more than 85% of all SST >> observations now come from buoys - and have probably led to a slight >> underestimate in the rate of warming since the late 1970s when they were >> first introduced. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 22:29 +0100, Simon Tett wrote: >>> I don't think ARGO goes into the SST dataset though there are a lot more >>> buoys in it. When I was at the Hadley Centre we wondered if buoys were >>> causing a slight cooling trend. [John Kennedy CCed might have some more >>> thoughts on that.] >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov wrote: >>> > Tom >>> > The fact that land could be shown to be warming more than ocean was a >>> > major conclusion of the AR4. >>> > >>> > It's good to see the update to 2008. Quite striking. >>> > >>> > I hate to say this, but I wonder if some of the recent behavior is >>> > spurious - the Argo floats just don't seem very consistent with earlier >>> > records not only for surface temperature but also for sea level (ie >>> > subsurface). What do you think? >>> > Susan >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: Thomas Crowley >>> > Date: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:10 am >>> > Subject: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe >>> > >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> I am in the process of producing a new, long (733-1960) paleo >>> >> reconstruction at annual resolution for purposes of better >>> >> validation >>> >> against models. since tree rings are most sensitive to summer half- >>> >> year >>> >> temperatures, and trees usually grow on land, I am calibrating >>> >> against >>> >> 30-90N summer (land), using HadCRU data updated through 2008, >>> >> kindly >>> >> provided by Phil. >>> >> >>> >> some interesting items jump out from just comparing (attached) the >>> >> instrumental reconstructions for 30-90N land, summer vs global >>> >> temps >>> >> (anomalies based on 1960-1990 mean for each data set): >>> >> >>> >> 1) the n summer land changes are almost twice as large (1.5 vs. >>> >> 0.8C) >>> >> as the global - this is not surprising because we know that land >>> >> heats >>> >> up faster than ocean, but the magnitude is quite striking. >>> >> >>> >> 2) since most people still live on land, this means the human >>> >> impact >>> >> factor has been twice as large as normally assumed for close to 3 >>> >> billion people >>> >> >>> >> 3) the divergence between northern land and global temps seems to >>> >> be >>> >> increasing - both record show the recent decrease in temperatures, >>> >> but >>> >> on land it only started last year (2008) >>> >> >>> >> 4) seven large volcanic eruptions can easily be identified in the >>> >> northern land record - this again makes sense from an energy >>> >> balance >>> >> viewpoint, as summer temperatures are more driven by thermodynamics >>> >> than >>> >> dynamics, so the signal is more easily detectable, especially given >>> >> the >>> >> added impact of maximized reflection of insolation due to high sun >>> >> angle. >>> >> 5) this suggests that northern hemisphere land (summer) might be >>> >> the >>> >> most logical data set to look at for detection of volcanic signals. >>> >> as >>> >> I have nearly finalized the new paleo reconstruction of volcanos, >>> >> it >>> >> might be interesting to re-apply detection and attribution to the >>> >> new, >>> >> longer, and (hopefully improved) data sets. >>> >> >>> >> fyi, Tom >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> -- >> 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 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 3527. 2009-04-15 21:15:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Kennedy , Simon Tett , Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, Gabi Hegerl date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:15:33 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe to: Phil Jones Quoting Phil Jones : I don't want to be posting something on RealClimate.org that is going to create confusion rather than clarification. should I just not submit the piece after all? tom > > John, > Another possible issue is the 61-90 ship based SST normals > for the SH oceans in the range 40-60S. I presume you're working on > improving these for the next version. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 12:10 15/04/2009, John Kennedy wrote: >> The ARGO data don't go into SST analyses at the moment. They do make >> measurements at depths that overlap with the deeper ship-based >> measurements, so there's no reason why they couldn't be included in the >> future or used as an independent validation of the SST data once the QC >> issues are sorted out. >> >> Drifting buoys measure SSTs about 0.15C cooler than ships (with some >> geographic variation) probably due to predominantly warm biases in the >> ship data. They are included in SST analyses - more than 85% of all SST >> observations now come from buoys - and have probably led to a slight >> underestimate in the rate of warming since the late 1970s when they were >> first introduced. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 22:29 +0100, Simon Tett wrote: >>> I don't think ARGO goes into the SST dataset though there are a lot more >>> buoys in it. When I was at the Hadley Centre we wondered if buoys were >>> causing a slight cooling trend. [John Kennedy CCed might have some more >>> thoughts on that.] >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov wrote: >>> > Tom >>> > The fact that land could be shown to be warming more than ocean was a >>> > major conclusion of the AR4. >>> > >>> > It's good to see the update to 2008. Quite striking. >>> > >>> > I hate to say this, but I wonder if some of the recent behavior is >>> > spurious - the Argo floats just don't seem very consistent with earlier >>> > records not only for surface temperature but also for sea level (ie >>> > subsurface). What do you think? >>> > Susan >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: Thomas Crowley >>> > Date: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:10 am >>> > Subject: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe >>> > >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> I am in the process of producing a new, long (733-1960) paleo >>> >> reconstruction at annual resolution for purposes of better >>> >> validation >>> >> against models. since tree rings are most sensitive to summer half- >>> >> year >>> >> temperatures, and trees usually grow on land, I am calibrating >>> >> against >>> >> 30-90N summer (land), using HadCRU data updated through 2008, >>> >> kindly >>> >> provided by Phil. >>> >> >>> >> some interesting items jump out from just comparing (attached) the >>> >> instrumental reconstructions for 30-90N land, summer vs global >>> >> temps >>> >> (anomalies based on 1960-1990 mean for each data set): >>> >> >>> >> 1) the n summer land changes are almost twice as large (1.5 vs. >>> >> 0.8C) >>> >> as the global - this is not surprising because we know that land >>> >> heats >>> >> up faster than ocean, but the magnitude is quite striking. >>> >> >>> >> 2) since most people still live on land, this means the human >>> >> impact >>> >> factor has been twice as large as normally assumed for close to 3 >>> >> billion people >>> >> >>> >> 3) the divergence between northern land and global temps seems to >>> >> be >>> >> increasing - both record show the recent decrease in temperatures, >>> >> but >>> >> on land it only started last year (2008) >>> >> >>> >> 4) seven large volcanic eruptions can easily be identified in the >>> >> northern land record - this again makes sense from an energy >>> >> balance >>> >> viewpoint, as summer temperatures are more driven by thermodynamics >>> >> than >>> >> dynamics, so the signal is more easily detectable, especially given >>> >> the >>> >> added impact of maximized reflection of insolation due to high sun >>> >> angle. >>> >> 5) this suggests that northern hemisphere land (summer) might be >>> >> the >>> >> most logical data set to look at for detection of volcanic signals. >>> >> as >>> >> I have nearly finalized the new paleo reconstruction of volcanos, >>> >> it >>> >> might be interesting to re-apply detection and attribution to the >>> >> new, >>> >> longer, and (hopefully improved) data sets. >>> >> >>> >> fyi, Tom >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> -- >> 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 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 4015. 2009-04-16 12:32:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Myles Allen" , "Knutti Reto" , "Stott, Peter" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Daithi Stone" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Tom Knutson" date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: Re: proposal-unrelated curiosity to: "claudia tebaldi" claudia...i was asked to comment on the paper; a tepid comment at best. they just matched a couple of trends. they did not do a heat budget as they should have. so they maybe right, they maybe wrong. will have to wait until the problem is done properly. and as i remember they did no formal D&A. hope this helps, tim > Hi again > > this time a personal inquiry: someone just sent me this paper about > SST variability in the tropical Atlantic, where it is claimed that a > large portion of the variability is related to aerosols (dust from > West Africa and volcanic eruption). I was curious to hear from any of > you that may have seen this and may want to comment. From the > abstract, they claim that 69% of the 'recent upward trend' (from > 1980ish) is explained by aerosols forcing, but then they perform a > sensitivity analysis to parameters in their model and admit to > non-robustness of this particular result, if I understand > correctly...There is no detection/attribution formal methodology at > play, from what I can tell; they are also apportioning the source of > variability between strato- and tropospheric aerosols and it is not > clear to me how they do that...am I too quick and judgmental, or is > this actually a fairly weak result? > > Thanks for any pearl of wisdom you feel like sharing -- I don't know > enough about a lot of the issues involved here, so I'm trying to > understand and I thought I exploit my new position as IDAG > hopefully-honcho-to-be by asking the experts. > > c > > > -- > Claudia Tebaldi > Research Scientist, Climate Central > http://www.climatecentral.org > currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR > PO Box 3000 > Boulder, CO 80305 > tel. 303.497.2487 > 5142. 2009-04-16 17:13:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:36 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe to: Phil Jones Phil its hard to believe the nh land record is off - so the 1.5 C warming is still significant - and the global temp. record is being cited a zillion times - so as long as I keep it at that level, I don't understand why there should be a problem - especially if I cut out or minimize any discussion about offsets in the latter part of the record - doesn't that seem a little worthwhile, given the fixation on global temps. rather than land temps? tom > > Tom, > I wouldn't bother posting this on Real Climate. > Cheers > Phil > > > At 21:15 15/04/2009, you wrote: >> Quoting Phil Jones : >> >> >> I don't want to be posting something on RealClimate.org that is going >> to create confusion rather than clarification. >> >> should I just not submit the piece after all? >> >> tom >> >> >>> >>> John, >>> Another possible issue is the 61-90 ship based SST normals >>> for the SH oceans in the range 40-60S. I presume you're working on >>> improving these for the next version. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 12:10 15/04/2009, John Kennedy wrote: >>>> The ARGO data don't go into SST analyses at the moment. They do make >>>> measurements at depths that overlap with the deeper ship-based >>>> measurements, so there's no reason why they couldn't be included in >>>> the >>>> future or used as an independent validation of the SST data once >>>> the QC >>>> issues are sorted out. >>>> >>>> Drifting buoys measure SSTs about 0.15C cooler than ships (with some >>>> geographic variation) probably due to predominantly warm biases in the >>>> ship data. They are included in SST analyses - more than 85% of all >>>> SST >>>> observations now come from buoys - and have probably led to a slight >>>> underestimate in the rate of warming since the late 1970s when they >>>> were >>>> first introduced. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 22:29 +0100, Simon Tett wrote: >>>>> I don't think ARGO goes into the SST dataset though there are a >>>>> lot more >>>>> buoys in it. When I was at the Hadley Centre we wondered if buoys >>>>> were >>>>> causing a slight cooling trend. [John Kennedy CCed might have some >>>>> more >>>>> thoughts on that.] >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>> Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov wrote: >>>>> > Tom >>>>> > The fact that land could be shown to be warming more than ocean >>>>> was a >>>>> > major conclusion of the AR4. >>>>> > >>>>> > It's good to see the update to 2008. Quite striking. >>>>> > >>>>> > I hate to say this, but I wonder if some of the recent behavior is >>>>> > spurious - the Argo floats just don't seem very consistent with >>>>> earlier >>>>> > records not only for surface temperature but also for sea level (ie >>>>> > subsurface). What do you think? >>>>> > Susan >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: Thomas Crowley >>>>> > Date: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:10 am >>>>> > Subject: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hi, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I am in the process of producing a new, long (733-1960) paleo >>>>> >> reconstruction at annual resolution for purposes of better >>>>> >> validation >>>>> >> against models. since tree rings are most sensitive to summer >>>>> half- >>>>> >> year >>>>> >> temperatures, and trees usually grow on land, I am calibrating >>>>> >> against >>>>> >> 30-90N summer (land), using HadCRU data updated through 2008, >>>>> >> kindly >>>>> >> provided by Phil. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> some interesting items jump out from just comparing (attached) the >>>>> >> instrumental reconstructions for 30-90N land, summer vs global >>>>> >> temps >>>>> >> (anomalies based on 1960-1990 mean for each data set): >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 1) the n summer land changes are almost twice as large (1.5 vs. >>>>> >> 0.8C) >>>>> >> as the global - this is not surprising because we know that land >>>>> >> heats >>>>> >> up faster than ocean, but the magnitude is quite striking. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 2) since most people still live on land, this means the human >>>>> >> impact >>>>> >> factor has been twice as large as normally assumed for close to 3 >>>>> >> billion people >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 3) the divergence between northern land and global temps seems to >>>>> >> be >>>>> >> increasing - both record show the recent decrease in temperatures, >>>>> >> but >>>>> >> on land it only started last year (2008) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 4) seven large volcanic eruptions can easily be identified in the >>>>> >> northern land record - this again makes sense from an energy >>>>> >> balance >>>>> >> viewpoint, as summer temperatures are more driven by >>>>> thermodynamics >>>>> >> than >>>>> >> dynamics, so the signal is more easily detectable, especially >>>>> given >>>>> >> the >>>>> >> added impact of maximized reflection of insolation due to high sun >>>>> >> angle. >>>>> >> 5) this suggests that northern hemisphere land (summer) might be >>>>> >> the >>>>> >> most logical data set to look at for detection of volcanic >>>>> signals. >>>>> >> as >>>>> >> I have nearly finalized the new paleo reconstruction of volcanos, >>>>> >> it >>>>> >> might be interesting to re-apply detection and attribution to the >>>>> >> new, >>>>> >> longer, and (hopefully improved) data sets. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> fyi, Tom >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>>> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 3484. 2009-04-17 16:34:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 17 16:34:25 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: MS 4181 Fu et al Review Request from Dr. Stephen Schneider to: climaticchange@stanford.edu Gina, Attached is my review of a quite poor paper. I don't recommend it for acceptance. Cheers Phil At 17:24 09/04/2009, Climatic Change wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n39GOFXk001242 Dear Dr. Jones, The paper indicated in the attached abstract has been submitted for possible publication in Climatic Change. In view of your expertise and interest 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. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Regards, Gina Lapp Editorial Assistant, Climatic 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5115. 2009-04-17 17:09:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl date: Fri Apr 17 17:09:37 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: input for proposal to: claudia tebaldi , Michael Wehner Claudia, Mike, I dropped a few of the reply list. The papers that I've been involved with are these four. I can't see the first one on the site. I think the fourth may be from the previous project, but it could be from the first year. The thrust of my input has been in two areas - the humidity dataset work (with Nathan). The Nature paper shows that you can detect and attribute a climate change signal in surface humidity data. It also shows that this increase in q (specific humidity) is a direct result of the increase in T. RH stays roughly the same (as a hemispheric average), which is something climate models have done for ages. So this was an observational proof of a feature that has been with us for ages. The J. Climate paper is about the dataset used in the Nature paper. The Nature Geosciences paper is Nathan's about Arctic and Antarctic temperatures. This completes the detection and attribution for these areas that were omitted in Ch 9 of AR4. The fourth was about a rapid change that occurred in Europe in the first half of the 18th century, so indicating what is possible from just natural changes in climate. This was in Task 2.5. The work I'm currently doing relates to developing a dataset of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for the world's land areas (except for the Antarctic and Greenland). Once finished, I'd like to move on to doing some D&A with the dataset. The rationale for looking again at PDSI was that there were numerous questions about the metric in the comments on Ch 3 of AR4. PDSI is calculated from precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (PET). Traditionally PET has been calculated with the Thornethwaite formula, but hydrologists don't like this. We've calculated PDSI using both Thornethwaite and a Penman formula (this uses more than just temperature, including sunshine/cloudiness, vapour pressure and wind). Hydrologists like this formula, but as PDSI is based 90% on precip, the use of either formula makes very little difference to large-scale patterns of PDSI. I still have to write up this PDSI work. I will get there, but there is one paper I have to do first. The PDSI work is in Task 2.4 or 2.5. The IDAG web page seems unclear here. I think it should be 2.4. Cheers Phil At 00:02 16/04/2009, claudia tebaldi wrote: Dear all, Hope this finds you well. Michael and I are starting on the new IDAG proposal. At this time, we need to ask you for a -- hopefully not too time consuming -- form of feedback: Could each of you send us -- at the earliest convenience -- a list of your IDAG-relevant publications, from 2006 to present-day, including work in press, and a few paragraphs (or a series of bullet points) summarizing the thrust of your D&A activities since the beginning of 2006? This all will go in the "Scientific Background" section of the new proposal. Thank you very much from both of us best, Claudia & Michael -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central [1]http://www.climatecentral.org currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80305 tel. 303.497.2487 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2733. 2009-04-17 19:07:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:07:06 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe to: Phil Jones Quoting Phil Jones : Phil, thanks for your thoughts - guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open. still thinking about relative worth, letting it simmer a few more days. enjoy, gabi is off with the boys camping while I try to get a few things done here. tom > > Tom, > As long as you omit issues of offsets and don't suggest the SST recently > might be wrong. > > Worth getting Gavin Schmidt to read it through as well. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 17:13 16/04/2009, you wrote: >> Phil >> >> its hard to believe the nh land record is off - so the 1.5 C >> warming is still significant - and the global temp. record is being >> cited a zillion times - so as long as I keep it at that level, I >> don't understand why there should be a problem - especially if I >> cut out or minimize any discussion about offsets in the latter part >> of the record - doesn't that seem a little worthwhile, given the >> fixation on global temps. rather than land temps? tom >>> >>> Tom, >>> I wouldn't bother posting this on Real Climate. >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 21:15 15/04/2009, you wrote: >>>> Quoting Phil Jones : >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't want to be posting something on RealClimate.org that is going >>>> to create confusion rather than clarification. >>>> >>>> should I just not submit the piece after all? >>>> >>>> tom >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> Another possible issue is the 61-90 ship based SST normals >>>>> for the SH oceans in the range 40-60S. I presume you're working on >>>>> improving these for the next version. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 12:10 15/04/2009, John Kennedy wrote: >>>>>> The ARGO data don't go into SST analyses at the moment. They do make >>>>>> measurements at depths that overlap with the deeper ship-based >>>>>> measurements, so there's no reason why they couldn't be included in the >>>>>> future or used as an independent validation of the SST data once the QC >>>>>> issues are sorted out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Drifting buoys measure SSTs about 0.15C cooler than ships (with some >>>>>> geographic variation) probably due to predominantly warm biases in the >>>>>> ship data. They are included in SST analyses - more than 85% of all SST >>>>>> observations now come from buoys - and have probably led to a slight >>>>>> underestimate in the rate of warming since the late 1970s when they were >>>>>> first introduced. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 22:29 +0100, Simon Tett wrote: >>>>>>> I don't think ARGO goes into the SST dataset though there are >>>>>>> a lot more >>>>>>> buoys in it. When I was at the Hadley Centre we wondered if buoys were >>>>>>> causing a slight cooling trend. [John Kennedy CCed might have some more >>>>>>> thoughts on that.] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>>> The fact that land could be shown to be warming more than ocean was a >>>>>>>> major conclusion of the AR4. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's good to see the update to 2008. Quite striking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hate to say this, but I wonder if some of the recent behavior is >>>>>>>> spurious - the Argo floats just don't seem very consistent with >>>>>>> earlier >>>>>>>> records not only for surface temperature but also for sea level (ie >>>>>>>> subsurface). What do you think? >>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Crowley >>>>>>>> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:10 am >>>>>>>> Subject: trends for n. land (summer) vs globe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am in the process of producing a new, long (733-1960) paleo >>>>>>>>> reconstruction at annual resolution for purposes of better >>>>>>>>> validation >>>>>>>>> against models. since tree rings are most sensitive to summer half- >>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>> temperatures, and trees usually grow on land, I am calibrating >>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>> 30-90N summer (land), using HadCRU data updated through 2008, >>>>>>>>> kindly >>>>>>>>> provided by Phil. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> some interesting items jump out from just comparing (attached) the >>>>>>>>> instrumental reconstructions for 30-90N land, summer vs global >>>>>>>>> temps >>>>>>>>> (anomalies based on 1960-1990 mean for each data set): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) the n summer land changes are almost twice as large (1.5 vs. >>>>>>>>> 0.8C) >>>>>>>>> as the global - this is not surprising because we know that land >>>>>>>>> heats >>>>>>>>> up faster than ocean, but the magnitude is quite striking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) since most people still live on land, this means the human >>>>>>>>> impact >>>>>>>>> factor has been twice as large as normally assumed for close to 3 >>>>>>>>> billion people >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) the divergence between northern land and global temps seems to >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> increasing - both record show the recent decrease in temperatures, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> on land it only started last year (2008) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) seven large volcanic eruptions can easily be identified in the >>>>>>>>> northern land record - this again makes sense from an energy >>>>>>>>> balance >>>>>>>>> viewpoint, as summer temperatures are more driven by thermodynamics >>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>> dynamics, so the signal is more easily detectable, especially given >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> added impact of maximized reflection of insolation due to high sun >>>>>>>>> angle. >>>>>>>>> 5) this suggests that northern hemisphere land (summer) might be >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> most logical data set to look at for detection of volcanic signals. >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> I have nearly finalized the new paleo reconstruction of volcanos, >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> might be interesting to re-apply detection and attribution to the >>>>>>>>> new, >>>>>>>>> longer, and (hopefully improved) data sets. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fyi, Tom >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>>>>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 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 >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> -- >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1752. 2009-04-19 15:23:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "John Holdren" , "Rosina Bierbaum" , "Scaife, Adam" , "Gordon, Chris" , "Colman, Andrew" , "Graham, Richard" date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:23:56 +0100 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: Temperatures in 2009 to: "Mike MacCracken" , "Phil Jones" Dear Mike Three months of 2009 have passed since your email about discussions in USA about our 2009 forecast. Some very provisional things can now be said about our 2009 forecast prospects. I have consulted with experts here on whether they think anthropogenic aerosols globally have increased relative to the assumptions made in standard IPCC scenarios which we use in our relatively simple system and thus in the 2009 forecast. The general view is no. Our forecast does assume that recent La Nina conditions will disappear and be replaced by neutral to weak El Nino conditions for much of 2009. It assumes a continuation of a near minimum in solar output and a current background warming rate of about 0.015C per year, close to the recent observed rate reported in IPCC 2007, Chapter 3. La Nina conditions now appear to have just about completely disappeared (mid April); the EUROSIP coupled model forecast consensus is for weak El Nino conditions to develop over the next few months. The global mean surface temperature anomaly for Jan-March 2009 is 0.38+0.10 as assessed by HadCRUT3, close to what our forecast would implicitly assume at this stage of the year i.e. the disappearance of La Nina but no sign of an El Nino yet. I shall be writing up the forecast system for publication this summer and autumn now that we have 9 independent years 2000-2008 and a tenth, 2009, developing. I would be grateful to have some informal reviews of the paper to present it in the best way - would you be willing to help here sometime in the autumn? With best wishes Chris Prof. Chris Folland Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008) Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978 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: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net] Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44 To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum Subject: Temperatures in 2009 Dear Phil and Chris-- Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted). That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence. Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done. In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. Best, Mike MacCracken Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009. The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying rate of warming, said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature, said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office Hadley Center. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops. The transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year. For additional information see: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c older-than-in-Iceland.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html 481. 2009-04-20 12:04:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , Stefan Rahmstorf , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Ricardo Villalba , Jouzel@dsm-mail.extra.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , 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, Heinz Wanner , Thorsten Kiefer , Eric W Wolff , j.dearing@soton.ac.uk, jerome@lgge.obs.ujf.grenoble.fr, jose_carriquiry@uabc.mx, moha_umero@yahoo.com, Michael Schulz , nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, Bette Otto-Bliesner , peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca, scolman@d.umn.edu, whitlock@montana.edu, zlding@mail.iggcas.ac.cn, Laurent Labeyrie , Gavin Schmidt date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:04:26 +0100 from: Fatima Abrantes subject: Re: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science to: Eystein Jansen Dears Eystein and Peck, Although I have not participated in the previous IPCC discussions and report/chapter writing, it looks to me that a chapter on Paleo might be the most effective way of passing the message. However, we shall also make sure that paleo evidence is included in any chapter where it might make sense. After reading the contributions to the discussion by the other colleagues, I also agree with Stephan's proposal for a chapter providing an overall "Assessment of future climate risks". Yours Sincerely, Fatima Abrantes P.S. In which respects contributions from Lisbon, we can contribute with multi proxy data, including SST, for a couple of inner-shelf sites, off the Tagus and Douro Rivers, which have a quite high sedimentation rate and allow high resolution for the last 2,000 yr. A high resolution record for TI from the Tagus inner-shelf as well, and SST from different sources (alkenone derived, Foram derived, Mg/Ca) is also available for a couple of records. The most interesting of them all being site MD03-2699 a site that reaches 700 Ka and for which we have data high resolution data mainly from MIS9 to the bottom of the core. 3648. 2009-04-20 18:17:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:17:26 +0200 (CEST) from: no_reply@egu.eu subject: Celebrating the Earth Day on 22 April 2009 to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Dear Colleague, on behalf of the European Geosciences Union (www.egu.eu) we would like to invite you to celebrate on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, the: EARTH DAY 2009 This day shall remind us, that our Earth is not only the most wonderful planet in our Solar System, but also our home and life, and that "geosciences is responsibility" to preserve this planet and its environment for all our future generations. All the very best for you and for your families for this day. With kind regards, European Geosciences Union (EGU) secretariat@egu.eu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Download PDF: http://www.egu.eu/download/earth_day_2009.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 992. 2009-04-21 09:46:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , Stefan Rahmstorf , Bette Otto-Bleisner , , Ricardo Villalba , , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , , , , , , Heinz Wanner , Thorsten Kiefer , Eric W Wolff , , , Jrome Chappelaz , , , Michael Schulz , , Bette Otto-Bliesner , , , , , , Laurent Labeyrie , Gavin Schmidt date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:46:16 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science to: Jean-Claude Duplessy , Eystein Jansen Thanks J-C - This is an interesting idea - the crux of which would have to be synthetic papers published in time for incorporation in the AR5, and also some AR5 LA involvement to ensure the science was tight enough to be considered useful. I remember the AR4 sea level debates, where I think many were troubled by the lack of consensus on what ice sheets could do, and where the AR5 should be able to do better using the more recent science. Best, Peck On 4/21/09 2:31 AM, "Jean-Claude Duplessy" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > > From my experience to promote paleo research, I believe that it would > be extremely difficult to have paleo research introduced in each IPCC > chapter, properly taken into account with a balanced discussion. > > I therefore join you in recommending to have a separate Paleo Chapter. > > However, during some IPCC meetings, you may well organize some small > meetings with other groups to discuss together some aspects of paleo > research which may be used in other chapters (in a discussion format > somewhat similar to the old Dalhem Conferences). > > Best regards > > jean-Claude > > Eystein Jansen a crit : >> Dear friends, >> >> The scoping of IPCC AR5 will happen in July this year. In the >> community there have been opinions raised regarding paleo-science in >> the next report, e.g. whether to have paleo-science dispersed into >> various topical chapters, e.g. forcing, model-evaluation, sea level >> etc., or whether it might be best to do as in AR4 to have a separate >> Paleo-chapter. >> >> There are good arguments for both options, and it is not the intent of >> this email to voice a specific opinion. Rather it is important to let >> the scoping process be aware of all the relevant new paleo-science >> which whould be assessed in AR5, thereby leading to the need for a >> strong presence of paleoclimate scientists in the LA-team of AR5, >> particularly in WG1, but also in WG2. >> >> In order to make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly >> relevant for IPCC, Peck and I have agreed to be the editors of a >> Slide-series (ppt style) which can be used to make the case in the >> scoping, and which of course could be a useful product for various >> outreach activities of PAGES and the paleoclimate community at large. >> The PAGES office will asssist in producing the slides >> >> We therefore send this email to you who worked as LAs in AR4 or who >> are on SSC or other relevant PAGES panels and ask for your input. >> What we hope you can help with is the following: >> >> 1. Provide your best examples of key new IPCC (Policy) relevant new >> results post AR4, i.e. accepted after July 2006, that provide >> compelling arguments for paleoclimate science as a key contributor to >> IPCC. Please limit this to the results which are clearly IPCC-relevant >> 2. Ongoing projects or programmes that are likely to deliver such >> results in the next 2-3 years can also be included. The information >> must, however, be specific and compelling to a non-paleo audience. >> 3. Send PDF of the paper or other material (like ppt slide) to Peck >> (jto@u.arizona.edu), Myself and Thorsten Kiefer >> (thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch) at PAGES, preferably by May 2. >> >> We think this might become a very useful service to our community and >> to the climate change communities at large, and will be very rewarding. >> Hoping to hear back from many of you. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Peck and Eystein >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Eystein Jansen >> Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research >> Allgaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway >> e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no >> tel: 55-589803/55-583491 >> fax: 55-584330 >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for Environment and Society 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 regalado@email.arizona.edu 4392. 2009-04-21 09:49:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:49:56 +0100 from: "Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\)" subject: couple of things from Declan to: "Tim Osborn" , "Phil Jones" , "Clare Goodess" Hi Tim / Phil / Clare hope all's well. At some point soon I must get in touch re the masters for next year - hopefully we can coordinate again....feedback from our students has been good so far - I hope yours have found the DEV unit interesting. Main point for this email is to let you know, in case you don't already, that there is to be a large Defra call for a climate impact/risk assessment for the UK in 1-2 months - something like 1-2 million pounds. Bob Watson keeps talking about the call at Tyndall meetings - he thinks this would be a key bid for UEA (Tyndall/CRU/whatever) to be involved in - I think the call may be very relevant to you/CRU in general, possibly more than the expertise now left in Tyndall - or certainly complimentary expertise. Anyway I think it's worth chatting with Bob about it - he and Kevin Anderson are going to try to take some ideas forward over the next few weeks in advance of the call. Bob is going to lead a Tyndall brown bag lunch about the call soon, I think on the 1st or 8th May. Finally - I'm going to Beijing for the British Council Turner exhibition....so Phil I might want to pick your brains about historical climatology in a few days....I'll give you a call. All the best, Declan. 4819. 2009-04-21 16:44:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Apr 21 16:44:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Tax, DEFRA and DECC to: "Sear, Chris (DECC - CESA)" Chris, Bob was invited. I don't think he could go. Cheers Phil At 13:25 21/04/2009, you wrote: What a day - maybe someone can pull together the presentations as ppts for promulgation...... Only semi-serious - was there recently and just looking for ways to get out of the office and learn some more science.... also, by chance, I am on holiday then. I would suggest though that you consider an invitation to John Beddington (or one of his officials) and Bob Watson as they'd find the engagement most useful - do you want me to send on your agenda to them to fly a kite?? C -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 21 April 2009 12:53 To: Sear, Chris (DECC - CESA) Subject: RE: Tax, DEFRA and DECC Chris, Here is the agenda - for the one day of June 19. If you're really interested in going I'll need to check with Ben. We also had to vet all the invitees with Tom - he is still the same as ever. There should be about 50 or so going. Cheers Phil At 12:41 21/04/2009, you wrote: >Hi Phil >You don't realise the half of it. >Thanks for the photos. >Any chance of an invite to the Boulder meeting???? What's it on? > >We are eagerly? Awaiting tomorrow's BUDGET >Cheers >Best regards >Chris > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 21 April 2009 09:44 >To: Sear, Chris (DECC - CESA) >Subject: Tax, DEFRA and DECC > > > > Chris, > > I hope you get around to the odd bit of science every now and >then! > > I have sent my dob and NI nunber to Sue. > > The palarva this year has been wondrous to behold! > > Ben Santer and I are organizing a one day meeting for Tom Wigley > in Boulder in June. Mike Salmon has scanned many old photos - mainly > related to Tom > > We will be scanning the rest at some point. When you're not writing >to > people about their tax, you might like to reminisce! > > >[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/photos/various/ > > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4292. 2009-04-22 08:42:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Steve Colman , Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , Tim Osborn , David Rind , Stefan Rahmstorf , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Ricardo Villalba , Jouzel@dsm-mail.extra.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , 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, Heinz Wanner , Thorsten Kiefer , Eric W Wolff , fatima.abrantes@ineti.pt, j.dearing@soton.ac.uk, jose_carriquiry@uabc.mx, moha_umero@yahoo.com, Michael Schulz , nakatsuka.takeshi@f.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp, Bette Otto-Bliesner , peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca, Whitlock Cathy , zlding@mail.iggcas.ac.cn, Laurent Labeyrie , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:42:20 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science to: Jonathan Overpeck Dear colleagues The question is not whether it is useful for the paloecommunity to have a chapter in AR5, but rather whether it is useful for IPCC to have a chapter on paleo again in AR5. We are competing here with space constraints. For example, there have not been separate chapters on sea level or on carbon cycle. There are thoughts around that these important topics need again be presented in a dedicated chapters as in the TAR. I believe that we need to make the case that paleoscience can indeed contribute highly (policy) relevant information to IPCC AR5. We need to make sure that this information is properly addressed in AR5. Whether this will be done in a dedicated chapter or in a few chapters with a strong paleocomponent is perhaps not so important. It is a bit early to assess new material as there are only 2 years since the last assessement. Here a few topics: a) What is the role of anthropogenic and natural forcings for Holocene climate? There is new work on the role of solar variability in the Holocene (e.g. by the groups of Beer, Bard and others) New 13C measurements (manuscript will be submitted in the next two weeks) allow for a sound quantification of the processes responsible for the Holocenen CO2 variations. Anthropogenic land use plays a minor role Land use studies now extend over the past 1200 years with AOGCM (Pongratz et al.) or the entire Holocene (in prep) There are new manuscripts on fire histories (e.g. Marlon et al., NatGeoscience) The rates of change in radiative forcing from GHGs and other components have been evaluated (attached) b) Can paleo data constrain climate sensitivity and the carbon cycle feedback? There are manuscript emergings on constraining the carbon cycle-climate feedback and climate sensitivity from paleo data that complement earlier studies presented in AR4: Koehler et al., submitted to QSR Frank et al., in preparation Obviously there are many more such as sea level, abrupt changes, ... With best wishes Fortunat -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\joos08pnas.pdf" 299. 2009-04-22 12:08:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:08:41 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: IPCC process for FOIA appeal to: Phil Jones ,Keith Briffa Phil (and Keith, when you're back), here's what I've produced, taking Phil's document and adding some extra detail here and there, plus some points at the end about three negative impacts that disclosure would have. What do you think? Anyway points that shouldn't be made? Anyway that have been missed out? I'll now look through my stuff and find some examples of the material that didn't get deleted at the time, as requested by Dave Palmer. Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\About the IPCC process.doc" 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 5335. 2009-04-22 14:44:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Apr 22 14:44:14 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - to: Wei-Chyung Wang Wei-Chyung, Worth doing, although I'm unsure what SUNYA legal people can do. I think many of these skeptics would like to be sued, so it could be counter productive. Maybe in the US there is some way of restricting the number of requests he can make. When NSF release your proposals, Keenan shouldn't be allowed to put them up on a web site. I know you have nothing to fear with these, but he shouldn't be able to go through all your previous grants. Did you contact Ray? Cheers Phil At 18:00 21/04/2009, you wrote: Hi, Phil, VP-Research is setting up, at my request, a meeting very soon with SUNYA legal representatives. My intention is see whether SUNYA is willing and to what extent to start some legal actions against Keenan. I cannot just allow him to run around wild without putting brake on this. Any thoughts? 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 Fax: 518-372-8325 E-mail: [1]wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu [2]http://asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html ************************************** From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:55 AM To: Wei-Chyung Wang; 'Thomas.R.Karl' Cc: 'Wei-Chyung Wang' Subject: Re: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Wei-Chyung, Do ask them! This looks as though it could get out of control. Look at the tone of some of the recent things on his web site. Also - send an email to Ray Bradley. He has been through this related to the Hockey Stick work with Mike Mann and Malcolm Hughes. They ere asked by a congressman or senator for details of all their grants. Also ask SUNYA if Keenan has to be US (and/or live in the US) to file US FOI requests. Cheers Phil At 15:41 15/04/2009, Wei-Chyung Wang wrote: I think I am going to ask SUNYA to take action now, including the legal one, trying to put a stop to this. Anything you can think of, let me know. WCW From: Wei-Chyung Wang [ [4]mailto:wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:28 AM To: 'Lynn Videka' Cc: 'John H Reilly'; 'Wei-Chyung Wang' Subject: RE: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Lynn, Thanks. I think it is also about time the SUNYA starts some legal action. Have you notice that: âThe requester is Douglas J. Keenan of New w York, he did not provide me with his affiliation.â I though Keenan resides in UK, at least from the past communication. Perhaps NSF needs to find out who Keenan is, his affiliation, and also the consequences of using false information. WCW From: Lynn Videka [ [5]mailto:lvideka@uamail.albany.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:16 AM To: Wei-Chyung Wang Cc: John H Reilly Subject: Re: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Wei-Chyung, This is very disturbing. I will ask our counsel for his opinion on the matter. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Wei-Chyung Wang To: Lynn Videka CC: Wei-Chyung Wang Sent: Wed Apr 15 09:55:39 2009 Subject: FW: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Hi, Lynn, FYI, it looks Keenan is still trying. Given the situation, should SUNYA inform NSF about the circumstance? Furthermore, should we do something to stop the continued hustle. Please advise. WCW From: Jensen, Leslie A. [[6]mailto:ljensen@nsf.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:41 AM To: wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu Subject: National Science Foundation funded grant proposals - Response required Importance: High Case #09-147F April 15, 2009 Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang SUNY at Albany Dear Dr. Wang: We have received a request for copies of the following proposals associated with the NSF funded grants entitled: · Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #0342530 · Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #0087073 · Meeting on Research on Climate Changes of the Last 2000 Years in Monsoon Asia #9222875 · Atmospheric Tract Constituents and Global Climate #9713858 · Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #9115199 · Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #8805908 · Workshop on General Circulation Model Study: Climate Chemistry Interaction #9211795 · Atmospheric Trace Gases and Global Climate #9096124 · Atmospheric Trace Constituents and Global Climate #9415336 Records are available to the public on request except for material that is personal, privileged or confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under law. NSF will remove, before disclosure to the requester, personal information (SSN, date/place of birth, individual salaries, bios, pending and non-Federal grants) in the file about yourself or other individuals under Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to protect personal privacy. The FOIA generally prohibits us from withholding records except to the extent that disclosure of proprietary information (trade secrets or commercial or financial information) in the records, if any, that you assert is privileged or confidential. Therefore, I request that you carefully review your proposal, identifying by page number, line or paragraph, the parts you consider confidential. You will need to include a detailed statement explaining how disclosure of this information would harm your organization or benefit your competitors, or why it is otherwise exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Understand that information you submit in response to this request may itself be subject to disclosure. Your response is not an agreement between us that the information you request us to withhold will not be disclosed. Under the law, we must decide what may be withheld and be prepared to defend that withholding in court. We will, however, notify you if we cannot agree. If you have questions regarding this request, you may wish to contact your institutions intellectual property or grants office for guidance. If you have no objection to disclosure of the proposal -- many submitters have none -- simply let me know that. The requester is Douglas J. Keenan of New York, he did not provide me with his affiliation. Please send your response to me, preferably by email at ljensen@nsf.gov <[7]mailto:ljensen@nsf.gov> , within five (5) working days after receipt of this letter. Your prompt response enables us to comply with the statutory time for response to requests. Sincerely, Leslie A. Jensen FOIA/Privacy Act Officer Office of the General Counsel National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1265 Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: 703-292-5065 FAX: 703-292-9041 E-mail: ljensen@nsf.gov Web: [8]http://www.nsf.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 740. 2009-04-23 11:35:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:35:45 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23] to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Hi again, I've put together the attached table listing all those named in the FOI request or who we have relevant correspondence with, together with their response to our enquiries about confidentiality/release of materials. It is based on the responses from colleagues that I sent you last 12th May, plus 3 further responses (Jouzel, Solomina, Ammann) that arrived after that. Hope this suffices. I've got hard copy of typical correspondence, plus hard copy of the 3 further responses regarding confidentiality. Should I send these via internal mail to Dave? What is your internal address? Just "Dave Palmer, LIB"? Cheers Tim At 10:12 23/04/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Tim [et al], >I'd like to add my thanks as well - I've had a quick view of the >document and will provide comments suggestions in the near future. Rom >my perspective, it's a question of providing both context and reasons >why the information 'fits' within the exemptions that we have cited so >the evidence/context needs to align/support those exemptions. >The other piece of work that I will attend to is mapping the request >onto EIR, should the ICO decree that we must go that route... > >Cheers, Dave > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) > >Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:01 AM > >To: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: RE: ICO request > > > >Tim, > > > >Thanks very much for this. Dave and I have had to move our > >meeting yesterday from this morning to 7th May, so if you need > >abit more time to let us have any further information you now have it! > > > >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: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:05 PM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) > >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: RE: ICO request > > > >Hi Dave and Michael, > > > >attached is a replacement to the draft that Phil sent earlier. I > >think it covers items 1, 3, 4 and 6 on the list below, though we > >could perhaps expand on 6 if necessary. The previous letters from > >Susan Solomon and our co-authors should of course accompany this as > >support. Note that Keith has not had a chance to see any of this > >because he had to go to Liverpool at urgent notice last Thursday due > >to family illness and now bereavement and so is, > >understandably, still away. > > > >I have collated some examples for item 5. Phil is taking a look to > >see if they are a fair representation of the type of material. I'll > >pass these on to you tomorrow (they are all hard copy). > > > >I'll make a table/list for item 2 tomorrow morning and email it to you. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Tim > > > >At 15:01 17/04/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: > >> > >>I hope that you have all had a really good Easter break. > >> > >>I have arranged to meet up with Dave Palmer next Thursday (23rd April) > >>to progress the response to the ICO. If there is any information from > >>the action list (included below for ease of reference) that you could > >>send me in advance, I would be grateful. > >> > >>Many thanks > >> > >>Michael > >> > >> > >>ACTION LIST: > >> > >>1. Details of web links for the copy of the final IPCC report > >as well as > >>links to drafts and comments on drafts. > >> > >>2. List of members of the working group - I will then do a table that > >>shows who replied to Tim's email. > >> > >>3. A description/statement of the process followed by IPCC authors, > >>including that much of this was by round table discussion > >> > >>4. Any IPCC guidance that was given to authors and how they were > >>expected to operate. > >> > >>5. Some examples of the types of email exchanges that took place that > >>could go to the ICO > >> > >>6. Statement clarifying the possible damage to international > >>collaboration if email exchanges of this kind can be made publicly > >>available > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOI David Holland list of named correspondees.doc" 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 2946. 2009-04-23 13:24:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +0000 (GMT) from: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] to: Clare Goodess , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones Thanks Phil for the links to Monckton rebuttals amnd sources, and these latest comments. Also thank you Clare for all your comments - I agree that the detailed rebuttal is too involved. I will do a covering letter stating the main errors, with an appendix. I know other senior people in the insurance industry are also very unhappy with the sceptical article. Finally, I will chivy CII to make our report publicly available, as they said they would. Sorry for all this nuisance, but it would be good to show the sceptics up in the naked daylight for the charlatans they are! Andrew --- On Thu, 23/4/09, Phil Jones wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: "Clare Goodess" , "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Thursday, 23 April, 2009, 12:30 PM Andrew, Clare's email got me to look at what they said about IPCC. I'd seen your responses which were fine, but had skipped over what they'd said. The SPM has to be agreed line by line. If it isn't then text isn't there. There is never a show of hands. Also if the govt reps attending the final meeting try to go too far in the SPM, the scientists will disagree. So the SPM meeting can't change the science in the underlying report. What has to happen after the SPM is that some wording in the chapters and in the Technical Summary has to be changed. The skeptics always make a big thing about this, but a few changes have to be made so that the points in the SPM can be clearly traced back to original chapters. For Ch 3 in AR4 from WG1 this took us about 30 minutes to do after (well during the Paris meeting). No CLA could leave the Paris meeting until their absolutely necessary changes were handed in. What is always mildly annoying is that once each SPM has had a press conference, it then takes a few months for CUP to put the book together. I think this time they did put the chapters up on a web site within a few weeks (i.e. before the book came out). CUP requires this time for the book, it was nothing to do with IPCC or the WGs. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 11:07 23/04/2009, Clare Goodess wrote: Dear Andrew First of all - apologies for the delay in responding on this. I've now read the original article and your response. The latter seems very comprehensive, providing a very detailed point by point rebuttal. My main concern is as to how many CII members will read it in detail. And, personally, I would remove the exclamation marks. I'm not quite sure where the original article was published - an in-house magazine? I couldn't find it on the CII web site - which gives quite a positive impression with the two thinkpieces (Agnew and Catalano; Voysey) and podcasts etc from the launch meeting. The introduction to the article does make the CII's formal position clear and somewhat distances itself from the article, but it is debatable that the article does provide the claimed 'fair comment'. I wonder if one way forward, would be to write a fairly brief 'letter' or statement, and then to make the detailed point-by-point rebuttal available separately (perhaps on line?). And I think it would be appropriate to focus the former short piece on the IPCC process which is completely misrepresented in the article - I'm always surprised by how common some of these misunderstandings are. It needs to be stressed that the IPCC process is based on review of peer-reviewed science. And everything goes through further review by the science community (with review editors) before going to the policymakers. Your experience of the latter part of the process is good to mention - but the policymakers can't change the underlying science. [Maynard and Monckton even manage to get the name of the IPCC wrong in the 3rd paragraph - it is Intergovernmental not International!] And I think that some of your final comments on page 26 para 6 - issue 4 about the need for insurers to plan are worth highlighting. But you know the insurance community and the functioning of the CII better than any of us - so the best way to proceed is down to your judgement. Best wishes, Clare At 21:49 21/04/2009, ANDREW DLUGOLECKI wrote: Thanks Phil, glad to know I am on the right lines. I appreciate you must be bombarded with such stuff, but at least I want to do my bit in sweeping the sceptics out of insurance (as far as possible!) Andrew --- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM Andrew, Presumably you have found all these links. If not sit down before looking at them. I've pasted a number of links below. In some of them you will see very familiar diagrams. [1]http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html This one seems very useful. It might be a way to respond. Your responses so far seem to be in this type of format. What I think has happened in CII is the Monckton has put together most of the text from things he already had, and a paragraph has been added at the front and one at the beginning to give the CII context. In one of the ones below is his address Monckton of Brenchley Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ 30 December 2008 Brenchley is in Kent, but he lives up your way! [2]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/ [3]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhttp ://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsider ed.pdf [4]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html [5]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening. pdf Cheers Phil Dear Andrew et al, Clare has been away in Vienna, but she should be back later today. We see things like this all the time - mainly on blog sites though. It is difficult to know how to respond to them. When they appear in print, they probably should be responded to, but we all have many things to do. The points you make are all sound, and there are many more that we could also make and add. Most will be technical, so not that relevant to almost all readers of CII. Here are a couple of relevant recently (or soon to be) published papers. The ones M&M select are just the ones to make their arguments. They miss hundreds on the other side. Maybe a brief response pointing out their main mistakes? Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CII sceptics From: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Date: Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm To: "maureen agnew" "Clare Goodess" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Maureen and Clare subsequent to launching the report, CII has published a ridiculous article which undermines their own position and discredits our report implicitly. I think it was as a result of pressure from an internal sceptic at a senior level, in order to show 'balance'. I attach the scanned article ( which looks OK if you open it in Word Office), and also my proposed rebuttal. I would welcome your thoughts urgently. Cheers Andrew Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [7]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1288. 2009-04-24 17:09:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 24 17:09:15 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Some issues in confidence to: wigley@ucar.edu Tom, There are some odd things going on at UEA. [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/apr/homepagenews/tyndallfunding This link was put up on the UEA website a few hours ago. Janice knows that UEA has a ~1M additional money from NERC for Tyndall for another year. Then it is supposed to compete with all others for grants in the normal way. She has no idea where the additional 3.5M is from! She is trying to find out. The only place I can think of is UEA itself. There was a big initiative called ELSA with the John Innes Institute that seems to have foundered, so it may be that money. A week today there will a meeting in ENV to discuss climate change research. I hope to be there, but only get back from Geneva 2 hrs earlier and there is a tight connection in Schipol. There are a number of issues about branding being mentioned. I'm firmly of the belief that CRU is a much more well known name than Tyndall or ENV. Depending how things go I will say this. Keith, Tim and Clare are also going, so with the numbers going (~30) I doubt much will be decided. Returning to the first point, ENV lost out in the last RAE. Despite coming top in Earth Sciences we lost about 1M of Hefce money (~20%). All Depts that had top ratings in all previous RAEs lost out in a similar way - affecting Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, IC. Anyway ENV has to make cuts - not just in staff, but in space as well, as we have a space charge. I've only heard this second hand, but one idea being mooted is moving CRU somewhere else and trying to get another dept/group to take on our building! To rename the building the HHL building UEA had to approach Wolfson, so my belief is they wouldn't be able to do this. Climate Research is so high on the agenda, Wolfson would wonder why UEA (ENV) would want to shoe-horn us in somewhere else. I doubt much will come of any of this, but it might be not just Jim needing a bit of help soon. I'm in Geneva next week. No-one else in CRU knows about this building issue. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4534. 2009-04-28 02:40:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:40:53 -0700 (PDT) from: Adrian Southern subject: Bob Watsons brown bag session to: Tim Osborn , Vanessa McGregor , Clare Goodess Bob Watsons brown bag session to discuss the funding situation in the research councils and government agencies will beFriday 1st May at 1 to 2 pm in EFRY 1.01. Adrian Adrian Southern Senior Research Associate School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich. Norfolk. NR4 7TJ. UK. Email: a.southern@uea.ac.uk Mobile: +44 (0)7786 605854 Work Tel: +44 (0)1603 591380 Web page: http://researchpages.net/people/adrian-southern/ Research affiliation: Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research (ZICER). http://www.uea.ac.uk/zicer/ Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/ Earth & Life Systems Alliance (ELSA) http://www.elsa.ac.uk/ Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation (CEEC). http://www.uea.ac.uk/ceec/ ----- Original Message ---- From: Tim Osborn To: Vanessa McGregor ; Clare Goodess Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) ; A.Southern@uea.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:23:43 AM Subject: Re: couple of things from Declan Thanks for this Vanessa. Please can you let us know the location/time of the one this Friday. Thanks. Tim At 12:04 27/04/2009, Vanessa McGregor wrote: > Dear Clare > > I hope this email finds you well. We welcome CRU attendance at our brown bag lunches. > > By copy of this email Adrian please keep Clare informed of future brown bag lunches. Many thanks. > > Kind regards, > Vanessa > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Clare Goodess > To: v.mcgregor@uea.ac.uk > Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) ; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:36 AM > Subject: RE: couple of things from Declan > > Dear Vanessa > > CRU is interested in the potential bid to Defra for the national climate change risk assessment. Declan has suggested that we talk to you about the possibility of someone from CRU coming along to the planned brown bag lunch. > > Best wishes, Clare > > > At 11:18 25/04/2009, Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\) wrote: >> hi all - I'm out of office and don't have the precise date with me - check with Vanessa/Asher Minns tehy should know the time and date - it is already fixed. I think it would be really good if some/all of you could go - cheers, Declan. >> >> >> ---------- >> Van: Clare Goodess [ mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >> Verzonden: vr 24-4-2009 10:28 >> Aan: Conway Declan Dr (DEV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> Onderwerp: RE: couple of things from Declan >> >> Hi Declan >> >> Thanks for further information. >> >> CRU is definitely interested in being involved and it would be good if one of us could take part in the brown bag lunch. We are available as follows: >> >> 1 May - Tim and Clare are available >> >> 8 May - Phil and Clare are available >> >> Cheers, Clare >> >> >> At 16:22 23/04/2009, Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\) wrote: >>> I think it could be - Bob has mentioned that Defra has had a scoping study done by AEA and there're using this to design the main call - cheers, Declan. >>> >>> ---------- >>> From: Clare Goodess [ mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:16 PM >>> To: Conway Declan Dr (DEV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>> Subject: Re: couple of things from Declan >>> Hi Declan >>> Is this related to the CCRA & CBA scoping study that was called for last summer? There was a UEA/Tyndall bid led by Atkins - which CRU decided to drop out of in the end because the consortium was getting too large given the amount of money/time available. I can't recall who won the scoping study tender in the end... >>> Best wishes, Clare >>> At 09:49 21/04/2009, Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\) wrote: >>>> Hi Tim / Phil / Clare >>>> hope all's well. >>>> At some point soon I must get in touch re the masters for next year - hopefully we can coordinate again....feedback from our students has been good so far - I hope yours have found the DEV unit interesting. >>>> Main point for this email is to let you know, in case you don't already, that there is to be a large Defra call for a climate impact/risk assessment for the UK in 1-2 months - something like 1-2 million pounds. Bob Watson keeps talking about the call at Tyndall meetings - he thinks this would be a key bid for UEA (Tyndall/CRU/whatever) to be involved in - I think the call may be very relevant to you/CRU in general, possibly more than the expertise now left in Tyndall - or certainly complimentary expertise. >>>> Anyway I think it's worth chatting with Bob about it - he and Kevin Anderson are going to try to take some ideas forward over the next few weeks in advance of the call. Bob is going to lead a Tyndall brown bag lunch about the call soon, I think on the 1st or 8th May. >>>> Finally - I'm going to Beijing for the British Council Turner exhibition....so Phil I might want to pick your brains about historical climatology in a few days....I'll give you a call. >>>> All the best, Declan. >>>> >>> 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 > 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 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 3381. 2009-04-28 07:49:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:49:22 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: I presume this is true!]]] to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Keith, I suppose that the answer is still no, but I told Tom/Ben that I would still ask. Can you forward to Sarah, Tim? I assume you (Tim or Keith) are on to the GEC marking. Has to be in by end of Wednesday. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: I presume this is true!]] From: "Ben Santer" Date: Mon, April 27, 2009 6:33 pm To: "Tom Wigley" Cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tom, Yes! Now that Sarah is feeling better, it would be great if Phil could ask both Keith and Sarah whether they'd be available on June 19th. Cheers, Ben Tom Wigley wrote: > Ben, > > Should we re-invite Sarah? Keith. Praps Phil can > sound things out? > > Tom > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: I presume this is true!] > From: > P.Jones@uea.ac.uk > Date: > Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:21:22 +0100 (BST) > To: > "Tom Wigley" > > To: > "Tom Wigley" > > > Sarah is back working - just after Easter. > She seems fine now. > > Phil > >> Yeah -- a bit sad really. >> >> Two wrongs don't make a right. >> >> Any news about Sarah? >> >> Tom. >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++= >> >> P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >>> Tom, >>> Here is an email from Kevin and Jim Renwick which >>> has some more details. As you/we surmised Jim isn't entirely >>> blameless. >>> >>> In Geneva all week. I'll see how many people here know >>> about the issue. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>> ---------------------------- >>> Subject: Re: Re: I presume this is true! >>> From: "Kevin Trenberth" >>> Date: Sun, April 26, 2009 11:06 pm >>> To: "James Renwick" >>> Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Thanks Jim >>> Do the rules that were imposed on Jim Salinger apply to all or was he >>> singled out? This is wrt having to get permission to speak to the >>> media. >>> I note NIWA has been quiet: and so the news reports cease. (At least on >>> google news). Anything on local talkback shows etc? >>> Kevin >>> >>>> Hi Kevin: >>>> >>>> Thanks for your mail - very interesting to read your interpretation of >>>> this. >>>> Just to be secret squirrel, I'm replying via my non-NIWA mail... >>>> >>>> It puts forward an image to the public and they started to change that >>>> and >>>>> part of it was to cut back on Jim's contacts with the >>>>> media. In that sense Jim was in violation of the rules and was >>>>> legitimately fired. However the rules stink! >>>>> >>>> A pretty good summary. Jim was told to do certain things and chose not >>>> to >>>> do >>>> them, and he's had a few scenes with some of the people in the Auckland >>>> NIWA >>>> office over the past year or so, all culminating in him getting fired. >>>> Nothing he has done warrants the sack, in my opinion - I have the >>>> feeling >>>> that there's some (unknown to me) personality issue going on as well. >>>> It's >>>> really dumb of NIWA to act in this way, damaging for Jim of course, but >>>> certainly damaging for NIWA as well. If this action hinges on the >>>> personal >>>> likes and dislikes of the CEO (or whoever), that's a serious worry for >>>> all >>>> of us. There will be an Employment Court case to come in May, and >>>> perhaps >>>> it'll bring things out in the open. >>>> >>>> There has been a corporatising of NIWA (and NZ) science the past 20 >>>> years, >>>> but I don't feel we are too constrained generally about speaking. We'll >>>> see >>>> what develops from here. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> *From: * "Kevin Trenberth" *To:* "James Renwick" >>>>> < >>>>> j.renwick@niwa.co.nz> *CC:* *Date: * 27/04/2009 >>>>> 3:55 >>>>> a.m. *Subject: * Re: I presume this is true!Hi Jim and Phil >>>>> Thanks for the internal insights. >>>>> I think this issue stems from the decisions in the early 1990s to >>>>> privatize the Meteorological Service and create NIWA. If you look at >>>>> the >>>>> NIWA web site you will see that it is run as a company and has a CEO >>>>> who >>>>> is a business person (not a scientific director) and a board of >>>>> directors >>>>> (some of whom are scientists). It has contracts with media to sell >>>>> information. It puts forward an image to the public and they started >>>>> to >>>>> change that and part of it was to cut back on Jim's contacts with the >>>>> media. In that sense Jim was in violation of the rules and was >>>>> legitimately fired. >>>>> >>>>> However the rules stink! I think the NZ public, the public interest >>>>> and >>>>> the NZ govt is very poorly served by the way NIWA is set up and run, >>>>> but >>>>> that is a high level govt decision. My guess is that that this is not >>>>> so >>>>> much the new government (although it could be), as the CEO and Board >>>>> of >>>>> Directors. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that scientists should be able to speak freely and openly to >>>>> the >>>>> media about science. To the extent that policy and decisions related >>>>> to >>>>> the science come in, then scientists should be able to voice their >>>>> personal views freely and openly as long it is clear that they are >>>>> speaking for themselves and not representing NIWA or the government. >>>>> In >>>>> NOAA, policies were put in place that required permission for >>>>> scientist >>>>> to >>>>> respond and talk to the media: they were not told they couldn't. But >>>>> in >>>>> practice it amounted to the same thing because getting permission took >>>>> time and was cumbersome. That seems to be partly what has happened >>>>> here. >>>>> The other part is controlling what is said and the message. >>>>> >>>>> This is really to Phil, but I am interested in Jim's reaction to this: >>>>> obviously he is part of NIWA and needs to be careful about what he >>>>> says. >>>>> >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Phil: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes indeed, and very unfortunate it is too. Jim is taking a personal >>>>>> grievance case against NIWA and has gone to the media. It is being >>>>> painted >>>>>> as a "Jim Hansen" story - right-wing government gags prominent >>>>>> climate-change scientist. This is not the situation at all, as you >>>>> guess. >>>>>> I can't say I know all about it, but my understanding is this: NIWA >>>>> chose >>>>>> a year ago to broaden their range of media spokespeople, so asked Jim >>>>> to >>>>>> step back from speaking to the media, to make room for others. He did >>>>> not >>>>>> take kindly to this, and has chosen to repeatedly ignore management's >>>>>> (increasingly strident) requests, in this area and in others. He was >>>>>> eventually seen as too much of a liability to the organisation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Jim himself would put a very different slant on it. Either >>>>> way, >>>>>> it's really sad for Jim and for NIWA that things weren't handled >>>>> better >>>>>> than this. I don't think anyone will come up smelling of roses >>>>>> through >>>>> the >>>>>> court case and the media exposure. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you haven't contacted him already, Jim would I'm sure appreciate >>>>>> an >>>>>> e-mail. His "home" address is salinger@orcon.net.nz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>>>> Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> Dr James Renwick >>>>>> Principal Scientist, Climate Variability & Change >>>>>> NIWA >>>>>> Private Bag 14901, Wellington >>>>>> +64-4-386-0343 +64-21-178-5550 >>>>>>>>> Phil Jones 04/24/09 8:06 PM >>> >>>>>> Jim, >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/greens >>>>> -storms-ahead-niwa-after-noble-prize-winner-sacked/5/12587 >>>>>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/04/24/1245aa98cdba >>>>>> >>>>>> There is probably a lot more to this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>>> University of East Anglia >>>>>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>>> NR4 7TJ >>>>>> UK >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & >>>>> Atmospheric >>>>>> Research Ltd. >>>>>> >>>>> ___________________ >>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>>>> >>>>> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & >>>>> Atmospheric >>>>> Research Ltd. >>>>> >>> >>> ___________________ >>> Kevin Trenberth >>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>> PO Box 3000 >>> Boulder CO 80307 >>> ph 303 497 1318 >>> 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1323. 2009-04-28 13:33:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:33:43 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: Climate discussion on Friday] to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk Tim, Clare, Not that keen on tipping points! The big questions in my mind are: - follow up from UKCP09 - keeping CRU datasets up to date (may not be new, but this keeps the CRU name in the forefront) - CRU datasets are used by many as there source of what is happening. We need to watch them as well. This involves some media and other responses to counter skeptics - adding PDSI to the list we monitor - explaining why there has been a dramatic decline in RH in the past 3 years (this is very, very new!) - improving the input data that enters Reanalyses (these will eventually be that good, that we will be monitoring extremes using Reanalyses within a 10-year timeframe) Amend and add. Probably needs a paleo one or two and some from our EPSRC/EU projects. I do think the skeptics are going to make a big effort in the coming year or two. Science may appear to be done and dusted, but there are still loads of skeptics out there. Can you prepare a couple of ppt, as I won't have time. Doesn't look as though there is an agenda coming from Bob, Trevor. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Climate discussion on Friday From: "Alastair Grant" Date: Tue, April 28, 2009 12:41 pm To: "'Jordan Andy Prof \(ENV\)'" "'Andrew Watson'" "'Phil Jones'" t.osborn@uea.ac.uk "'M Hulme'" "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you know, we have a roundtable discussion about climate on Friday afternoon. Can I ask you to think in advance about what you see as the key research questions and unsolved problems that climate research will have to address over the next decade? Think about the issues that require integration across disciplines as well as the problems that are specific to your particular discipline. Don't confine yourself to the things that we currently do, and please do discuss these questions with colleagues beforehand. Andy (Watson) - it would be helpful if you could say a bit about the "tipping points" ideas as well as your other activities. Please come along ready to summarise your ideas in a couple of minutes - we aren't looking for research seminars, or presentations of past achievements, so there is no need to prepare powerpoint presentations. We're wanting to do a "foresight" exercise, to identify the next big questions and how we can contribute towards answering the big questions. There will be space for others to contribute their thoughts, but we did want to prompt your thinking in advance to make sure that we tap into the thoughts of key players from across the disciplines represented in ENV. I'm sending this out because Jacquie is away, but it comes from us both. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Alastair _________________________________________ Professor Alastair Grant Deputy Head of School School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Phone +44 1603 592537 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\untitled-23.htm" 1639. 2009-04-30 08:02:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, "Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:02:13 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: [Fwd: Climate discussion on Friday] to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Seems fine! Change Humidity to Relative Humidity. Also there is responding to the skeptic claims - as Andrew Dlugolecki has had to do. This can be media, journal papers etc. Why it hasn't warmed much over the last few years is one such thing. Solar Constant now is 1361 W/m*m! AR5 runs will go with whatever they have now, as it will take modelling centres 1-2 years to retune their models. Most have 1366-1370! Cheers Phil > Hi Phil, Keith and Clare, > > Clare and I discussed this and thought we could put together a short > statement to help set the scene for Friday's discussion. > > We can perhaps even circulate paper copies at the meeting on Friday > (Alistair didn't ask for a powerpoint presentation), or at least use > it ourselves when introducing our ideas about climate research in the > next decade. > > I've put together the attached document, drawing in some of Phil's > suggestions (datasets, drought, humidity decline, re-analysis) and > some ideas from Clare. > > What do you think? Too long? Wrong direction/emphasis? Omitting > anything major? > > Comments or tracked changes welcome! > > Tim > > At 13:33 28/04/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> Tim, Clare, >> Not that keen on tipping points! >> >> The big questions in my mind are: >> >> - follow up from UKCP09 >> - keeping CRU datasets up to date (may not be new, but this keeps the >> CRU >> name in the forefront) >> - CRU datasets are used by many as there source of what is happening. >> We >> need to watch them as well. This involves some media and other >> responses >> to counter skeptics >> - adding PDSI to the list we monitor >> - explaining why there has been a dramatic decline in RH in the past 3 >>years (this is very, very new!) >> - improving the input data that enters Reanalyses (these will >> eventually be that good, that we will be monitoring extremes >> using Reanalyses within a 10-year timeframe) >> >> Amend and add. Probably needs a paleo one or two >> and some from our EPSRC/EU projects. >> >> I do think the skeptics are going to make a big effort in the >> coming year or two. Science may appear to be done and dusted, >> but there are still loads of skeptics out there. >> >> Can you prepare a couple of ppt, as I won't have time. >> >> >> Doesn't look as though there is an agenda coming from Bob, Trevor. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >>---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >>Subject: Climate discussion on Friday >>From: "Alastair Grant" >>Date: Tue, April 28, 2009 12:41 pm >>To: "'Jordan Andy Prof \(ENV\)'" >> "'Andrew Watson'" >> "'Phil Jones'" >> t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >> "'M Hulme'" >> "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>As you know, we have a roundtable discussion about climate on Friday >>afternoon. Can I ask you to think in advance about what you see as the >> key >>research questions and unsolved problems that climate research will have >> to >>address over the next decade? Think about the issues that require >>integration across disciplines as well as the problems that are specific >> to >>your particular discipline. Don't confine yourself to the things that we >>currently do, and please do discuss these questions with colleagues >>beforehand. >> >> >> >>Andy (Watson) - it would be helpful if you could say a bit about the >>"tipping points" ideas as well as your other activities. >> >> >> >>Please come along ready to summarise your ideas in a couple of minutes - >> we >>aren't looking for research seminars, or presentations of past >> achievements, >>so there is no need to prepare powerpoint presentations. We're wanting >> to >>do a "foresight" exercise, to identify the next big questions and how we >> can >>contribute towards answering the big questions. There will be space >> for >>others to contribute their thoughts, but we did want to prompt your >> thinking >>in advance to make sure that we tap into the thoughts of key players from >>across the disciplines represented in ENV. >> >> >> >>I'm sending this out because Jacquie is away, but it comes from us both. >> If >>you have any questions, please give me a call. >> >> >> >>Alastair >> >>_________________________________________ >> >> >> >>Professor Alastair Grant >> >>Deputy Head of School >> >>School of Environmental Sciences >> >>University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK >> >>Phone +44 1603 592537 >> >> >> >> > 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 > > 4713. 2009-04-30 12:42:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,"Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:42:21 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: [Fwd: Climate discussion on Friday] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,"Tim Osborn" Hi Tim Thanks for this. Have made some minor suggested changes to attached. I know that responding to skeptics is time consuming - but not sure it is a research issue, so maybe not appropriate to include. Though I guess it's wrapped up in communication issues which are already mentioned. Clare At 08:02 30/04/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Tim, > Seems fine! Change Humidity to Relative Humidity. > > Also there is responding to the skeptic claims > - as Andrew Dlugolecki has had to do. > > This can be media, journal papers etc. Why it hasn't > warmed much over the last few years is one such thing. > > Solar Constant now is 1361 W/m*m! AR5 runs will go with > whatever they have now, as it will take modelling centres > 1-2 years to retune their models. Most have 1366-1370! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Hi Phil, Keith and Clare, > > > > Clare and I discussed this and thought we could put together a short > > statement to help set the scene for Friday's discussion. > > > > We can perhaps even circulate paper copies at the meeting on Friday > > (Alistair didn't ask for a powerpoint presentation), or at least use > > it ourselves when introducing our ideas about climate research in the > > next decade. > > > > I've put together the attached document, drawing in some of Phil's > > suggestions (datasets, drought, humidity decline, re-analysis) and > > some ideas from Clare. > > > > What do you think? Too long? Wrong direction/emphasis? Omitting > > anything major? > > > > Comments or tracked changes welcome! > > > > Tim > > > > At 13:33 28/04/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >> Tim, Clare, > >> Not that keen on tipping points! > >> > >> The big questions in my mind are: > >> > >> - follow up from UKCP09 > >> - keeping CRU datasets up to date (may not be new, but this keeps the > >> CRU > >> name in the forefront) > >> - CRU datasets are used by many as there source of what is happening. > >> We > >> need to watch them as well. This involves some media and other > >> responses > >> to counter skeptics > >> - adding PDSI to the list we monitor > >> - explaining why there has been a dramatic decline in RH in the past 3 > >>years (this is very, very new!) > >> - improving the input data that enters Reanalyses (these will > >> eventually be that good, that we will be monitoring extremes > >> using Reanalyses within a 10-year timeframe) > >> > >> Amend and add. Probably needs a paleo one or two > >> and some from our EPSRC/EU projects. > >> > >> I do think the skeptics are going to make a big effort in the > >> coming year or two. Science may appear to be done and dusted, > >> but there are still loads of skeptics out there. > >> > >> Can you prepare a couple of ppt, as I won't have time. > >> > >> > >> Doesn't look as though there is an agenda coming from Bob, Trevor. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >>---------------------------- Original Message > >> ---------------------------- > >>Subject: Climate discussion on Friday > >>From: "Alastair Grant" > >>Date: Tue, April 28, 2009 12:41 pm > >>To: "'Jordan Andy Prof \(ENV\)'" > >> "'Andrew Watson'" > >> "'Phil Jones'" > >> t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > >> "'M Hulme'" > >> "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >>As you know, we have a roundtable discussion about climate on Friday > >>afternoon. Can I ask you to think in advance about what you see as the > >> key > >>research questions and unsolved problems that climate research will have > >> to > >>address over the next decade? Think about the issues that require > >>integration across disciplines as well as the problems that are specific > >> to > >>your particular discipline. Don't confine yourself to the things that we > >>currently do, and please do discuss these questions with colleagues > >>beforehand. > >> > >> > >> > >>Andy (Watson) - it would be helpful if you could say a bit about the > >>"tipping points" ideas as well as your other activities. > >> > >> > >> > >>Please come along ready to summarise your ideas in a couple of minutes - > >> we > >>aren't looking for research seminars, or presentations of past > >> achievements, > >>so there is no need to prepare powerpoint presentations. We're wanting > >> to > >>do a "foresight" exercise, to identify the next big questions and how we > >> can > >>contribute towards answering the big questions. There will be space > >> for > >>others to contribute their thoughts, but we did want to prompt your > >> thinking > >>in advance to make sure that we tap into the thoughts of key players from > >>across the disciplines represented in ENV. > >> > >> > >> > >>I'm sending this out because Jacquie is away, but it comes from us both. > >> If > >>you have any questions, please give me a call. > >> > >> > >> > >>Alastair > >> > >>_________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >>Professor Alastair Grant > >> > >>Deputy Head of School > >> > >>School of Environmental Sciences > >> > >>University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK > >> > >>Phone +44 1603 592537 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > 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 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Climate research - view from CRU_CMG.doc" 4059. 2009-04-30 12:59:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, "Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:59:38 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: [Fwd: Climate discussion on Friday] to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, At 08:02 30/04/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Tim, > Seems fine! Change Humidity to Relative Humidity. ok > Also there is responding to the skeptic claims > - as Andrew Dlugolecki has had to do. But is this a key "research question" for the next 10 years? I tried instead to cover it by indicating that there is still more to learn about the physical climate behaviour and there may be surprises that need to be understood. > This can be media, journal papers etc. Why it hasn't > warmed much over the last few years is one such thing. > > Solar Constant now is 1361 W/m*m! AR5 runs will go with > whatever they have now, as it will take modelling centres > 1-2 years to retune their models. Most have 1366-1370! Interesting. Is this a general downward revision of the solar constant throughout recent decades, or is it that the current solar output is actually 5 W/m**2 in 2009 than it was in, say, 2003? This would be a major radiative forcing! 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 3763. 2009-04-30 15:25:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: "jason.lowe@metoffice.com" date: Thu Apr 30 15:25:32 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Query with thermal expansion / temperature input data to: "Brown S." , Nigel Arnell Hi Sally, The data came from Malte Meinhausen by way of Sarah Raper. An alternative answer to that question is that the data came from the AR4-version of MAGICC 4.2. As I indicated earlier to Nigel, my understanding is that MAGICC (AR4-version) typically overestimated thermal expansion compared with GCMs, which is one of the reasons why MAGICC sea level rise wasn't used in AR4. Appendix 10.A of AR4 WG1 discusses this. I believe there is a post-AR4 version of MAGICC which does a better job with thermal expansion; I/we could ask Malte Meinhausen or Sarah Raper if we can have the thermal expansion from that version. Re. CO2. Is this the line that you are asking about: "CARBON CYCLE FEEDBACK SETTING: default (1)" As far as I know, the "default" strength of the carbon cycle feedback is not zero strength (i.e. CO2 feedback turned off), but rather is the "standard" CO2 feedback strength as described in Fig. 10.29 of AR4 WG1. That is certainly how it was explained to me before, but I will check this with Sarah Raper to make sure. Hope that helps, Tim At 13:54 30/04/2009, Brown S. wrote: Hello, We are finalising the sea-level scenarios and have checked the output data with Jason Lowe, who has some queries. Thermal expansion values (in particular) are higher than Table 10.7 (p820 WG1 IPCC 2007), and also temperature seems a bit higher. Where did the data come from? Jason wanted to check about the CO2 concentration - was this turned on during the runs (just says the default setting is 1 - see accompanying file as an example)? How does this follow with p5 of the Experimental Design Note (I have V5.1) which says 'The project therefore scales each climate model pattern by global temperatures estimated with its own set of tuned MAGICC4.2 parameters, assuming a medium carbon cycle feedback and a default radiative forcing for doubled CO2 concentration of 3.7 W/m2.'? Sally ----------------- Sally Brown School of Civil Engineering and the Environment University of Southampton 02380 592883 (new telephone number) 134. 2009-05-01 12:54:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:54:35 +0100 (BST) from: Philip Jones subject: Re: FW: Climate science and data availability / Wang (fwd) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:07:29 -0400 From: Thomas R. Karl To: Wei-Chyung Wang Cc: 'Phil Jones' Subject: Re: FW: Climate science and data availability / Wang W-C, Phil Seems like Keenan only needs to discuss his concerns with Ms Zeng if he doubts the veracity of the statements. Tom Wei-Chyung Wang said the following on 4/28/2009 3:45 PM: > FYI, do you see anything new? > > 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 > Fax: 518-372-8325 > E-mail: wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu > http://asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html > ************************************** > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wei-Chyung Wang [mailto:wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:32 PM > To: 'Lynn Videka' > Cc: JReilly@uamail.albany.edu; ABonilla@uamail.albany.edu; 'Wei-Chyung Wang' > Subject: FW: Climate science and data availability / Wang > > Hi, Lynn, > > Although I do not see anything new (see below) given what they have already > smeared, but SUNYA perhaps can and should respond. Please let me know. > > 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 > Fax: 518-372-8325 > E-mail: wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu > http://asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html > ************************************** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aubrey Blumsohn [mailto:aubreyprivate@btinternet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:52 PM > To: wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu > Cc: mailarchive1492@googlemail.com > Subject: Climate science and data availability / Wang > > Dear Professor Wang > > I am planning to publish the following about the > accusations of fraud, and > University handling of such accusations that > concern yourself or your institution. > > The text below is simply a bare-bones summary > conveyed to you for fact checking. It will be worded > differently and will reflect on other similar > incidents (in medicine as opposed to climate > science). > > I would very much appreciate it if you would let > me know which if any facts presented are > incorrect, how any such fact is incorrect, and (if > you wish) provide documentation to support any > correction or addition you believe to be pertinent. > > The piece will be published this weekend (2/3 > March 2009) and I would appreciate any corrections > before then. The relevant text follows below my > signature. > > Kind regards > > Dr Aubrey Blumsohn > > ========= > > The allegations concern two publications > > - Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. > (1990), ?Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air > temperature over land?, Nature, 347: 169?172. > > - Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), ?Urban heat islands in China?, > Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377?2380. > > The publications concern temperature at a variety of measuring stations > over three decades (1954-1983). > > Measuring stations are denoted by name or number. A potential confounder in > such research is that measuring stations may be moved to different > locations at different points in time. It is important that readers of > these publications understand the methodology, and the presence and > potential importance of any confounders. > > The publications make the following statements: > > (Statement A) "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: > we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or > observation times." [Jones et al.] > > (Statement B) "They were chosen based on station histories: selected > stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, > or observation times?." [Wang et al.] > > The publications refer to a report produced jointly by the U.S. Department > of Energy (DOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) which details > station moves, and suggest that stations with few if any moves or changes > were selected on the basis of that report. > > 84 stations were selected > > However it appears that > > a) Information about only 35 of the stations chosen are available in the > DOE/CAS report > > b) Of those 39 stations at least half the stations had substantial moves > (e.g 25 km). One station had five different locations during 1954?1983 as > far as 41 km apart. > > It therefore appears that the Statements A and Statement B are false, and > that readers would have been misled both in terms of the status of the > stations, but also in terms of the manner in which they had been selected > (or not selected). > > Keenan communicated with the author of one of the publications (Jones) to > ask about the source of location information pertaining to the other 49 > stations. He was informed that his co-author Wang had selected those > stations in urban and rural China based on his "extensive knowledge of > those networks". > > On 11 April 2007 Keenan E-mailed Wang, asking "How did you ensure the > quality of the data??. Wang, avoided answering for several weeks, but on 30 > April 2007 he replied: > > The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she > used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected > stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if > any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the > study period (1954-1983) > > Keenan points out that the ?hard copies? to which Wang refers were not > found by the authors of the DOE/CAS report, who had endeavored to be > comprehensive. Furthermore, the DOE/CAS report was authored in part by > Zeng, one of the co-authors on wang et al. He also notes that any form of > comprehensive data covering these stations during the Cultural Revolution > would be implausible. > > Keenan then made application under the Freedom of Information Act (UK) to > the University of East Anglia, at which Jones in a Professor. He asked for > a detailed listing of the measuring stations used in the publication. > > In August 2007 he submitted a report to Wang's University, href="http://www.albany.edu/">University at Albany, alleging fraud. > Wang could at that stage have made the "hard copy" details of the stations > selected available to the scientific community. However, he failed to do > so. > > In May 2008, the University at Albany wrote to Keenen that they had > conducted an investigation and asked him to comment on it. However they > refused to show him the report of the investigation or any of the evidence > to allow any comment. In August 2008 the University sent Keenan a final > "determination" stating that they did not find that Wang had fabricated > data, but again refused to provide any investigation report. To date, it > sems that Wang has still not made the station records available to the > scientific community. If he provided such records to the University then > the University has apparently concealed them. > > Conclusions: > > a) It seems apparent that the methodology for station selection as > described in these two publications is false and misleading. > > b) It may be the case that hard copy records do exist relating to stations > selected by Wang that were not selected according to the published > methodology. However the failure or refusal to supply those records is > highly inappropriate. Such refusal does not lend credance to Wang's > assertion that fraud did not take place. It would also be necessary to see > records of stations that were not selected, in order to confirm that > selection was indeed only "on the basis of station history" > > c) The University at Albany is in a difficult position. > > ci) If the University at Albany did receive such records as part of the > supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the > problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers > of these publications. > > cii) If the University at Albany does not have such records then it would > seem that they may be complicit in fraud and coverup of fraud. > > ciii) If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records > are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then > the University would likewise be complicit. > > d) The essence of honest science is openness and transparency. The > inclination of the University to support the integrity of a star member of > their academic staff, while refusing to supply the evidence for such an > assertion seems highly inappropriate. > > > -- *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* Director, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Lead, NOAA Climate Services Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov 1361. 2009-05-02 17:55:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Sat, 2 May 2009 17:55:13 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)] to: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Andrew, The CII should be shocked by the sceptical article. I was in Geneva last week and talked to experts in CO2 and sea-ice measurement. On the latter, the map Monckton shows is a comparison of winter days! I'd really emphasize the Arctic sea-ice decline in summer, as they can't expain this decline. In a footnote to the time series plot of sea ice amounts, there is mention of a underwater volcano. This is the Mid-Atlantic ridge ! This is spewing out heat from Iceland right down to Tristan da Cunha! This is a complete red herring! I'm attaching a couple of plots about CO2 increase and a recent paper. Monckton is assuming a linear increase in CO2 increase. This is wrong it is exponential. So we are above the IPCC SRES scenarios in terms of emissions. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: CII sceptics (fwd) From: "Philip Jones" Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56 pm To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:38:32 +0000 (GMT) From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI To: Phil Jones Cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: CII sceptics Phil (et al) I have done athorough letter to the Chartered Insurance Institute.I think they are really shocked at the defects in the sceptical article they sponsored naively (see attached). One aspect I did not cover was trends in CO2 as there were so many other obvious errors. Can you say what the errors or misrepresenations are in the graph on page 4 of the attached pdf by Monckton please. Finally, CII have decided they will make the full CII report 'Coping with Climate Change' publicly accessible on their website after I badgered them . I will tell you when it actually happens. Thanks again Andrew Dlugolecki --- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM Andrew, Presumably you have found all these links. If not sit down before looking at them. I've pasted a number of links below. In some of them you will see very familiar diagrams. http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html This one seems very useful. It might be a way to respond. Your responses so far seem to be in this type of format. What I think has happened in CII is the Monckton has put together most of the text from things he already had, and a paragraph has been added at the front and one at the beginning to give the CII context. In one of the ones below is his address Monckton of Brenchley Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ 30 December 2008 Brenchley is in Kent, but he lives up your way! http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.pdf http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening.pdf Cheers Phil Dear Andrew et al, Clare has been away in Vienna, but she should be back later today. We see things like this all the time - mainly on blog sites though. It is difficult to know how to respond to them. When they appear in print, they probably should be responded to, but we all have many things to do. The points you make are all sound, and there are many more that we could also make and add. Most will be technical, so not that relevant to almost all readers of CII. Here are a couple of relevant recently (or soon to be) published papers. The ones M&M select are just the ones to make their arguments. They miss hundreds on the other side. Maybe a brief response pointing out their main mistakes? Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CII sceptics From: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Date: Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm To: "maureen agnew" "Clare Goodess" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Maureen and Clare subsequent to launching the report, CII has published a ridiculous article which undermines their own position and discredits our report implicitly. I think it was as a result of pressure from an internal sceptic at a senior level, in order to show 'balance'. I attach the scanned article ( which looks OK if you open it in Word Office), and also my proposed rebuttal. I would welcome your thoughts urgently. Cheers Andrew Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\Plots for Philip.ppt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Hofmann 2009 Atm Env_final 20090311.pdf" 4102. 2009-05-05 11:53:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 5 11:53:27 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Dr. Mansour El Mazroui - King Abdul Aziz University to: Mansour Almazroui , Clare Goodess Mansour, Happy for you to mention CRU. Maybe just report back what the British Embassy says. Apologies if I've already replied from home over the weekend. Cheers Phil At 11:26 01/05/2009, Mansour Almazroui wrote: Dear Phil and Clare, Reference to the article that was published in the Saudi Gazette: [1]http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009042235773 I received a call from the British Embassy offering technical and financial support in issues related to climate change in Saudi Arabia. Please find the attached email. There will be a meeting on the 17th of May for follow up with Richard Wood. I will mention the co-operation with CRU. So, do you want me to address anything in particular that you would like to address? Best wishes Mansour ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <[2]Mona.Eissa2@fco.gov.uk> Date: 2009/4/25 Subject: Dr. Mansour El Mazroui - King Abdul Aziz University -Meeting To: [3]mansour2005@gmail.com, [4]mansour@kau.edu.sa Cc: [5]Richard.Wood@fco.x.gsi.gov.uk Dear Dr. Mansour Reference to our telephone conversation this after noon, I would like to thank you for your interest to co-operate with the British Embassy/Consulate to promote awareness on Climate Change issues in the Kingdom. It is an honour to work with you and King Abdul Aziz University team. As we agreed I will send a formal request to the University Dean for Mr.Richard Wood and myself to meet you and your team on the 17th of May at 11:30, to discuss areas of co-operation. I will soon send you a copy of the letter for follow up. Regards Mona Eissa Senior Project Manager Strategic Programme Fund British Consulate General Tel: 00966 (2) 6225550 ext. 2206 Fax: 00966 (2) 6226249 mobile: 00966 (0) 506494026 *********************************************************************************** Visit [6]http://www.fco.gov.uk for British foreign policy news and travel advice and [7]http://blogs.fco.gov.uk to read our blogs. Please note that all messages sent and received by members of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and its missions overseas may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded in accordance with the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000. We keep and use information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998. We may release this personal information to other UK government departments and public authorities. *********************************************************************************** -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Mansour Almazroui (Associate Fellow, CRU) Head, Department of Meteorology Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture King Abdulaziz University P. O. Box 80234 Jeddah 21589 Saudi Arabia E-mail: [8]mansour@kau.edu.sa or [9]m.almazroui@uea.ac.uk Telephone : (+966) 2 695 2690 Fax : (+966) 2 695 2376 Mobile : (+966) 55 888 5170 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3279. 2009-05-05 12:10:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 5 12:10:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fw: RE: Re: Urbanisation to: Dear Qingxiang, Away all last week and Monday was a national holiday. The formula David has sent by the email has the SE formula. The bottom line has (n-2) in it. This n should be reduced to allow for autocorrelation, so calculate the lag-1 autocorrelation and then calculate n'. The difficult point is to add in the effect of the bias adjustments. There is more in 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. but this is about errors on individual estimates, nt on how this affects standard errors on trends. I think as your bias adjustments have little effect overall on the overall 'China average' then you can ignore this - and just use the formula and the adjustment of n. Cheers Phil At 09:03 04/05/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, I looked around, and find little help about how to calculate the 95% uncertainty range of trend of the climate series. Dave's suggestion is asking for your help. Would you give some instructions? Best Qingxiang ------------------ liqx 2009-05-04 ------------------------------------------------------------- ˣParker, David ڣ2009-03-25 23:11:26 ռˣliqx@cma.gov.cn ͣp.jones@uea.ac.uk ⣺RE: Re: Urbanisation Dear Qingxiang See [1]http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage24.htm for a formula for the standard error of a least-squares trend. But if the residuals are autocorrelated you will need to decrease n to n' using the formula n' = n(1-r)/(1+r) where r is the lag-1 autocorrelation of the residuals from the regression line (Trenberth, 1984, reference cited below). In addition you should really take account of the uncertainties in your bias-adjustments, but I don't know how to do this other than by Monte-Carlo experiments, creating lots of time series with each bias adjustment varied by a random proportion of its own standard error. Maybe consult Phil Jones too. Regards David CITATION Trenberth K. E. 1984. Some effects of finite sample size and persistence on meteorological statistics. Part II: Potential predictability. Monthly Weather Review, 112, 2369-2379. David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: [2]www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ -----Original Message----- From: liqx@cma.gov.cn [[4]mailto:liqx@cma.gov.cn] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:36 PM To: Parker, David Subject: RE: Re: Urbanisation Dear david, I cannot find any arithmetics here to calculate the 95% uncertainty range of trend, can you give me some help? Best 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1978. 2009-05-07 13:37:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:37:19 +0100 from: "Lockwood, M (Mike)" subject: RE: Quick reply and another quick question .... to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil Yes mostly the difference between TIM/SOURCE is the zero-level offset - although TIM does show very slightly less relative decline into the low values of the current solar minimum than does SoHO/VIRGO etc. (but this is a small relative difference) As to the merits if the absolute calibration of TIM - it should have been the best yet and so it was a bit of a shock when it gave so much lower values than the previous instruments. In truth I havnt read much which would confirm it really is correct. I remember reading a paper by Kopp (Solar Physics, 2005 I think) who revised the expected error budget based on in-flight calibrations and they quote a 1-sigma error which was about a tenth of the difference to VIRGO and ACRIM, respectively. They were still very cagey about stating outright that their instrument was right and the others were wrong at that stage. I'd put that more down to worthy scientific caution than any insecurity on their part: but I have no more than that to go on and would be interested if there is a more concrete statement to use now. I have a question for you in this context. I gave a paper at NAM 2 weeks ago where I talked about the low solar minimum. Some folk are already latching on to the "stalled rise" in your global temp anomaly and saying it is a response to the TSI decline to the current minimum. So I used your HadCRUT3 to take a look at this. What I did is so far from rocket science, I can explain in a few sentances...... I took a range of timescales T on which one tries to define a trend. I then took running means over each T and looked at the pdfs of past deviations from those running means. I the assumed a range of trends applied over the last T/2 years and worked out the probability of the observed integrated deviations from each assumed trend from the past deviation pdfs. I found that if you take T = 6 years then yes the most likely recent trend is down (-2 deg/century over the past 3 years) but the distribution is very broad indeed and so probability of a rise of say +2degrees/century is still considerable If you take T = 9 years the most likely value is zero and if you take T of 15 years or above the most likely current trend is +2 deg/c and the distribution is very narrow, so there is only an infinitessimal probability that the trend is really down. I know this is intuitively very obvious (to all but the most obtuse) but is it worth writing up to make it clear and quantified? If so, do you have or know of similar papers? cheers Mike ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 07/05/2009 10:36 To: Lockwood, M (Mike) Subject: Quick question > Mike, Heard a talk last week at a GCOS meeting in Geneva by Bob Cahalan. I presume you accept that the Tim instrument on SORCE is giving the true/better of TSI? Presumably also everybody would agree that all this does is lower TSI by about 5W/m**2 to ~1361. What this means for the planet and for climate models is a quarter of this (so about 340 incoming). The next IPCC Report runs (for AR5 in 2013) will still be using what they've recently used - to recalibrate a GCM takes a year or two. I'm sure there will be some who'll say that GCMs shouldn't be believed as they are not using the wrong value for TSI. There will also be confusion about drop of 5 and forgetting to divide this by 4! 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. 447. 2009-05-08 09:00:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 8 09:00:42 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Schles suggestion to: Gavin Schmidt Dear Gavin - or should I say the Conscience of Climate Science, Here's a couple of links [1]http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3618cap_trade.html [2]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/founding-director-of-the-tyndall-centre-for-clima te-change-time-to-ditch-consensus/ Mike isn't in disagreement with the science, just what we might do about it! Conscience could be taken to mean 'against science' or switched around to be 'science con'. Hadn't really considered the construction of this word in my 57 years! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2988. 2009-05-08 13:52:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: Matthew Lazzara , Thomas C Peterson , Linda Keller date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:52:37 -0500 from: Matthew Lazzara subject: Re: CD with the South Pole Data to: Phil Jones Phil, I have two corrections: 1. I wish to state more strongly that we did indeed compute the averages using all of available observations (as best as we could) and did NOT use Tx and Tn to get the averages. 2. I mis-stated the answer to question #2 from you - NSF is NOT supportive of the CLIMAT activity. Sorry for any confusion. Best Regards, Matthew On May 8, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Matthew Lazzara wrote: > > > Hello Phil, > > Thank you for your reply. We glad you got the CD. > > Please see our replies embedded below: > > > On May 8, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Matthew, >> The CD has duly arrived. I've had someone get some of the data >> out of the >> format and compared with what we had for 89009. Here are a few >> observations: >> >> 1. Differences between what we had for 89009 and what you sent were >> generally >> small. There were about 15 monthly mean T values that differed by >> more than 2 deg C. >> There were fewer station level pressure values that differed by >> more than 2hPa. >> > > Thanks for this. Linda notes that the mean temperature will mask > daily outliers, if there are only a few and hopefully we got rid of > them. > > >> 2. For station level pressure you appear to have all months missing >> from >> Feb 1979 to Dec 1983. The monthly series we have for the two >> variables (T and STP) >> are complete (from Jan 1957 to April 2009). I'm still getting the >> email directly from >> the station. >> > > > We specifically have South Pole Meteorology Office look for pressure > for those years and we could not find the original data, hence the > reason they are missing for that time frame in our "re-analysis". > > >> 3. You have Nov 1996 with the exact same values as Nov 1995. Nov >> 1995 is correct, it >> is Nov 1996 that is incorrect. >> > > > Thank you for reporting this - we didn't know this. We will > investigate. > > >> 4. On several instances the coding has missing parts. This could be >> that I don't have >> a proper CLIMAT message reader. I just made up some Fortran to read >> the files. There >> are a couple of months with the Tx and Tn codes, but no T mean. > > > > Yes, this is correct. We used the CLIREP software to create the > CLIMAT messages. CLIREP will throw out means if more than 9 obs are > missing. Tx and Tn are calculated separately for each day outside > the CLIREP program, and hence they get put into the CLIMAT message > as we used the CLIREP program in an "non-interactive" mode - by > feeding it a formatted input file with Tx and Tn already computed in > this input. > > > >> >> >> 5. I didn't find any issues in the trends of the differences (CRU >> minus WISC). I recall you saying >> that you were going to calculate mean T as the mean of all obs. To >> me it looks >> as it is essentially (Tx+Tn)/2. This is why it agrees so well. >> > > When the CLIMAT messages were created, they used the observations > that were available to calculate mean temperature. This could be 4, > 8 or 24 observations per day. We are pretty sure we didn't compute > the means using (Tx+Tn)/2. > > >> And a couple of questions: >> >> 1. Do you plan to do McMurdo at some point? and Palmer? >> > > McMurdo just started making CLIMAT messages. Palmer CLIMAT messages > are being made by the BAS (starting in 2007). We are hoping to get/ > keep getting these as they are available. There is no funding > available to historically back-build CLIMAT messages for McMurdo and > Palmer Stations. We here at the AMRC are slowly working on getting > some ancillary data to re-check McMurdo's "climatology". > > >> 2. Will you be moving on to the WISC AWSs? With these only >> worth doing the GSN ones (especially Byrd). >> > > > We are currently doing Marble Point, Ferrell, Gill, Byrd, Posession > Island, Siple Dome, Dome C II, and Marilyn AWS sites. We currently > do not have support to back-build CLIMAT messages and I am not clear > yet if I'll expand this list or not, as NSF is supportive of this > activity. > > >> Cheers >> Phil >> > > > Best Regards, > > Matthew > > > > >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. Matthew A. Lazzara > Meteorologist > Antarctic Meteorological Research Center > 901 Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences > Space Science and Engineering Center > University of Wisconsin-Madison > 1225 West Dayton Street > Madison, WI 53706 > E-mail: mattl@ssec.wisc.edu > Phone: (608) 262-0436 > Fax: (608) 263-6738 > Web: http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Lazzara -Meteorologist- Antarctic Meteorological Research Center 901 Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu Space Science and Engineering Center E-mail: mattl@ssec.wisc.edu University of Wisconsin-Madison Phone: (608) 262-0436 1225 West Dayton Street, Madison, WI 53706 Fax: (608) 263-6738 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2208. 2009-05-09 09:18:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:18:35 +0100 from: "Lockwood, M (Mike)" subject: RE: Quick question to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil Yes, I thought it would have been done - but just wanted to check. I came to the same conclusion in that I estimated that we'd need 10 more years of decline from now on before it was really significant. I might yet use what I have done as part of a paper to counter the nonsense that Nicola Scafetta keeps spouting about dual timescale responses to solar changes - but then I'm not looking to waste my time either! What I could do, if you were happy with this, is use it alongside the same analysis applied to HadCRUT4 when it is ready. Would be delighted to share authorship if you think that's a worthwhile idea. Thanks for the papers - they'll be very useful. Am in Stockholm and look forward to reading them on 'plane back (as far as my ageing laptop battery allows) No, I didn't know about the drifter buoys effect. Dare I ask, but are their effects relevant to the recent difference between your reconstruction and GISS's? As a general point, it does amaze me how bad we (=mankind) are about keeping vital data sequences on our planet homogeneous. The worst example is space based radiometry. I hate to sound like Nigel Fox, but he's absolutely right and the whole cosmic ray cloud thing would never have got off the ground with properly intercalibrated instruments. Are the Hadley folk using the ATSRs to calibrate the drifter effect? They ought to: that has been one dataset that is decently homogeneous. (I do worry what might happen to it when the Italians get hold of it, though!) thanks again Mike ------------------------------------------------ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 07/05/2009 15:17 To: Lockwood, M (Mike) Cc: Subject: RE: Quick reply and another quick question .... Attached a paper and a box in a longer article that do similar things to what you've done. So I think it's been done, unless you think otherwise. The box is on page S20-21 of the bigger pdf. This is part of a much bigger article on the State of the Climate System 2008 which will appear later in the year. Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We're really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino. There are a lot of obtuse people out there, who will ignore these two refs - the first is out, the second by about late summer. There is another issue that you should be aware of. It was alluded to in the third pdf. There is an issue with all the buoy data (drifters) entering SST analyses since about 2000. First there seem to be offsets of 0.1 to 0.2 deg C between these drifters and conventional ships (drifters cooler). Drifters now dominating , providing about 80% of the obs. Drifters sample the diurnal cycle better than ships, which may be one of the factors that could explain the difference. As the 61-90 period is a ship-based normal, this means a cool bias (of about 0.1 deg C). Second, these drifters get to regions where few ships used to go (the Southern Oceans for example), so our interpolated 61-90 normals get really tested! There will be a new version of HadCRUT3 (which we will call HadCRUT4!) at some point later this year. The Hadley Centre need to finish their new SST dataset first (HadSST3). This will also sort out the 1945-60 issue in the Nature paper and add in more SST data for WW1 and WW2. Expecting to see the HadSST3 paper any month now. Land will barely change. Likelihood is that the recent few years will increase by up to 0.1 deg C. Effect gets worse as drifter/ship ratio increases. Cheers Phil -- Scanned by iCritical. 4199. 2009-05-11 08:52:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon May 11 08:52:57 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Quick question to: "Lockwood, M (Mike)" Mike, The new HadSST3 series should be ready some time this spring or early summer. As the changes are potentially important, I think they will want to get it fully peer-reviewed before we combine it with the land data. So keep in touch and I'll let you know when we have something new on the update pages. I'm sure the HC folk are using ATSR to assess the drifter effect. There is a new SST dataset called OSTIA, which is combining all the satellite and in situ data, but it only starts very recently. I don't know if they are planning to take it backwards. In all this, the land data has remained pretty much the same. I've been putting together some plots of our various versions over the years, and after adjusting for the differing base periods there is little difference. The land data are robust as they result from all the countries doing different things. The issue about satellites and SSTs is that they result from few sources, so when biases affect things they permeate the whole dataset. On land, it is only Russia that is large enough to screw things up! Look out for a paper in Weather fairly soon or urban effects. I'm sure this will stir things up when it appears, if anyone still reads Weather! I did this as I kept on hearing so much rubbish talked about urban effects in London. Cheers Phil At 09:18 09/05/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil Yes, I thought it would have been done - but just wanted to check. I came to the same conclusion in that I estimated that we'd need 10 more years of decline from now on before it was really significant. I might yet use what I have done as part of a paper to counter the nonsense that Nicola Scafetta keeps spouting about dual timescale responses to solar changes - but then I'm not looking to waste my time either! What I could do, if you were happy with this, is use it alongside the same analysis applied to HadCRUT4 when it is ready. Would be delighted to share authorship if you think that's a worthwhile idea. Thanks for the papers - they'll be very useful. Am in Stockholm and look forward to reading them on 'plane back (as far as my ageing laptop battery allows) No, I didn't know about the drifter buoys effect. Dare I ask, but are their effects relevant to the recent difference between your reconstruction and GISS's? As a general point, it does amaze me how bad we (=mankind) are about keeping vital data sequences on our planet homogeneous. The worst example is space based radiometry. I hate to sound like Nigel Fox, but he's absolutely right and the whole cosmic ray cloud thing would never have got off the ground with properly intercalibrated instruments. Are the Hadley folk using the ATSRs to calibrate the drifter effect? They ought to: that has been one dataset that is decently homogeneous. (I do worry what might happen to it when the Italians get hold of it, though!) thanks again Mike ------------------------------------------------ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 07/05/2009 15:17 To: Lockwood, M (Mike) Cc: Subject: RE: Quick reply and another quick question .... Attached a paper and a box in a longer article that do similar things to what you've done. So I think it's been done, unless you think otherwise. The box is on page S20-21 of the bigger pdf. This is part of a much bigger article on the State of the Climate System 2008 which will appear later in the year. Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We're really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino. There are a lot of obtuse people out there, who will ignore these two refs - the first is out, the second by about late summer. There is another issue that you should be aware of. It was alluded to in the third pdf. There is an issue with all the buoy data (drifters) entering SST analyses since about 2000. First there seem to be offsets of 0.1 to 0.2 deg C between these drifters and conventional ships (drifters cooler). Drifters now dominating , providing about 80% of the obs. Drifters sample the diurnal cycle better than ships, which may be one of the factors that could explain the difference. As the 61-90 period is a ship-based normal, this means a cool bias (of about 0.1 deg C). Second, these drifters get to regions where few ships used to go (the Southern Oceans for example), so our interpolated 61-90 normals get really tested! There will be a new version of HadCRUT3 (which we will call HadCRUT4!) at some point later this year. The Hadley Centre need to finish their new SST dataset first (HadSST3). This will also sort out the 1945-60 issue in the Nature paper and add in more SST data for WW1 and WW2. Expecting to see the HadSST3 paper any month now. Land will barely change. Likelihood is that the recent few years will increase by up to 0.1 deg C. Effect gets worse as drifter/ship ratio increases. Cheers Phil -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4778. 2009-05-12 09:08:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 12 09:08:46 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Data access and IPCC to: Thomas Stocker Dear Thomas, I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance for upsetting your morning! Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties. If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information Commissioner in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA these relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with these, but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your University and AR5. Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later is the same issue: Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? and When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these papers as the data haven't been made available for audit. Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as defined by the Aarhus Convention. You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it. I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained to FOI-responsible people at each institution. Keep up the good work with AR5! Cheers Phil Dear Mr Jones As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of enviromental information. For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this Regards 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2299. 2009-05-12 10:05:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 12 10:05:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CRUTEM4 to: "peter.thorne" Peter, I was assuming a paper on HadCRUT4 - combination of HadSST3 and CRUTEM4. I don't think there is enough on CRUTEM4 alone to make a paper. It needs some science - the revisions to the error model, and explaining what this means seems more useful. Saying how we updated all the stations is only interesting to nerds like us. Nerds like CA wouldn't understand it anyway! McIntyre might, if we lost all his mindless supporters. A separate paper following the error model through to D&A is a possibility for a second one. When next on a plane/train or time to spare have a look at the attached. Cheers Phil At 09:53 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: Phil, I can't believe that people think it remotely reasonable behaviour to send that sort of crud. They'd never say that to your face. I guess their home is just that much more cosy and impersonal. Cash would need spending in FY09/10 as I understand it, but someone for six months (assuming they could start this Sept.) could be a route forwards. It would be a good paper for them career-wise. HadSST3 is in first draft form. I'm not sure what papers you assume will arise. I think we were thinking of developing HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 seperately (but in a joined up way) and publishing as separate papers and then doing a paper that covers combination to HadCRUT4 and perhaps, for example, a d&a sensitivity to error model assumptions. Peter On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 09:43 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > Peter, > Below is one of three emails I got last night following a new thread on CA. > I'll ignore them and wait for the FOI requests, which we have dealt > with before. > I did send an email to Thomas Stocker alerting him up to comment #17. > These are all about who changed what in various chapters of AR4. I > expect these > to get worse with AR5. > > Anyway back to the matter in hand. > > I'm planning to come down to see Ian Simpson (probably on June > 1). I'll get back > to David on this later today. > We've done some of what you aim for. We've sorted out the new Canadian > WMO numbers and have extra data for Australia and NZ in. Australia comes in > by email once a month. I'll have to find a new contact in NZ now > Jim Salinger has > been sacked - but it's only a small country. Iran is pretty good. > The US is the large bit of work. The US already has better > station density than > almost anywhere else, so the effort won't make much difference. But > it is probably > worth doing, as it would reduce errors - even if no-one understands > them. Glad > you got the poor paper to review! > Soon we will be adding data for the Greater Alpine Region (32 sites) which > go back to 1760. These data all have adjustments for screen issues prior to > about 1880. This makes summers cooler by about 0.4 deg C and winters about > the same. Similarly, we will also add a load of stations for Spain > (again with Screen > biases in). There is probably more we could add for European countries, > but again it is likely to make little difference, except to lower errors. > The real issue is South America and Africa. We have the whole > Argentine network, > but this is only digitized back to 1959 and the data we had wasn't > that bad anyway. > Problem in South America is Brazil. Africa is OK in a few > countries, but poor in many. > We could add loads in China. > Issue with all this is that most of the additions wouldn't be > available from whenever > we stop. We can probably do the US in real time like Australia. > We've also been trying to add in the precip for many of these > extra stations (not > the Alpine countries and Spain). > There is a timing issue. As I understand HadSST3 won't be > available to be merged > with until it is successfully reviewed. So need to consider this as well. > > A final issue is people here. We're OK for most of 2010 for all. > We have a good > student finishing a PhD by Sept who wants to stay, so couldn't > really do anything > till then. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Dear Mr Jones > > As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please > explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using > tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is > to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of > enviromental information. > > For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your > absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in > an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do > you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this > > Regards > Ian > > > At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: > >Phil, > > > >there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are > >casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going > >to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of > >recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could > >contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I > >would maintain had two aims ... > > > >1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see > >what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US > >stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig. > >extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.) > > > >2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi- > >probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we > >could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model > >determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong > >our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what > >error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long- > >term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most > >people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly > >started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of > >reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood > >(deliberately so in this particular case ...). > > > >We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to > >DECC and see what happens. No promises. > > > >This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each > >with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems > >sensible ... > > > >Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we > >don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al > >comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit? > > > >Peter > >-- > >Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist > >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB > >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 > >[2]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 [3]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 457. 2009-05-12 13:52:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:52:45 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: FW: Data access - request from Ian Hinds to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Phil, Dave Palmer alerted me to the recent email to you. I asked his advice on what advice/support we should give you. The view is that a response acknowleding the email and saying that we await the formal FOISA request should be sufficient. Simone Dunford from the Press Office is happy to respond in this way if you would prefer it. 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: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:54 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: RE: Data access Hi all I've had a brief discussion with Annie about this and we agree that any response should simply acknowledge receipt of the email and state that the FOI request will be dealt with in the normal manner when it arrives. Perhaps Phil should be kept right out of it. I'm happy to respond on Phil's behalf if you like. 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: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:45 AM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >Subject: RE: Data access > >Michael, >The writer clearly indicates that a request is to come and I think that >we should wait for that. The first question could be answered >I suppose >with a general statement regarding our processing of FOIA requests but >clearly the second is unanswerable in any form that would not appear >either provocative or slightly ludicrous. > >I would look to Annie or Simon for advice on a response from Phil >directly - flame wars are dangerous things to get into and given the >apparent antipathy to Phil by this person (and community), any response >would (a) immediately get published and (b) likely be rubbished >completely. > >I would very much recommend against any emotive response or internal >correspondence with any declarations regarding other persons; opinions >about other persons are the personal information of that person and >liable to a data subject request under the Data Protection Act 1998. > >In terms of impact, what I don't know is the reach of the contributors >to this site outside the climate research field, i.e. in the larger >'media world'. I can state that the writer below is not >someone that we >have had dealings with in the past. > >Hope this helps move things along. > >Cheers, Dave > >Cc. JC for information > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:03 AM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Cc: Press Office >>Subject: RE: Data access >> >>Dave, >> >>Thanks for this. >> >>As a FOIA request will come on the back of it I suggest that >>we wait for that to come. If you feel that Phil should not >>respond to this but wait for the formal request could you let >>him know please? >> >>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: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:56 AM >>To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >>Cc: Press Office >>Subject: FW: Data access >> >>Michael, >>I am not sure whether this qualifies as a request and clearly >>we should be expecting something more detailed in the near >>future. The link is to an update from Mr. McIntyre on the >>HadCRUT data that had been requested from us back in 2007. >>The article clearly states an intent to make a FOIA request. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >>Cc. Press Office for information >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ian Hinds [mailto:ianh@orange.net] >>Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:29 PM >>To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV); >>chiefexec@rmets.org; Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI); David Keith >>Palmer; Carruth Geoffrey Mr (ACAD); Goodwin Nicholas Dr >>(ACAD); Schofield Julie Ms (ACAD); Danino-Appleton Vittoria Dr >>(ACAD); Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD); Carter Jon Dr (ACAD); Press >>Office; Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Bartman >>Cat Ms (MAC); Horton Lisa Miss (MAC) >>Subject: Data access >> >>Dear Mr Jones >> >>As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you >>please explain >>why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using >tax payer >>funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to >>a UK TAX >>PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of enviromental >>information. >> >>For reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to >>your absymal >>attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an >>embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do you >>think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this >> >>Regards >>Ian >> > 5065. 2009-05-12 16:44:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Press Office" date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:44:13 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Data access - request from Ian Hinds to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil, Thanks for this. I do think that some thought has to go into our response as the answer to Mr. Peters is, quite frankly, in our correspondence with Mr. McIntyre, and the response to Mr. Eschenbach is (a) either you give the data to him (or mount it on the web), or (b) he puts in a FOIA request as he did in 2007. What I don't know is whether what is being referred to is any different than what we dealt with back then.... As to a possible s.14, were we to find a link from the website to these individuals, we might start thinking about invoking s.14, but, there would be quite a stink raised by these individuals and we, as an organisation, would need to be convinced that the aggro & publicity would be worth the result. As Michael stated in his separate email to you, he and I (and our colleagues in the Press Office) will need to consult on how best to approach this...... In spring, a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of HadCRUT obviously..... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:47 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Data access - request from Ian Hinds Dave, Here they are. The first was the person who sent the FOI in 2007. The second is for an explanation. I don't want to go through that again, so won't be replying. Any reply would just appear on the CA site. Neither are specific requests. If I get any more tonight I'll send them. If the moderator of the CA site hadn't put a new thread up, none of these emails would have come. It is just a lot of lackeys doing the moderator's work. Moderator is a bit of a grand title - but I couldn't think of another polite word. Cheers Phil From: Willis Eschenbach To: Phil Jones Thread-Topic: Source Data Thread-Index: AcnSpJfM1qIAWD6XEd68pwAbY5aqXw== X-Assp-Whitelisted: Yes X-Assp-Envelope-From: willis@solomon.com.sb X-Assp-Intended-For: p.jones@uea.ac.uk X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 1.80 (*) [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 22008561 - 56709cea0225 X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Dear Dr. Jones: On the Hadley Center web site at <[4] http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html> they say: To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. I am interested in obtaining that data. What is the procedure for obtaining it? Many thanks for your assistance, w. From: Doug Peters To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Climate data Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:20:50 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) 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: 22009039 - 2472d9aa9c08 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Prof. Jones - Could you kindly provide an explanation for why you refuse to give Steve McIntyre the data he requested? Thank you , Doug Peters At 14:10 12/05/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Reviewed the comments - was aware of the activity of Mr. Holland. I think we would need to look at any new reques5st carefully to see if it fit the statutory definition of a repeat request under s.14 of the Act. It might be useful to have the other emails as well if, for example, we wish to consider a claim for a vexatious request under s.14.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[8] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:00 PM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Cc: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: Re: FW: Data access - request from Ian Hinds > > > Michael, > If you think we need to respond to this nasty email, then you can. > I've had two others overnight as well. I wasn't planning on >responding to > any of them - instead wait till the FOIs come. > By the way, what they are requesting is the same as what they > were after in 2007. My position is still the same. We replied through > FOI then and can use the same responses now. I hope we can > have some quick meetings. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS to Michael/Dave - you might like to look at the link and >to comment #17. > It seems that out friend has 5 complaints in with the Information >Commissioner! > > >At 13:52 12/05/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >>Phil, >> >>Dave Palmer alerted me to the recent email to you. I asked his advice >>on what advice/support we should give you. The view is that >a response >>acknowleding the email and saying that we await the formal >FOISA request >>should be sufficient. Simone Dunford from the Press Office >is happy to >>respond in this way if you would prefer it. >> >>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: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:54 AM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >>Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>Subject: RE: Data access >> >>Hi all >> >>I've had a brief discussion with Annie about this and we >agree that any >>response should simply acknowledge receipt of the email and state that >>the FOI request will be dealt with in the normal manner when >it arrives. >> >> >>Perhaps Phil should be kept right out of it. I'm happy to respond on >>Phil's behalf if you like. >> >>Simon >> >>Simon Dunford, Press Officer, >>University of East Anglia, >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 >>[9] www.uea.ac.uk/comm >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[10] mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:45 AM >> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >> >Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >> >Subject: RE: Data access >> > >> >Michael, >> >The writer clearly indicates that a request is to come and >I think that >> >we should wait for that. The first question could be answered >> >I suppose >> >with a general statement regarding our processing of FOIA >requests but >> >clearly the second is unanswerable in any form that would not appear >> >either provocative or slightly ludicrous. >> > >> >I would look to Annie or Simon for advice on a response from Phil >> >directly - flame wars are dangerous things to get into and given the >> >apparent antipathy to Phil by this person (and community), >any response >> >would (a) immediately get published and (b) likely be rubbished >> >completely. >> > >> >I would very much recommend against any emotive response or internal >> >correspondence with any declarations regarding other >persons; opinions >> >about other persons are the personal information of that person and >> >liable to a data subject request under the Data Protection Act 1998. >> > >> >In terms of impact, what I don't know is the reach of the >contributors >> >to this site outside the climate research field, i.e. in the larger >> >'media world'. I can state that the writer below is not >> >someone that we >> >have had dealings with in the past. >> > >> >Hope this helps move things along. >> > >> >Cheers, Dave >> > >> >Cc. JC for information >> > >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:03 AM >> >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >>Cc: Press Office >> >>Subject: RE: Data access >> >> >> >>Dave, >> >> >> >>Thanks for this. >> >> >> >>As a FOIA request will come on the back of it I suggest that >> >>we wait for that to come. If you feel that Phil should not >> >>respond to this but wait for the formal request could you let >> >>him know please? >> >> >> >>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: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:56 AM >> >>To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >> >>Cc: Press Office >> >>Subject: FW: Data access >> >> >> >>Michael, >> >>I am not sure whether this qualifies as a request and clearly >> >>we should be expecting something more detailed in the near >> >>future. The link is to an update from Mr. McIntyre on the >> >>HadCRUT data that had been requested from us back in 2007. >> >>The article clearly states an intent to make a FOIA request. >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >>Cc. Press Office for information >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Ian Hinds [[11] mailto:ianh@orange.net] >> >>Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:29 PM >> >>To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >>Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV); >> >>chiefexec@rmets.org; Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI); David Keith >> >>Palmer; Carruth Geoffrey Mr (ACAD); Goodwin Nicholas Dr >> >>(ACAD); Schofield Julie Ms (ACAD); Danino-Appleton Vittoria Dr >> >>(ACAD); Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD); Carter Jon Dr (ACAD); Press >> >>Office; Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Bartman >> >>Cat Ms (MAC); Horton Lisa Miss (MAC) >> >>Subject: Data access >> >> >> >>Dear Mr Jones >> >> >> >>As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you >> >>please explain >> >>why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using >> >tax payer >> >>funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to >> >>a UK TAX >> >>PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of >enviromental >> >>information. >> >> >> >>For reference [12]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to >> >>your absymal >> >>attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an >> >>embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the >hell do you >> >>think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this >> >> >> >>Regards >> >>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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1799. 2009-05-12 20:16:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Natalia Andronova , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Lisa Butler date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:16:26 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: FW: Wigley Symposium Lodging Update to: Mike MacCracken Dear Mike, Sorry about the delay in replying to your email. I have Anjuli Bamzai's verbal agreement that I can use funds from my DOE BER Distinguished Scientist Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom's Symposium. I'm currently in the process of obtaining this verbal agreement in writing, and confirming that I'll be able to use these funds to cover your travel expenses to and from Tom's Symposium. I should have an answer from Anjuli shortly. Will you also require support for your accommodation expenses in Boulder? With best regards, Ben Mike MacCracken wrote: > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Lisa Butler > Reply-To: > Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:24:07 -0600 > Ben--So, any official word on providing travel support for me to the > symposium? > > Best, Mike > > > Subject: Wigley Symposium Lodging Update > > Dear Friends of Tom Wigley, > I'm writing to remind you that MONDAY, 18 MAY, is the deadline for > guaranteed hotel reservations for the Symposium in Honor of Tom Wigley. > > The Millennium hotel has kindly added a web link that you can use to > make your reservation. Both hotels (Millennium and Golden Buff) also > accept reservations via phone, fax, and email. Detailed instructions are > included in the Logistics update attached. The updated info will also be > posted on our web page (http:// www. cgd.ucar.edu/cas/) in the near future. > > I hope to see you on June 19th! Please don't hesitate to contact me > should you have any questions or concerns. or require any further > assistance! > Best regards, > Lisa > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4766. 2009-05-13 12:46:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" , "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" , "Livingston, Linda" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:46:26 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request to: Phil Jones I've got some of my old met office email -- back to early 2004. We are talking about error models then so I think discussions about station level records would have taken place in 2003. My recall is that we agreed with Phil that the gridded product was jointly owned and that he owned the station level records. The web site (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/) seems to reflect this view. I think when I left the met office I deleted all my email prior to 2004 so can't find a record of the email. It may well be associated with the sub-contract to CRU to work on CRUTEM3 which I think was done in 2002/2003. Simon Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > There are several issues you should be aware of: > > 1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two > others in the past) - in 2007. One of the three appealed and that > appeal was rejected. > We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI > person > in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! > > We put up this page at the time > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ > > So they have a list of which stations are used. > > 2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) in > the 1990s > that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could be > used in the > gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a > list of which stations > these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. > > 3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of > Energy, and I > have their agreement that the data needn't be passed on. I got this in > 2007. > > 4. You web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to > me, so tell him > that's what they should do. I think you should remove this sentence, > by the way. It is > this that has opened up the issue again. > > 5. The data aren't yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR > agreement, but there > is an implicit one. > > 6. We've altered the version that you have anyway. We're also in the > process of doing > more of this. > > 7. You'd need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data > and removing > the stations that don't get used. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > At 11:53 13/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: >> Sorry. I should also have copied Phil in my previous. Apologies for >> filling inboxes. >> >> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: >> > Peter >> > >> > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration with >> > CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of data. >> > >> > David >> > >> > David Parker, Climate Research scientist >> > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United >> > Kingdom >> > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 >> > Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk >> > Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk >> > >> > See our guide to climate change at >> > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM >> > To: Kennedy, John >> > Cc: Brohan, Philip; Parker, David; Simon Tett; Livingston, Linda >> > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >> > >> > Yes, we do. I guess Linda will know where it is. Simon Tett undertook >> > it. cc'ing Simon and Linda here to provide direction to necessary >> > paperwork. >> > >> > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:54 +0100, Kennedy, John wrote: >> > > Dear all, >> > > >> > > The FOI request from Mr McIntyre has arrived. Do we have a formal >> > > agreement with Phil Jones that says what we can and can't do with his >> > > data? >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > From: Archer, Marion >> > > Sent: 13 May 2009 10:32 >> > > To: Carroll, Fiona; Kennedy, John >> > > Cc: Mathews, Stuart (Legal) >> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi Fiona/John >> > > >> > > Thank you for your emails. As Mr McIntyre has raised this request >> > > for information and the Met Office hold the information for whatever >> > > reason, we still need to consider releasing it. We will need to >> do a >> > > public interest test on the pros and cons for release, for which I >> > > will need your input. >> > > >> > > Can you let me know why we are unable to release the information? >> > > Was the information given in confidence to the Met Office? Do you >> > > have any documentation from Phil Jones regarding this? We need to >> > > show we are considering both sides of the argument for release as Mr >> > > McIntyre may go to the Information Commissioner and if we cannot show >> > > a fair and open public interest test has been undertaken, they may >> > > find in his favour. >> > > >> > > If you wish to meet to discuss, please let me know. >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Marion >> > > >> > > Marion Archer >> > > FOI/Data Protection Manager >> > > Met Office Alexandria 1 >> > > Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom >> > > Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 >> > > email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk >> > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk >> > > >> > > See our guide to climate change at >> > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > From: Carroll, Fiona >> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:46 >> > > To: Archer, Marion >> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Dear Marion, >> > > The customer has already been in touch with John Kennedy who >> explained >> > > to him that the data set requested does not belong to the Met Office, >> > > and therefore we do not have permission to pass it on. The data >> set is >> > > held by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and the customer >> > > should make a direct request to him. Below is John's response to the >> > > original request. >> > > Fiona >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > From: Kennedy, John >> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:00 >> > > To: Carroll, Fiona >> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > >> > > Fiona, >> > > >> > > I wondered when this would arrive. Mr McIntyre, a noted climate >> > > sceptic, is documenting all of this on his blog: >> > > >> > > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 >> > > >> > > The "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to >> > > create CRUTEM3" is not ours to give away. The basic archive of >> > > observations was put together by Phil Jones at the Climatic Research >> > > Unit at the University of East Anglia. We collaborate with Phil so he >> > > sent us the data with the proviso (as I understand it) that we should >> > > only use it to create the gridded data set CRUTEM3. We are not to >> pass >> > > it on to other people. It says as much on the web page that Stephen >> > > McIntyre refers to. >> > > >> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html >> > > >> > > What we can provide are the data that we gather and quality >> control on >> > > a monthly basis. >> > > >> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ >> > > >> > > Stephen McIntyre has already contacted me by email asking for the >> data >> > > that he is now pursuing with this FOI request. I told him that we >> > > couldn't give him the full archive and that he should contact its >> > > owner, Phil Jones. I also told him where to find the data he could >> > > have. This is what I said: >> > > >> > > Dear Stephen McIntyre, >> > > >> > > Thank you for your interest in our datasets. >> > > >> > > Some of the data is available from the website. Each month we receive >> > > CLIMAT reports at the Met Office, which are quality controlled, and >> > > used >> > > to update the gridded CRUTEM3 dataset. The quality controlled CLIMAT >> > > station data for recent years can be found here: >> > > >> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ >> > > >> > > However, this is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of >> the >> > > station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that >> don't >> > > allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will >> > > have >> > > to contact him. >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > From: Carroll, Fiona >> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 15:27 >> > > To: Kennedy, John >> > > Cc: Archer, Marion >> > > Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > John, >> > > Please could you assist marion with this FOI request. >> > > Many thanks. >> > > Fiona >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > From: Marion Archer [mailto:enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk] >> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 14:47 >> > > To: Carroll, Fiona >> > > Subject: FWD: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > >> > > Fiona >> > > >> > > Please see email below and can you let me know who the best person >> > > would be to send it to please. >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Marion >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ----------------------- Forwarded Message ----------------------- >> > > >> > > From: Steve McIntyre >> > > To: "" >> > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 >> > > Subject: Freedom of Information Request >> > > >> > > Dear Sirs, >> > > I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations >> > > used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred to on >> > > your webpage http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) >> under >> > > the FOI Act or other applicable legislation. >> > > >> > > Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre >> -- >> 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 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Simon Tett Chair of Earth System Dynamics School of Geosciences The University of Edinburgh Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Room 351, Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW UK http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 2117. 2009-05-13 12:48:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Wed May 13 12:48:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: RE: Freedom of Information Request to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Nothing came over night. This email came a few minutes ago. It also includes my response - just to a few colleagues at the Hadley Centre. I've not sent anything to their FOI people, but you can see their names (if you didn't know them already) further down. The crux of the issue is their statement on their web site. [1]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html within this page is this piece of text. Q. Where can I get the raw observations? A. The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create [2]HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at [3]http://icoads.noaa.gov/. To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create [4]CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recently archived station reports used to update CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3 are available from the CRUTEM3 [5]data download page. So they say people need to contact me, but they seem to want to release the data anyway. They are probably going through the processes they have to. Is it worth me or you contacting their FOI person (Marion Archer). If they release the data it would seem to make us look very silly. As an aside, I do get contacted and I do send some stations to some people - mainly students from developing countries who are here doing PhDs in the UK and Europe. Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:24:25 +0100 To: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" From: Phil Jones Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Cc: "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" , Simon Tett , "Livingston, Linda" Dear All, There are several issues you should be aware of: 1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two others in the past) - in 2007. One of the three appealed and that appeal was rejected. We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI person in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! We put up this page at the time [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ So they have a list of which stations are used. 2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) in the 1990s that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could be used in the gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a list of which stations these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. 3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn't be passed on. I got this in 2007. 4. You web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to me, so tell him that's what they should do. I think you should remove this sentence, by the way. It is this that has opened up the issue again. 5. The data aren't yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR agreement, but there is an implicit one. 6. We've altered the version that you have anyway. We're also in the process of doing more of this. 7. You'd need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data and removing the stations that don't get used. Cheers Phil At 11:53 13/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: Sorry. I should also have copied Phil in my previous. Apologies for filling inboxes. On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: > Peter > > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration with > CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of data. > > David > > David Parker, Climate Research scientist > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United > Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk > Website: [7]www.metoffice.gov.uk > > See our guide to climate change at > [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Kennedy, John > Cc: Brohan, Philip; Parker, David; Simon Tett; Livingston, Linda > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > Yes, we do. I guess Linda will know where it is. Simon Tett undertook > it. cc'ing Simon and Linda here to provide direction to necessary > paperwork. > > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:54 +0100, Kennedy, John wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The FOI request from Mr McIntyre has arrived. Do we have a formal > > agreement with Phil Jones that says what we can and can't do with his > > data? > > > > John > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Archer, Marion > > Sent: 13 May 2009 10:32 > > To: Carroll, Fiona; Kennedy, John > > Cc: Mathews, Stuart (Legal) > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > Hi Fiona/John > > > > Thank you for your emails. As Mr McIntyre has raised this request > > for information and the Met Office hold the information for whatever > > reason, we still need to consider releasing it. We will need to do a > > public interest test on the pros and cons for release, for which I > > will need your input. > > > > Can you let me know why we are unable to release the information? > > Was the information given in confidence to the Met Office? Do you > > have any documentation from Phil Jones regarding this? We need to > > show we are considering both sides of the argument for release as Mr > > McIntyre may go to the Information Commissioner and if we cannot show > > a fair and open public interest test has been undertaken, they may > > find in his favour. > > > > If you wish to meet to discuss, please let me know. > > > > Regards > > > > Marion > > > > Marion Archer > > FOI/Data Protection Manager > > Met Office Alexandria 1 > > Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 > > email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk > > [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > See our guide to climate change at > > [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Carroll, Fiona > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:46 > > To: Archer, Marion > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > Dear Marion, > > The customer has already been in touch with John Kennedy who explained > > to him that the data set requested does not belong to the Met Office, > > and therefore we do not have permission to pass it on. The data set is > > held by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and the customer > > should make a direct request to him. Below is John's response to the > > original request. > > Fiona > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Kennedy, John > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:00 > > To: Carroll, Fiona > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > Fiona, > > > > I wondered when this would arrive. Mr McIntyre, a noted climate > > sceptic, is documenting all of this on his blog: > > > > [11]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 > > > > The "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to > > create CRUTEM3" is not ours to give away. The basic archive of > > observations was put together by Phil Jones at the Climatic Research > > Unit at the University of East Anglia. We collaborate with Phil so he > > sent us the data with the proviso (as I understand it) that we should > > only use it to create the gridded data set CRUTEM3. We are not to pass > > it on to other people. It says as much on the web page that Stephen > > McIntyre refers to. > > > > [12]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html > > > > What we can provide are the data that we gather and quality control on > > a monthly basis. > > > > [13]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ > > > > Stephen McIntyre has already contacted me by email asking for the data > > that he is now pursuing with this FOI request. I told him that we > > couldn't give him the full archive and that he should contact its > > owner, Phil Jones. I also told him where to find the data he could > > have. This is what I said: > > > > Dear Stephen McIntyre, > > > > Thank you for your interest in our datasets. > > > > Some of the data is available from the website. Each month we receive > > CLIMAT reports at the Met Office, which are quality controlled, and > > used > > to update the gridded CRUTEM3 dataset. The quality controlled CLIMAT > > station data for recent years can be found here: > > > > [14]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ > > > > However, this is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the > > station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don't > > allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will > > have > > to contact him. > > > > Best regards, > > > > John > > > > John > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Carroll, Fiona > > Sent: 12 May 2009 15:27 > > To: Kennedy, John > > Cc: Archer, Marion > > Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > John, > > Please could you assist marion with this FOI request. > > Many thanks. > > Fiona > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Marion Archer [[15]mailto:enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Sent: 12 May 2009 14:47 > > To: Carroll, Fiona > > Subject: FWD: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > Fiona > > > > Please see email below and can you let me know who the best person > > would be to send it to please. > > > > Regards > > > > Marion > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- Forwarded Message ----------------------- > > > > From: Steve McIntyre > > To: "" > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 > > Subject: Freedom of Information Request > > > > Dear Sirs, > > I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations > > used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred to on > > your webpage [16]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) under > > the FOI Act or other applicable legislation. > > > > Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 [17]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4460. 2009-05-13 13:40:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 13 13:40:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A bad review to: "peter.thorne" Peter, Probably worth doing. Start something off at you end. This issue should die down soon. I'm coming down for June 1. David was going to check availabilities for discussions of HadCRUT4 (and HadSST3). We could decide to make the station data available that will go into CRUTEM4 (and hence HadCRUT4). My issue about not doing it is when will it stop. They will then want programs. As you know there are two key files (the 61-90 normals and the SD file). The station headers within the station data aren't that well documented. If MOHC does release the station data, I'll let MOHC deal with all the flak. You don't know what some of the header info is, for example. There are codes that cause some series to only get used from certain dates. I can barely remember some of it. There will also be questions as to why some series don't come to the present date - the US ones for example. Cheers Phil At 13:00 13/05/2009, you wrote: Phil, not a bother. Suggest that we arrange a legally watertight IPR on paper as this will, sadly, just repeat ad infinitum. This should cover all our collaborative efforts and not just HadCRUT. Its only a matter of time ... I know people in our legal team and we can kick it off wen this all calms down if that would be desirable to you. Peter On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:29 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > Peter, > Thanks for forwarding the FOI email. Sorry if I went over the top, > but the first point is the main one. > > Here's a book not to bother reading! > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 [1]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1217. 2009-05-13 13:57:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" , "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:57:14 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request to: Phil Jones All, as it is likely that Phil "owns" the dataset can he not request that the MO deletes it... and in fact should you have done so given that the data was for a specific purpose. S Phil Jones wrote: > Simon, > Nice one! Well written Philip! > > I've forwarded one of the earlier emails to our FOI person here. > > Cheers > Phil > > At 12:46 13/05/2009, Simon Tett wrote: >> I've got some of my old met office email -- back to early 2004. We are >> talking about error models then so I think discussions about station >> level records would have taken place in 2003. My recall is that we >> agreed with Phil that the gridded product was jointly owned and that >> he owned the station level records. The web site >> (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/) seems to >> reflect this view. >> >> I think when I left the met office I deleted all my email prior to >> 2004 so can't find a record of the email. It may well be associated >> with the sub-contract to CRU to work on CRUTEM3 which I think was done >> in 2002/2003. >> >> Simon >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> There are several issues you should be aware of: >>> 1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two >>> others in the past) - in 2007. One of the three appealed and that >>> appeal was rejected. >>> We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your >>> FOI person >>> in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! >>> We put up this page at the time >>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ >>> So they have a list of which stations are used. >>> 2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) >>> in the 1990s >>> that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could >>> be used in the >>> gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a >>> list of which stations >>> these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. >>> 3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of >>> Energy, and I >>> have their agreement that the data needn't be passed on. I got this >>> in 2007. >>> 4. You web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to >>> me, so tell him >>> that's what they should do. I think you should remove this >>> sentence, by the way. It is >>> this that has opened up the issue again. >>> 5. The data aren't yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR >>> agreement, but there >>> is an implicit one. >>> 6. We've altered the version that you have anyway. We're also in the >>> process of doing >>> more of this. >>> 7. You'd need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data >>> and removing >>> the stations that don't get used. >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 11:53 13/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: >>>> Sorry. I should also have copied Phil in my previous. Apologies for >>>> filling inboxes. >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: >>>> > Peter >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration >>>> with >>>> > CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of >>>> data. >>>> > >>>> > David >>>> > >>>> > David Parker, Climate Research scientist >>>> > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB >>>> United >>>> > Kingdom >>>> > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 >>>> > Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk >>>> > Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk >>>> > >>>> > See our guide to climate change at >>>> > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM >>>> > To: Kennedy, John >>>> > Cc: Brohan, Philip; Parker, David; Simon Tett; Livingston, Linda >>>> > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > >>>> > Yes, we do. I guess Linda will know where it is. Simon Tett undertook >>>> > it. cc'ing Simon and Linda here to provide direction to necessary >>>> > paperwork. >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:54 +0100, Kennedy, John wrote: >>>> > > Dear all, >>>> > > >>>> > > The FOI request from Mr McIntyre has arrived. Do we have a formal >>>> > > agreement with Phil Jones that says what we can and can't do >>>> with his >>>> > > data? >>>> > > >>>> > > John >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > > From: Archer, Marion >>>> > > Sent: 13 May 2009 10:32 >>>> > > To: Carroll, Fiona; Kennedy, John >>>> > > Cc: Mathews, Stuart (Legal) >>>> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi Fiona/John >>>> > > >>>> > > Thank you for your emails. As Mr McIntyre has raised this request >>>> > > for information and the Met Office hold the information for >>>> whatever >>>> > > reason, we still need to consider releasing it. We will need >>>> to do a >>>> > > public interest test on the pros and cons for release, for which I >>>> > > will need your input. >>>> > > >>>> > > Can you let me know why we are unable to release the information? >>>> > > Was the information given in confidence to the Met Office? Do you >>>> > > have any documentation from Phil Jones regarding this? We need to >>>> > > show we are considering both sides of the argument for release >>>> as Mr >>>> > > McIntyre may go to the Information Commissioner and if we cannot >>>> show >>>> > > a fair and open public interest test has been undertaken, they may >>>> > > find in his favour. >>>> > > >>>> > > If you wish to meet to discuss, please let me know. >>>> > > >>>> > > Regards >>>> > > >>>> > > Marion >>>> > > >>>> > > Marion Archer >>>> > > FOI/Data Protection Manager >>>> > > Met Office Alexandria 1 >>>> > > Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom >>>> > > Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 >>>> > > email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk >>>> > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk >>>> > > >>>> > > See our guide to climate change at >>>> > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > > From: Carroll, Fiona >>>> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:46 >>>> > > To: Archer, Marion >>>> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Dear Marion, >>>> > > The customer has already been in touch with John Kennedy who >>>> explained >>>> > > to him that the data set requested does not belong to the Met >>>> Office, >>>> > > and therefore we do not have permission to pass it on. The data >>>> set is >>>> > > held by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and the >>>> customer >>>> > > should make a direct request to him. Below is John's response to >>>> the >>>> > > original request. >>>> > > Fiona >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > > From: Kennedy, John >>>> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:00 >>>> > > To: Carroll, Fiona >>>> > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Fiona, >>>> > > >>>> > > I wondered when this would arrive. Mr McIntyre, a noted climate >>>> > > sceptic, is documenting all of this on his blog: >>>> > > >>>> > > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 >>>> > > >>>> > > The "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to >>>> > > create CRUTEM3" is not ours to give away. The basic archive of >>>> > > observations was put together by Phil Jones at the Climatic >>>> Research >>>> > > Unit at the University of East Anglia. We collaborate with Phil >>>> so he >>>> > > sent us the data with the proviso (as I understand it) that we >>>> should >>>> > > only use it to create the gridded data set CRUTEM3. We are not >>>> to pass >>>> > > it on to other people. It says as much on the web page that Stephen >>>> > > McIntyre refers to. >>>> > > >>>> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html >>>> > > >>>> > > What we can provide are the data that we gather and quality >>>> control on >>>> > > a monthly basis. >>>> > > >>>> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ >>>> > > >>>> > > Stephen McIntyre has already contacted me by email asking for >>>> the data >>>> > > that he is now pursuing with this FOI request. I told him that we >>>> > > couldn't give him the full archive and that he should contact its >>>> > > owner, Phil Jones. I also told him where to find the data he could >>>> > > have. This is what I said: >>>> > > >>>> > > Dear Stephen McIntyre, >>>> > > >>>> > > Thank you for your interest in our datasets. >>>> > > >>>> > > Some of the data is available from the website. Each month we >>>> receive >>>> > > CLIMAT reports at the Met Office, which are quality controlled, and >>>> > > used >>>> > > to update the gridded CRUTEM3 dataset. The quality controlled >>>> CLIMAT >>>> > > station data for recent years can be found here: >>>> > > >>>> > > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ >>>> > > >>>> > > However, this is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most >>>> of the >>>> > > station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that >>>> don't >>>> > > allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will >>>> > > have >>>> > > to contact him. >>>> > > >>>> > > Best regards, >>>> > > >>>> > > John >>>> > > >>>> > > John >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > > From: Carroll, Fiona >>>> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 15:27 >>>> > > To: Kennedy, John >>>> > > Cc: Archer, Marion >>>> > > Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > John, >>>> > > Please could you assist marion with this FOI request. >>>> > > Many thanks. >>>> > > Fiona >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> > > From: Marion Archer [mailto:enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk] >>>> > > Sent: 12 May 2009 14:47 >>>> > > To: Carroll, Fiona >>>> > > Subject: FWD: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Fiona >>>> > > >>>> > > Please see email below and can you let me know who the best person >>>> > > would be to send it to please. >>>> > > >>>> > > Regards >>>> > > >>>> > > Marion >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > ----------------------- Forwarded Message ----------------------- >>>> > > >>>> > > From: Steve McIntyre >>>> > > To: "" >>>> > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 >>>> > > Subject: Freedom of Information Request >>>> > > >>>> > > Dear Sirs, >>>> > > I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations >>>> > > used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred >>>> to on >>>> > > your webpage http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) >>>> under >>>> > > the FOI Act or other applicable legislation. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> -- >> Simon Tett >> Chair of Earth System Dynamics >> School of Geosciences >> The University of Edinburgh >> Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 >> Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 >> email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk >> Room 351, Grant Institute, >> The King's Buildings, >> West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW >> UK >> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 >> >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Simon Tett Chair of Earth System Dynamics School of Geosciences The University of Edinburgh Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Room 351, Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW UK http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1111. 2009-05-13 15:36:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:36:27 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: RE: Freedom of Information Request to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, Just got off the phone with Marion Archer. It appears that they will be dealing with their request under EIR. There are 2 key issues for them: (1) the terms under which Phil supplied this information to them (and of course any evidence of such terms) - I believe John Kennedy will be leading on this for them, and (2) the public interest test required regarding release. In regards the latter, the terms under which Phil received this information could be critical (and any evidence thereof). The question is the public interest in disclosure v. the public interest in non-disclosure. The existence of contracts. terms or agreements under which we received the data (and then passed it on to Hadley) would be proof a some public interest in non-disclosure (sanctity of contracts, free exchange of scientific information etc...). The request was received by Hadley this week so we are looking at an early June deadline. If we do not wish this information/data to be released, it is in our interest to bolster the public interest argument in favour of non-disclosure to the greatest extent possible. Phil - any further information available on what terms were imposed on you when you received and subsequently passed on this data? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:22 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: RE: Freedom of Information Request Dave, Thanks! Apologies for being your best customer! Phil At 15:17 13/05/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil, Thanks for passing all this correspondence to me. A few comments: Hadley is under an obligation to respond to the FOIA request of Mr. McIntyre and whether they release the requested data or not is completely in their hands. However, I would argue that the EIR is the legislation under which they need to consider this information. If that is the route that they go, Regulation 12(5)(f) is the salient one: 12. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information requested if - (a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. (5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect - (f) the interests of the person who provided the information where that person - (i) was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority; (ii) did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and (iii) has not consented to its disclosure; or Please note - there is a public interest test here that has to be addressed by Hadley as well. Bottom line - it is Hadley's call on releasing the information - all we can do is register our concern over the release of the information. We didn't actually deny Mr. McIntyre the information in 2007 - we stated we didn't actually HAVE what he was requesting. The actual text of my letter of 19 April 2007 states: "In your email of 17 April 2007, you re-iterated your request from your email of 12 March 2007, to see "B) identification ... of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study" I have been in conversation with Dr. Jones and have been advised that, in fact, we are unable to answer (B) as we do not have a copy of the station data as we had it in 1990. The station database has evolved since that time and CRU was not able to keep versions of it as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage comparable to what we have at our disposal currently. I have been advised that the best equivalent data available is within the current version of CRUTEM3(v) or CRUTEM2(v). The latter is still available on the CRU web site, though not updated beyond 2005. These latest versions are likely different from what was used in 1990. Australia and China have both released more data since then - it is likely that much of this was not digitized in 1990. Dr. Jones acknowledges that the grid resolution is now different, but this is again due to greater disk storage available. The details of our updating of the raw station data is discussed in the following article: Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate 16, 206-223. This is, in effect, our final attempt to resolve this matter informally. If this response is not to your satisfaction, I will initiate the second stage of our internal complaint process and will advise you of progress and outcome as appropriate." There was no response to this letter. For your information, I have attached to this memo the initial request, our answer, the appeal & our initial and subsequent appeal response. I think I will need to have a quick chat with Marion Archer at Hadley to see what approach they are taking on this... Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Fwd: RE: Freedom of Information Request Dave, Nothing came over night. This email came a few minutes ago. It also includes my response - just to a few colleagues at the Hadley Centre. I've not sent anything to their FOI people, but you can see their names (if you didn't know them already) further down. The crux of the issue is their statement on their web site. [2]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html within this page is this piece of text. Q. Where can I get the raw observations? A. The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create [3]HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at [4]http://icoads.noaa.gov/. To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create [5]CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recently archived station reports used to update CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3 are available from the CRUTEM3 [6]data download page. So they say people need to contact me, but they seem to want to release the data anyway. They are probably going through the processes they have to. Is it worth me or you contacting their FOI person (Marion Archer). If they release the data it would seem to make us look very silly. As an aside, I do get contacted and I do send some stations to some people - mainly students from developing countries who are here doing PhDs in the UK and Europe. Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:24:25 +0100 To: "peter.thorne" , "Parker, David" From: Phil Jones Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request Cc: "Kennedy, John" , "Brohan, Philip" , Simon Tett , "Livingston, Linda" Dear All, There are several issues you should be aware of: 1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two others in the past) - in 2007. One of the three appealed and that appeal was rejected. We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI person in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other! We put up this page at the time [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ So they have a list of which stations are used. 2. I have signed agreements with some Met Services (European ones) in the 1990s that I would not pass on their data to third parties. The data could be used in the gridding though and gridded products made available. I never kept a list of which stations these were though, as I never thought such problems would arise. 3. Work on the land station data has been funded by the US Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn't be passed on. I got this in 2007. 4. You web site says that anyone requesting the data should apply to me, so tell him that's what they should do. I think you should remove this sentence, by the way. It is this that has opened up the issue again. 5. The data aren't yours to release! Maybe there is no formal IPR agreement, but there is an implicit one. 6. We've altered the version that you have anyway. We're also in the process of doing more of this. 7. You'd need to waste your time combining the two parts of the data and removing the stations that don't get used. Cheers Phil At 11:53 13/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: Sorry. I should also have copied Phil in my previous. Apologies for filling inboxes. On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 11:50 +0100, Parker, David wrote: > Peter > > Thanks for responding to this. I have looked in my "Collaboration with > CRU" folder but found nothing that specifically addresses IPR of data. > > David > > David Parker, Climate Research scientist > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United > Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk > Website: [8]www.metoffice.gov.uk > > See our guide to climate change at > [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM > To: Kennedy, John > Cc: Brohan, Philip; Parker, David; Simon Tett; Livingston, Linda > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > Yes, we do. I guess Linda will know where it is. Simon Tett undertook > it. cc'ing Simon and Linda here to provide direction to necessary > paperwork. > > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:54 +0100, Kennedy, John wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The FOI request from Mr McIntyre has arrived. Do we have a formal > > agreement with Phil Jones that says what we can and can't do with his > > data? > > > > John > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Archer, Marion > > Sent: 13 May 2009 10:32 > > To: Carroll, Fiona; Kennedy, John > > Cc: Mathews, Stuart (Legal) > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > Hi Fiona/John > > > > Thank you for your emails. As Mr McIntyre has raised this request > > for information and the Met Office hold the information for whatever > > reason, we still need to consider releasing it. We will need to do a > > public interest test on the pros and cons for release, for which I > > will need your input. > > > > Can you let me know why we are unable to release the information? > > Was the information given in confidence to the Met Office? Do you > > have any documentation from Phil Jones regarding this? We need to > > show we are considering both sides of the argument for release as Mr > > McIntyre may go to the Information Commissioner and if we cannot show > > a fair and open public interest test has been undertaken, they may > > find in his favour. > > > > If you wish to meet to discuss, please let me know. > > > > Regards > > > > Marion > > > > Marion Archer > > FOI/Data Protection Manager > > Met Office Alexandria 1 > > Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > > Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 > > email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk > > [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > See our guide to climate change at > > [11]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Carroll, Fiona > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:46 > > To: Archer, Marion > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > Dear Marion, > > The customer has already been in touch with John Kennedy who explained > > to him that the data set requested does not belong to the Met Office, > > and therefore we do not have permission to pass it on. The data set is > > held by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and the customer > > should make a direct request to him. Below is John's response to the > > original request. > > Fiona > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Kennedy, John > > Sent: 12 May 2009 16:00 > > To: Carroll, Fiona > > Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > Fiona, > > > > I wondered when this would arrive. Mr McIntyre, a noted climate > > sceptic, is documenting all of this on his blog: > > > > [12]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 > > > > The "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to > > create CRUTEM3" is not ours to give away. The basic archive of > > observations was put together by Phil Jones at the Climatic Research > > Unit at the University of East Anglia. We collaborate with Phil so he > > sent us the data with the proviso (as I understand it) that we should > > only use it to create the gridded data set CRUTEM3. We are not to pass > > it on to other people. It says as much on the web page that Stephen > > McIntyre refers to. > > > > [13]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html > > > > What we can provide are the data that we gather and quality control on > > a monthly basis. > > > > [14]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ > > > > Stephen McIntyre has already contacted me by email asking for the data > > that he is now pursuing with this FOI request. I told him that we > > couldn't give him the full archive and that he should contact its > > owner, Phil Jones. I also told him where to find the data he could > > have. This is what I said: > > > > Dear Stephen McIntyre, > > > > Thank you for your interest in our datasets. > > > > Some of the data is available from the website. Each month we receive > > CLIMAT reports at the Met Office, which are quality controlled, and > > used > > to update the gridded CRUTEM3 dataset. The quality controlled CLIMAT > > station data for recent years can be found here: > > > > [15]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/ > > > > However, this is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the > > station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don't > > allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will > > have > > to contact him. > > > > Best regards, > > > > John > > > > John > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Carroll, Fiona > > Sent: 12 May 2009 15:27 > > To: Kennedy, John > > Cc: Archer, Marion > > Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > > > John, > > Please could you assist marion with this FOI request. > > Many thanks. > > Fiona > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Marion Archer [ [16]mailto:enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Sent: 12 May 2009 14:47 > > To: Carroll, Fiona > > Subject: FWD: Freedom of Information Request > > > > > > Fiona > > > > Please see email below and can you let me know who the best person > > would be to send it to please. > > > > Regards > > > > Marion > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- Forwarded Message ----------------------- > > > > From: Steve McIntyre > > To: "" > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 > > Subject: Freedom of Information Request > > > > Dear Sirs, > > I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations > > used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred to on > > your webpage [17]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) under > > the FOI Act or other applicable legislation. > > > > Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 [18]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5247. 2009-05-13 17:42:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 13 17:42:25 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Visit to CRU after EGU? NEED TO CANCEL DUE TO BUDGET to: Tim Osborn Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:14:58 -0700 From: Eugene Wahl Subject: Visit to CRU after EGU? NEED TO CANCEL DUE TO BUDGET ISSUES MENTIONED To: Tim Osborn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f055) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f055 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 17687833 - 2819ba7356c8 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=17687833&m=2819ba7356c8&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=17687833&m=2819ba7356c8&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=17687833&m=2819ba7356c8&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Hi Tim: I heard from on high in the organization here today that my trip plans to come to the UK need to be let go, due to the budget issues I mentioned below. Evidently the uncertainty was larger than I imagined. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause you, and hope possibly that some time a visit will be possible. I am still very interested in the entire topic of characterizing and reducing uncertainty in field reconstructions, to any extent you might want to work on this jointly. Peace, Gene Eugene Wahl wrote: Hi Tim: Last September you and I had communication about the graphic you created for IPCC Fig 6:10c. As part of this you mentioned an invitation to come to Norwich if I am in Europe. Well, I would be very grateful to take you up on the invitation, as I expect to be attending the EGU in later April. In that light, I'm curious to know if a visit there might be feasible from either say 25 April to 1 May, right after EGU, or alternatively from 3 May to 8 May. The idea I have in mind for this visit would be to do some thinking/working with you on the characterization and reduction of uncertainty in reconstructing full climate fields, as we had talked about in an email exchange (I think) last summer. Of course, I would also be keen to bring Phil and Keith (and others there I may not be aware of) into this as they might wish. Additionally, I think it might be useful to consider the possibility of any strengthening of ties between CRU and NOAA-Paleoclimatology that we might want to entertain...no pressure there just the general thought. Let me know what you think, I'm working now to get the details "ironed out" so that travel and lodging can be arranged. Given that the federal government here still does not have a budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (10/1/2008-9/30/2009) -- politics are very fractious -- there is a bit of uncertainty as to whether I will get the funding for this trip overall. However, my superiors are asking me to move ahead -- I also expect to visit with Juerg Luterbacher after my time in the UK, and then to the ESF meeting at Kippel CH in mid-May -- so that is a positive sign. Hope you are well. Winter has been mild here along the eastern front of the Rockies in N America. How about there for you? Give my best to Phil and Keith also. -- 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 [4]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html 4378. 2009-05-13 18:17:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Midgley, Pauline" date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:17:47 +0200 from: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Data access and IPCC to: Phil Jones , wg1 Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI) Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about this when the first requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith Briffa and they informed us. What I did not know is that they have already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)! At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to balance: (i) FOI, and (ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not in the position to judge which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed to establish exactly that balance. However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion. One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities. In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this separation! We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to the level of the Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very basis of our assessment work. Thanks again and best regards, Thomas Phil Jones wrote: > > >> Dear Thomas, > I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance > for upsetting your morning! > Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with > another > attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't > normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they > come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on > some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties. > If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This > refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information > Commissioner > in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA > these > relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with > these, > but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your > University > and AR5. > Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect > that > someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might > try later > is the same issue: > > Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? > > and > > When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we > can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these > papers as the data > haven't been made available for audit. > > Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as > defined by the Aarhus Convention. > > You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that > IPCC is > above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those > working in AR5 > would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as > not everybody > will remember to do it. > I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to > affect people's > lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed > pieces, but these > FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to > be explained > to FOI-responsible people at each institution. > > Keep up the good work with AR5! > > Cheers > Phil > > > >> Dear Mr Jones >> >> As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please >> explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using >> tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is >> to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of >> enviromental information. >> >> For reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your >> absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in >> an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do >> you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this >> >> Regards >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4291. 2009-05-14 09:09:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:09:24 +0100 from: "peter.thorne" subject: [Fwd: RE: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's?] to: Phil Jones -- 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 Received: from EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com ([151.170.110.53]) by EXXMAIL02.desktop.frd.metoffice.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 14 May 2009 09:06:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Return-Path: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2009 08:06:40.0986 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9BCDBA0:01C9D46A] Subject: RE: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's? Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:06:37 +0100 Message-ID: <1DB93763ADBC4E4D96F87FF4E75AD4870133433A@EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> In-Reply-To: <1242228296.27535.66.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's? Thread-Index: AcnT3vlNAmfsbH8QQWGvwkhxFYiPvwAiuTZQ References: <1242228296.27535.66.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> From: "Briar, Tony" To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter Whilst an MoU is the appropriate way to document this type of relationship, it won't be possible, even with prudent drafting, for it to be used as a shield against requests for information under the FOI Act. If you can detail the our relationship (the nature of the collab')with UEA in an email to the 'legal' email inbox, one of the team will be in touch to take this forward. Regards Tony >Tony Briar CertLegalStud(Open) F.Inst.Pa Customer Contracts Manager Legal and Procurement >Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom >Tel: +44 (0)1392 88 4170 Fax: +44 (0)870 900 5050 >E-mail: tony.briar@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Please note that I am only in the office Tuesday to Friday -----Original Message----- From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: 13 May 2009 16:25 To: Briar, Tony Subject: Are you still the man to talk to about MoU's? Tony, we need to resolve our relationship with UEA's Climatic Research Unit as shown by the current FOI request on the surface temperature record. We have nothing in writing and that puts us on a sticky wicket. We'd like to have writing for the next time it all blows up. Are you still the man to talk to about setting up a MoU on all our collaboration? If not then who is? Thanks 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 1394. 2009-05-14 15:54:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 14 15:54:35 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Your planned visit to: "Parker, David" David, Thanks - I'll go ahead and book the Holiday Inn for Sunday May 31. It is only one night! I'll be away May 25-28, but I'll be in that week on May 29 (Friday). Cheers Phil At 15:01 14/05/2009, you wrote: Phil Thanks. June 1^st is fine for Ian, Peter, Kate and me. I expect discussions will include CRUTEM and Steve McIntyres FOI request, as well as Ians work. David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: [1]www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:15 AM To: Parker, David Subject: Re: Your planned visit David, The following weekend (June 6/7) is an issue for me, so I need to avoid the end of the week. So can we go for June 1 (Monday). Can you check availability of all? I'll travel down on the Sunday and stay at the Holiday Inn if all can be arranged. I'd like to leave by about 4pm at the latest. Aiguo is coming to CRU on July 20-21 and is coming for the weekend before as well, so I'll meet him then as well. If things are tight, I could just say hello to Aiguo. Cheers Phil At 12:58 11/05/2009, you wrote: Phil During your planned visit to see Ian, we would like also to take the opportunity to discuss plans for HadCRUT4. Specifically, we plan to make multiple realisations of both marine and land components, in order to estimate the uncertainties. This will involve Peter Thorne, Nick Rayner, John Kennedy and maybe others. Also, Aiguo Dai has arrived for a 3-month visit and, given his interest in humidity and the water cycle, it would be a good opportunity for you to meet him, albeit maybe briefly. Any day in the week of June 1^st 5^th is OK for me but I appreciate that you may wish to avoid Monday and Friday owing to traffic and the impact of the journeys on your weekend activities. Hope alls well David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: [4]www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3739. 2009-05-15 09:31:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:31:24 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Parker on Pielke to: Phil Jones Very cute, Phil. I've passed your suggestion on to Matt. Tom Phil Jones said the following on 5/15/2009 9:19 AM: Tom, David, John, Here's the first paper to cite it! As we know they didn't realise the significance of Figure 1! I hope you've persuaded Matt Menne to do that USHCN split (into the watts-up-that categories). You could then have a title. Watts-up with this - no differences in US average for stations in different categories Cheers Phil At 14:00 15/05/2009, Parker, David wrote: Tom Thanks. For info, in the near future we plan to have discussions here on possible future developments of the land surface air temperature analyses. We'll let you know in due course of any relevant developments. David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: [1]david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: [2]www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Thomas C Peterson [[4] mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:52 PM To: Parker, David; Kennedy, John; Phil Jones Subject: Parker on Pielke David, Phil & John, Attached is a copy of our paper: Parker, David, E., Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, John Kennedy, 2009: Comment on "Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land Surface Temperature Trends" by Roger A. Pielke, Sr. et al., Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450. When I took a couple month old BAMS with me to read while in a waiting room and stumbled across a paper I was a co-author on, I realized I needed to update my vitae.... 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: +1-828-271-4876 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 929. 2009-05-16 17:31:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:31:16 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: nomination: materials needed! to: Phil Jones Hey Phil, I hope all is well w/ you these days. Been a while since I've actually seen you. Perhaps can convince you to make it to EGU next year? Looks like it will be in Vienna again. I rather enjoyed this one, and I think I may go back next year. On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;) I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate. anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) mike On Jun 3, 2008, at 8:07 AM, 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 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 [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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [6]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 3557. 2009-05-17 21:25:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer , Phil Jones date: Sun, 17 May 2009 21:25:12 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: request to: Marty Hoffert Hi Marty, Ben has asked me to get in touch with you because he has been tied up for the past few days and will be until perhaps the middle of next week. It is late notice for this, but would you be able to give a talk at my symposium on June 19? This would be for 30 minutes, probably 25 talking and 5 Q&A (Ben can confirm this later). We'd like you to talk on "Climate stabilization: can we meet the technological challenge?" -- or something similar. Although I have not discussed this with Ben and Phil, this would slot in beautifully as the penultimate talk, immediately before Ken C. on geoengineering and after Jae E. on integrated assessment. [Ben and Phil: I have modified the agenda accordingly -- and am attaching it to this email. You may want to further revise it.] Have you read Tom Blees's book yet. I must say, it is very impressive -- so much so that I have changed my mind on the technology issue. It does seem that IFRs could "save the planet". Not only this, but they could eliminate the nuclear waste problem (no need for Yucca Mountain). If we can get onto this quickly enough, IFRs could also eliminate the need for all but the most minor carbon tax (or its cap and trade equivalent). There is some very disturbing stuff in the Blees book, not least the possibility that, through the lies and misdirections of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, we may have lost the opportunity to solve the problem cheaply. History nay well judge these guys as much worse than Bush Jr. Best wishes, Tom. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Agenda_Revised.doc" 250. 2009-05-18 16:40:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:40:56 -0400 from: Raymond Bradley subject: Re: Fwd: Re: nomination: materials needed! to: Phil Jones well, mike is clearly well qualified for this great honor--or even this great honour--but I simply do not have time to take the lead on this nomination. If Malcolm will do it, I'd write a supporting letter.. ray At 09:32 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote: Ray, Malcolm, I thought I might get an email like this! Obvious question, do either of you want to take the lead on this? I'd be happy to write a supporting letter. Difficulty co-ordinating this is that I'm away next week and then two in June, and then there is Tom Wigley's symposium. Cheers Phil From: Michael Mann To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: nomination: materials needed! Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:31:16 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) 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: 22296719 - d5bdbb400b77 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22296719&m=d5bdbb400b77&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22296719&m=d5bdbb400b77&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22296719&m=d5bdbb400b77&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Hey Phil, I hope all is well w/ you these days. Been a while since I've actually seen you. Perhaps can convince you to make it to EGU next year? Looks like it will be in Vienna again. I rather enjoyed this one, and I think I may go back next year. On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;) I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate. anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond S. Bradley Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 <[4] http://www.paleoclimate.org > Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [6]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html 3336. 2009-05-18 16:42:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Wahl, Eugene R" date: Mon May 18 16:42:31 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Possible visit to Boulder to: "David M. Anderson" (An alternative would be for me to come in the days running up to the Wigley symposium -- not good for Dave "ride the Rockies", but I just wanted to point out that this is ok for me, in case the 22/23rd is not good for you for any other reasons). Best wishes Tim At 15:17 18/05/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear Gene and Dave, many thanks for your positive responses about the possibility of my visiting. I would definitely need to give some kind of talk/seminar to justify the UEA expenditure, so if I can be squeezed into the seminar series that you mentioned, then that would make it possible for me to come. I think I have just enough to cover the trip, so, as Gene surmised, it is more about building more content into my trip than asking you for support. What do you think about this itinerary (taking into account that you, Dave, are away Jun 15-19): Travel Norwich-Boulder on 17 or 18 June. Attend Wigley symposium on Fri 19 June. Visit you guys on Mon 22 / Tue 23 including giving a talk at physical climate division. Depart Wed 24 Jun. I need to book things soon, so let me know if this would fit in well, or suggest modifications to make it work better for you. Who makes the decision about physical sciences division seminar? Thanks again, Tim At 23:24 14/05/2009, David M. Anderson wrote: Hi Tim, Gene mentioned that you might be able to make it to Boulder this summer, to coincide with the Wigley symposium. If you have time to stop by the paleo branch, we would like to hear about your work (via an informal presentation to our group), and Gene and I would like to talk with you and get your opinions on how we can make the paleo data archive as useful as possible. You might also consider giving a talk at the Physical Climate Division of the Earth Systems Research Laboratory, down the hall from us. Robin Webb, Marty Hoerling, Klaus Wolter, and Henry Diaz are a few of the scientists in that group. Their group is large (about 30), and our group is small (8). I just asked, and their seminar series goes through the summer. In contrast the University of Colorado pretty much suspends events during the summer. On a logistical level, we just failed to get support for a visitor because the budget is tight until October. Gene and I were trying to visit you guys, but that plan also fell through. But farther down the road, if you don't make it to Boulder now, we might be able to support your travel at some point in the future. One other logistical note is that our data manager Bruce Bauer and I won't be here the week of June 15-19. We committed to a week-long bike ride called 'ride the rockies'. We will be back on the 22nd. Best, Dave -- 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 2495. 2009-05-19 12:20:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:20:51 +0100 from: C G Kilsby subject: RE: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator to: "'Phil Jones'" , "'Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)'" , "'Jenkins, Geoff'" , "'Roger Street'" I'm away 25-28 too. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2009 12:13 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); C G Kilsby; Jenkins, Geoff; Roger Street Subject: RE: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator Kathryn, I'd be happy to do this. I'm away next week May 25-28. Cheers Phil At 11:13 19/05/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: Thanks Phil, Chris and Geoff- I am whacking all of this into a document to take through with Robin later. I know this is extremely frustrating for you and completely understand where you are coming from. This is a political reaction, not one based on any scientific analysis of the weather generator. We did the peer review to take care of that. I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish. Therefore, every time they hear about any criticisms from anyone, they jump. I'll let you know how I get on in dealing with this today. It might be helpful if you come in, Chris and Phil, and speak direct to Robin as well at some point soon. Would you be happy to do this? Kathryn From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2009 10:40 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Chris Kilsby; Jenkins, Geoff; Roger Street Subject: Re: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator Kathryn, What would be a good start to the first question would be to switch it around to who doesn't need the WG! As I've said on numerous occasions, if the WG isn't there, all the people that need it will go off and do their own thing. This will mean that individual sectors and single studies will do a whole range of different things. This will make uncertainties even larger! The UKCIP helpdesk will get the continual question - how do I get daily output? As for those that need it. The EA will need it, they have a scoping study which will show them how to use it. Similarly UKWIR have a scoping study doing much the same thing. I'm involved in the latter, which is being led by Atkins. There are a number of EPSRC projects that need it. What all these projects need are daily time series data for input into time series models (agricultural crop models, building design, river flow modelling and water resources, and there are likely many more). Anyone who wants to look at sequences of temperature and precipitation in the future will need it. Many users are expecting it! WRT point 2, I'd have thought it was fully integrated into the reports. It is in the Briefing Report and probably mentioned in the Science report. WRT point 3, if the WG was at 25km scale, users would try and scale it down to 5km and you'd be back to users doing a whole range of different things. There is a section in the WG Report (5.2) on the scale issue. We can't do the WG at the 25km scale, as this is the RCM grid! The observed data are available at the 5km OS grid or at station (point) scales. They are not available at the 25km RCM rotated pole scale. No observed data are available on this scale/resolution. Many users will find it difficult to cope with the rotated RCM grid, and will say why can't the output be on the OS grid. Just seen Geoff's reply - totally agree, the scale issue is a red herring. What matters is daily output! There is an issue of user knowledge. The size of the WG output files means that users will need to know what they are doing when they get their output. Those working for the EA, UKWIR and within the above projects will. It is likely that Joe Public and media types won't. Have any of these 'sensible scientific experts' have read the WG Report or read the Briefing Document? We have been through the international peer review like the rest of the report. We had a lot less to respond to than the science report. Why don't we (Chris, Geoff, me) get a chance to talk to these 'sensible scientific experts'! Are we not deemed 'sensible', 'scientific', or 'expert' enough? I know you're only the messenger, Kathryn! It seems to me that your Director, and DG etc have no idea what users want or how UKCP09 will be used. Cheers Phil PS Colin will have some results comparing UKCP09 for two sites (Ringway and LHR) later this morning. These compare 2050s medium UKCP09 output (produced via the interface) with a different RCM simulation produced by MOHC (with extra heat input into major UK cities) from the SCORCHIO project. Colin will also redo the 10 key sites by the end of the week. Everything so far, looks exactly as expected. Output comes back in about 15 minutes now. At 09:43 19/05/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: Hi all, Could you please send me some comments urgently on the issues below. I have a meeting with Hilary Benn this afternoon and this is likely to come up (at 4.30). As you know we have already given him some advice on the weather generator but perhaps I need to give them more on the validity tests etc as well. I think the problem here is that the people in these meetings (my Director-General, Director and so forth) don't have the technical background to be able to head off these criticisms at the time. The advice I put up previously was to keep the WG in with the launch package. Anyway as a start if you can give me responses to the three points below that would be very helpful! Kathryn _____________________________________________ From: Mortimer, Robin (CALR) Sent: 18 May 2009 20:00 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) Cc: Unwin, Peter (NEG); Watson, Robert (SEG); Capstick, Jonathan (ACC); Maresh, Jennifer (ACC); Lewis, Rupert (ACC); Cahill, Teige (ACC); Hurst, Martin (WaFERR); Hawley, Clare (ACC); Packer, Kathryn (ACC) Subject: advice needed on Weather Generator Importance: High Kathryn, Bob Watson, Peter Unwin and I spoke to Jackie McGlade this evening, along with Bob Mitchell and James from Met Office. After some initial misunderstanding about the nature of the criticisms Jackie McGlade has been making about UKCP09, she clarified that she is very supportive of the approach being taken to downscaling to 25km grid square level; and indeed would be willing to champion this being adopted more widely across Europe. This is good news. We all agreed (and Bob outlined the conclusions of the peer review panel on this point) that there was of course a cascade of confidence as we move down from continental to 25km scale, but, so long as the uncertainties were clearly presented, this was robust. The remainder of the conversation focussed on the Weather Generator. JM raised two issues on this (a) that the level of "statistical noise" involved in moving down from 25km to 5km scale meant that the results became so uncertain to the virtually worthless and (b) the very fact that so many sensible scientific experts shared this opinion risked discrediting the rest of the UKCP09 package - essentially everything was getting `tainted' by the WG. She argued we should drop it. In response BM set out the justification for the WG using the usual arguments. As you know Ministers have also raised questions about this so we will need to go back to them with some further advice, starting with a heads up at the meeting with SofS tomorrow afternoon. Please could you provide some further advice on three questions - a quick initial view by tomorrow afternoon insofar as this is possible would be v helpful: Who needs the WG? Ie What is the user community and what do they want it for? For example, do EA plan to use it in relation to floods modelling? Coastal mapping? River flows? Etc What about users wanting to do heatwave planning - what does WG given them that 25km data doesn't. [A few specific examples would be most useful here rather than generic information] What are the practical issues involved if Ministers decide they want to drop it from the launch of UKCP09 (either to ditch it altogether, or to release in some different way)? (I mean removing all reference to it on the UI and other documents, not simply referring to it but making it impossible to access which would be misleading). How doable is it in time available? I assume we would need UKCIP input on these two questions, which is fine, making clear no decision has been taken. More technically, what is strength of the argument, in terms of the escalation of the level of uncertainty in moving down to 5km scale. If her argument is that 25km is at the absolute limit of what the climate model capacities allow, is it fair to say that when bringing this together with observed historical data at 5km scale (ie local perturbations) to produce the WG we are moving into even greater levels of uncertainty? Would having a WG at 25km scale theoretically get around this? Happy to discuss further. Robin Robin Mortimer Director Climate Change Adaptation, Air Quality, Landscape & Rural Affairs (CALR) Defra Tel: 020 7238 4226 Mob: 07733 037968 PA: Lynn Korup (tel as above) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1632. 2009-05-19 16:36:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 19 16:36:24 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: TMP: cruts3 extended to 2008 to: Ian Harris Harry -- problems occur in the latest PRE data too -- attachment again shows seasonal country means. There are some big outliers here -- see Cuba on page 3! USA on page 4 is particularly worrying... the last decade is all way too high. Even though it USA is a big country and there are a number of years with erroneously high values, it might still be down to outliers (just lot's of them!). At 16:15 19/05/2009, Phil Jones wrote: Harry, Hope you can easily sort out the outliers. Might they be values where the flags say don't use? They seem like individual station values that you could get rid of with an outlier check. The Cook Islands are interesting. Cheers Phil At 16:03 19/05/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Harry and Phil, attached are my comparisons of last year's CRU TS 3.00 seasonal country averages through to end of 2005 (I didn't use the Jan2006-Jun2006 data) in pink, with the extended CRU TS 3.00 through to end of 2008. I've just shown 1940-2008, otherwise things get too small to see clearly. There are differences throughout, but most are fairly minor. Small differences (e.g. +-0.1) might be related to my calculations, which I've done at full precision but I've only written the final country/seasonal means out with 1 decimal place. However it is likely that there are some cases that really have shifted by a small amount between the two Harry versions. Any idea why early data has changed? A number of big outliers have also been introduced. Some are in the update period but are clearly wrong. Some are in the pre-2005 period but are not in the previous CRUTS3 data from last year -- have you turned off any QC checking when making the new extended version? p.4 Guatemal SON 1995 p.5 Greenland DJF 1995/6 p.6 France/Germany/Denmark SON 2006 (these might be real?) p.10 Mauritania SON 1994 p.11 Ivory Coast (+p.12 Burkina.) SON 1999 p.12 Mali/Algeria/Niger JJA 2005 p.12 Mail (not Algeria/Niger) SON 1994 p.13 Ethiopia/Eritrea/Somalia JJA 2002 p.14 Kenya/Tanzania JJA 2002 (opposite sign to Ethiopia!) p.16 Mozambique/Zimbabwe MAM 2004 p.17 Madagascar MAM 1996 p.23 Tuvalu/Kiribati MAM 1997 p.23 Tuvalu JJA 1947 p.23 Tuvalu/Kiri./Marshall/Caro.) DJF 1995/6 p.24 Tonga SON 1994 I made anomaly maps for annual means for 2006, 2007 and 2008. They looked quite similar to the HadCRUT3 maps on Climate Monitor. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4386. 2009-05-19 17:22:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:22:15 +0100 from: "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" subject: RE: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator to: "C G Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , "Roger Street" Quick outcome from the meeting with the Secretary of State: - He is comfortable to launch the weather generator. - It may launch a few weeks after the public launch as it is tied in with the fate of the UI- decision on that should be made soon. - Suggested that Bob Watson, Robin are joined by Chris/Phil to go back to Jacqui in a conference call and discuss her concerns with the WG, as it is still unclear what they are- for a few weeks time. Will set this up soon. - I'll do some "weather generator sound bites" as part of the launch comms. Thanks for all your help this morning! Kathryn From: C G Kilsby [mailto:c.g.kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2009 12:21 To: 'Phil Jones'; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); 'Jenkins, Geoff'; 'Roger Street' Subject: RE: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator I'm away 25-28 too. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2009 12:13 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); C G Kilsby; Jenkins, Geoff; Roger Street Subject: RE: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator Kathryn, I'd be happy to do this. I'm away next week May 25-28. Cheers Phil At 11:13 19/05/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: Thanks Phil, Chris and Geoff- I am whacking all of this into a document to take through with Robin later. I know this is extremely frustrating for you and completely understand where you are coming from. This is a political reaction, not one based on any scientific analysis of the weather generator. We did the peer review to take care of that. I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish. Therefore, every time they hear about any criticisms from anyone, they jump. I'll let you know how I get on in dealing with this today. It might be helpful if you come in, Chris and Phil, and speak direct to Robin as well at some point soon. Would you be happy to do this? Kathryn From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2009 10:40 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Chris Kilsby; Jenkins, Geoff; Roger Street Subject: Re: URGENT advice needed on Weather Generator Kathryn, What would be a good start to the first question would be to switch it around to who doesn't need the WG! As I've said on numerous occasions, if the WG isn't there, all the people that need it will go off and do their own thing. This will mean that individual sectors and single studies will do a whole range of different things. This will make uncertainties even larger! The UKCIP helpdesk will get the continual question - how do I get daily output? As for those that need it. The EA will need it, they have a scoping study which will show them how to use it. Similarly UKWIR have a scoping study doing much the same thing. I'm involved in the latter, which is being led by Atkins. There are a number of EPSRC projects that need it. What all these projects need are daily time series data for input into time series models (agricultural crop models, building design, river flow modelling and water resources, and there are likely many more). Anyone who wants to look at sequences of temperature and precipitation in the future will need it. Many users are expecting it! WRT point 2, I'd have thought it was fully integrated into the reports. It is in the Briefing Report and probably mentioned in the Science report. WRT point 3, if the WG was at 25km scale, users would try and scale it down to 5km and you'd be back to users doing a whole range of different things. There is a section in the WG Report (5.2) on the scale issue. We can't do the WG at the 25km scale, as this is the RCM grid! The observed data are available at the 5km OS grid or at station (point) scales. They are not available at the 25km RCM rotated pole scale. No observed data are available on this scale/resolution. Many users will find it difficult to cope with the rotated RCM grid, and will say why can't the output be on the OS grid. Just seen Geoff's reply - totally agree, the scale issue is a red herring. What matters is daily output! There is an issue of user knowledge. The size of the WG output files means that users will need to know what they are doing when they get their output. Those working for the EA, UKWIR and within the above projects will. It is likely that Joe Public and media types won't. Have any of these 'sensible scientific experts' have read the WG Report or read the Briefing Document? We have been through the international peer review like the rest of the report. We had a lot less to respond to than the science report. Why don't we (Chris, Geoff, me) get a chance to talk to these 'sensible scientific experts'! Are we not deemed 'sensible', 'scientific', or 'expert' enough? I know you're only the messenger, Kathryn! It seems to me that your Director, and DG etc have no idea what users want or how UKCP09 will be used. Cheers Phil PS Colin will have some results comparing UKCP09 for two sites (Ringway and LHR) later this morning. These compare 2050s medium UKCP09 output (produced via the interface) with a different RCM simulation produced by MOHC (with extra heat input into major UK cities) from the SCORCHIO project. Colin will also redo the 10 key sites by the end of the week. Everything so far, looks exactly as expected. Output comes back in about 15 minutes now. At 09:43 19/05/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: Hi all, Could you please send me some comments urgently on the issues below. I have a meeting with Hilary Benn this afternoon and this is likely to come up (at 4.30). As you know we have already given him some advice on the weather generator but perhaps I need to give them more on the validity tests etc as well. I think the problem here is that the people in these meetings (my Director-General, Director and so forth) don't have the technical background to be able to head off these criticisms at the time. The advice I put up previously was to keep the WG in with the launch package. Anyway as a start if you can give me responses to the three points below that would be very helpful! Kathryn _____________________________________________ From: Mortimer, Robin (CALR) Sent: 18 May 2009 20:00 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) Cc: Unwin, Peter (NEG); Watson, Robert (SEG); Capstick, Jonathan (ACC); Maresh, Jennifer (ACC); Lewis, Rupert (ACC); Cahill, Teige (ACC); Hurst, Martin (WaFERR); Hawley, Clare (ACC); Packer, Kathryn (ACC) Subject: advice needed on Weather Generator Importance: High Kathryn, Bob Watson, Peter Unwin and I spoke to Jackie McGlade this evening, along with Bob Mitchell and James from Met Office. After some initial misunderstanding about the nature of the criticisms Jackie McGlade has been making about UKCP09, she clarified that she is very supportive of the approach being taken to downscaling to 25km grid square level; and indeed would be willing to champion this being adopted more widely across Europe. This is good news. We all agreed (and Bob outlined the conclusions of the peer review panel on this point) that there was of course a cascade of confidence as we move down from continental to 25km scale, but, so long as the uncertainties were clearly presented, this was robust. The remainder of the conversation focussed on the Weather Generator. JM raised two issues on this (a) that the level of "statistical noise" involved in moving down from 25km to 5km scale meant that the results became so uncertain to the virtually worthless and (b) the very fact that so many sensible scientific experts shared this opinion risked discrediting the rest of the UKCP09 package - essentially everything was getting `tainted' by the WG. She argued we should drop it. In response BM set out the justification for the WG using the usual arguments. As you know Ministers have also raised questions about this so we will need to go back to them with some further advice, starting with a heads up at the meeting with SofS tomorrow afternoon. Please could you provide some further advice on three questions - a quick initial view by tomorrow afternoon insofar as this is possible would be v helpful: Who needs the WG? Ie What is the user community and what do they want it for? For example, do EA plan to use it in relation to floods modelling? Coastal mapping? River flows? Etc What about users wanting to do heatwave planning - what does WG given them that 25km data doesn't. [A few specific examples would be most useful here rather than generic information] What are the practical issues involved if Ministers decide they want to drop it from the launch of UKCP09 (either to ditch it altogether, or to release in some different way)? (I mean removing all reference to it on the UI and other documents, not simply referring to it but making it impossible to access which would be misleading). How doable is it in time available? I assume we would need UKCIP input on these two questions, which is fine, making clear no decision has been taken. More technically, what is strength of the argument, in terms of the escalation of the level of uncertainty in moving down to 5km scale. If her argument is that 25km is at the absolute limit of what the climate model capacities allow, is it fair to say that when bringing this together with observed historical data at 5km scale (ie local perturbations) to produce the WG we are moving into even greater levels of uncertainty? Would having a WG at 25km scale theoretically get around this? Happy to discuss further. Robin Robin Mortimer Director Climate Change Adaptation, Air Quality, Landscape & Rural Affairs (CALR) Defra Tel: 020 7238 4226 Mob: 07733 037968 PA: Lynn Korup (tel as above) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1806. 2009-05-20 08:46:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tim Osborn" date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:46:46 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: TMP: cruts3 extended to 2008 to: "Ian Harris" Hi again -- are you sure you've used the latest CRUTS3 that runs up to end of 2008, that I'm using. And are you using the netCDF 1901-2008 versions too, that were made on 8th/9th May? I've only looked at the netCDF files, perhaps some discrepancy could have been introduced coverting ascii to netCDF and/or combining pre-jul-2006 with post-jun-2006 into one file? In case they're useful, I've made similar seasonal country mean comparisions between CRUTS3(ver up to jun2006) and CRUTS(ver up to dec2008) for vap, dtr, tmn, tmx and wet. They're all here: /cru/u2/f055/to/cruts/ Most show some occasional weirdness/outliers, generally no worse than tmp and pre (some are better). WET is, however, considerably different. It looks to me like the data from actual WET obs is looking good, but that the WET anomalies that have been estimated from PRE anomalies (in the absence of WET obs) and scaled wrongly (e.g. 10 or 100 times too small?) before being combined with the other anomalies and the climatology. There are many parts of time series with reasonably looking mean levels but dramatically reduced variance (almost look like horizontal lines). It's only a guess, but seems possible. Hope that helps. I'm happy to take a look through the process with you if that might help to spot potential problems with intermediate files and hence narrow down any problems. Tim On Tue, May 19, 2009 5:51 pm, Ian Harris wrote: > Hi Tim, > > The GPCC comparisons are with the same data you're using. Of course, > we are using different regional definitions, but there still > shouldn't be major discrepancies. Again, I'll look at cases later > this week. > > Cheers for these checks - very useful!! > > Harry > > On 19 May 2009, at 16:38, Tim Osborn wrote: > >> Harry -- problems occur in the latest PRE data too -- attachment >> again shows seasonal country means. There are some big outliers >> here -- see Cuba on page 3! USA on page 4 is particularly >> worrying... the last decade is all way too high. Even though it >> USA is a big country and there are a number of years with >> erroneously high values, it might still be down to outliers (just >> lot's of them!). Cook Islands on page 25 is again interesting! >> >> Have you turned off some QC procedure when doing the last update? >> Phil showed me some plots you had made earlier with comparison to >> GPCC data that seemed to behave much better -- but were they made >> with an earlier version of CRUTS3.00? >> >> Sorry to add further problems! >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> At 16:15 19/05/2009, Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> Harry, >>> Hope you can easily sort out the outliers. Might they be values >>> where the flags say don't use? They seem like individual station >>> values that you could get rid of with an outlier check. >>> >>> The Cook Islands are interesting. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 16:03 19/05/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: >>>> Hi Harry and Phil, >>>> >>>> attached are my comparisons of last year's CRU TS 3.00 seasonal >>>> country averages through to end of 2005 (I didn't use the Jan2006- >>>> Jun2006 data) in pink, with the extended CRU TS 3.00 through to >>>> end of 2008. >>>> >>>> I've just shown 1940-2008, otherwise things get too small to see >>>> clearly. >>>> >>>> There are differences throughout, but most are fairly minor. >>>> Small differences (e.g. +-0.1) might be related to my >>>> calculations, which I've done at full precision but I've only >>>> written the final country/seasonal means out with 1 decimal >>>> place. However it is likely that there are some cases that >>>> really have shifted by a small amount between the two Harry >>>> versions. Any idea why early data has changed? >>>> >>>> A number of big outliers have also been introduced. Some are in >>>> the update period but are clearly wrong. Some are in the >>>> pre-2005 period but are not in the previous CRUTS3 data from last >>>> year -- have you turned off any QC checking when making the new >>>> extended version? >>>> >>>> p.4 Guatemal SON 1995 >>>> p.5 Greenland DJF 1995/6 >>>> p.6 France/Germany/Denmark SON 2006 (these might be real?) >>>> p.10 Mauritania SON 1994 >>>> p.11 Ivory Coast (+p.12 Burkina.) SON 1999 >>>> p.12 Mali/Algeria/Niger JJA 2005 >>>> p.12 Mail (not Algeria/Niger) SON 1994 >>>> p.13 Ethiopia/Eritrea/Somalia JJA 2002 >>>> p.14 Kenya/Tanzania JJA 2002 (opposite sign to >>>> Ethiopia!) >>>> p.16 Mozambique/Zimbabwe MAM 2004 >>>> p.17 Madagascar MAM 1996 >>>> p.23 Tuvalu/Kiribati MAM 1997 >>>> p.23 Tuvalu JJA 1947 >>>> p.23 Tuvalu/Kiri./Marshall/Caro.) DJF 1995/6 >>>> p.24 Tonga SON 1994 >>>> >>>> I made anomaly maps for annual means for 2006, 2007 and 2008. >>>> They looked quite similar to the HadCRUT3 maps on Climate Monitor. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------- >> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> >> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >> phone: +44 1603 592089 >> fax: +44 1603 507784 >> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> > > Ian "Harry" Harris > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ > United Kingdom > > > -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ 2964. 2009-05-20 13:01:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:01:49 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: Re: CIRCE urban heat island simulations for Athens to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,c.harpham@uea.ac.uk >X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender >to using -f >X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,215,1241395200"; > d="txt'?scan'208";a="6133780" >Subject: Re: CIRCE urban heat island simulations for Athens >From: Mark McCarthy >To: CHRISTOS GIANNAKOPOULOS >Cc: Clare Goodess , maureen agnew >Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:16:32 +0100 >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, f034) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f034 (inherits from >UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 22421490 - 429395a988f2 >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22421490&m=429395a988f2&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22421490&m=429395a988f2&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22421490&m=429395a988f2&c=s >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 > >Hi Christos, > > Thanks for this. Glad you downloaded the data OK. Answers to your >questions are: > >1) In section 3.1 of my report I use the urban tile from NoUrbNoAnth and >define the urban heat island as the difference between the urban tile >and the gridcell mean. In this particular experiment the urban coverage >is set to zero so that there is no feedback of the urban surface onto >the gridcell mean. This was done for simplicity. For section 3.2 I also >reference the other experiments, but I do use the urban tile >temperatures. > >2) Yes the missing gridcells are sea points in the model. > >3) Model resolution is 25km. It is on a rotated pole grid so the cells >are not aligned N-S. I attach a file of lat-lon coords for the corners >of the gridcells. You will also notice that it does not fit neatly over >Athens. The model will have the peak heat island where there is peak >urban coverage. Therefore gridcell 5 is defined as the "Athens" gridcell >for the model because it has the highest urban fraction (40%). You >should already have the fractional coverage of surface types for each >gridcell but let me know if you do not. > >4) No I do not use neighbouring grid cells. There are significant >temperature differences between the "central" athens gridcell and its >neighbours even without the inclusion of urban areas. Therefore I >defined the urban heat island using the NoUrbNoAnth experiment (see >answer to quest. 1 above). This will be an underestimate because we do >not account for the feedback into the atmosphere. Defining what the >urban heat island actually is for both model and observations is rather >tricky. > >With reference to your plots: > >Fig.1 What are the observations? Are they a single station or from a >gridded product? > >The model appears to have a significant summer warm bias. For such a >local comparison we shouldn't expect to achieve quantitative agreement >between the model and the observations. The purpose of the frequency of >hot nights/days in the report is to show the sensitivity of extremes to >urbanisation and climate change. You could always try applying a simple >bias correction to the model temperatures and then recalculate the >exceedences to see if that brings the model and observations more in- >line. > >Kind regards, >Mark > >On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 13:12 +0300, CHRISTOS GIANNAKOPOULOS wrote: > > Dear Mark, > > > > we have started to process the UHI data for Athens from the data we have > > dowloaded from the website you have pointed out. > > Our first task was to try to reproduce the figures in your CIRCE UHI > > report. The attached file contans some of our graphs where we have also > > added the observations from the station of NOA in the centre of the city. > > Some questions remain: > > 1) we believe that in your figure reports you are using the > temperature from > > the tiles and not the gridcell mean. Pls confirm > > 2) for Athens some gridcells are missing (7, 8,9) from the files we have > > downloaded. We believe they are missing becasue they are sea gridcells. Pls > > confirm. > > 3) Can you provide us the exact coordinates of the cells for the files in > > the website? What is the model resolution (25km?)? > > 4) In your report to calcuate the UHI, you use all the neighboring cells of > > the city? > > > > Please let me know if you want more clarifications on these. > > We will be happy to provide more plots if needed. > > Best, > > Christos > > > > Dr. Christos Giannakopoulos > > Senior Researcher > > Institute for Environmental Research and Sustainable Development > > National Observatory of Athens > > V.Pavlou and Metaxa Str., P.Pendeli > > GR-15236 Athens, Greece > > Tel: +30-210-8109128 > > Fax: +30-2108103236 > > email: cgiannak@meteo.noa.gr >-- >Mark McCarthy Climate Impacts Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB >Tel: +44(0)1392 884672 Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 >E-mail: mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\athenscoords.txt" 77. 2009-05-20 19:34:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:34:30 -0400 from: Bob Webster subject: Re: Greenhouse gas warming question to: Phil Jones Phil, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. I particularly appreciated the paper you included regarding the cooling issue during the 1970s. Just a few comments on my perspective: As a scientist (BS, Mathematics) whose interest in meteorology, climatology, geology and astronomy began before my teen years (an age when most of my friends would guess that a meteorologist was someone who studied meteors!) and included a subscription to the old US Weather Bureau's "Daily Weather Maps" (which lasted into my late 20s), I've long had an interest in scientific issues, especially earth sciences. I was in my mid-30s in the 1970s when major newspapers and news magazines were proclaiming the dangers of global cooling and the possibility that humans were bringing on a new ice age. I recall vividly Carl Sagan's TV show wherein he spoke of this issue and certainly seemed much more than neutral in regard to the global cooling issue. I noticed your paper cited him as being "neutral" (at least in his published work). Perhaps there is a good reason to distinguish between scientific literature and mass media, but when the mass media were being fueled by a number of scientists including Sagan and Steven Schneider (in a published paper): "Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an increase in atmospheric CO[2 ]... Even an eight-fold increase over present levels might warm the Earth's surface less than 2 degrees Centigrade, and this is unlikely in the next several thousand years." So understand that to many who heard the doomsayers proclaiming through the media that global cooling was a distinct possibility if we didn't do something about industrial aerosol pollution, there is a vivid memory of the claims despite the evident lack of a majority of scientists writing journal-level papers in support of the cooling claim. Perhaps more of the warming scientists should have spoken up, but then, they might have encountered Dr. Schneider's rage and simply preferred to keep silent in public. I understood the quotes I cited from your website were from the IPCC Report, but appearing as they did, clearly they are endorsed by you and CRU. I do not find the IPCC's report convincing. The evident lack of any serious attempt to put recent climate change in perspective with natural climate variability (or to even attempt to understand natural variability) is a major weakness of the IPCC position. In short, no problem-solving expert would ever endorse an approach that starts with a "solution" and work backwards to support the pre-conceived solution (the course apparently taken by the IPCC). Logically, the question of recent climate change needs to be addressed by first understanding past climate change. No theory should be put forth that is inconsistent with climate change as evidenced in the geologic record. Yet there is little attempt to understand climate change over any meaningful past timeframe, whether it be the drivers of ice age cycles/interglacials, or of ice epochs, or of ice eras. Certainly, earth's typical climate needs to be addressed and some understanding of what causes such variations. While continental drift/creation/destruction will certainly influence climate at any given spot on the planet, it is unlikely that it can explain why much of earth's history has had atmospheric CO[2] at substantially higher levels: Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\co2-levels-over-time1.jpg" If carbon dioxide was insufficient at 4500 ppm to significantly warm the planet 450 million years ago, why should it be any different today? In a nutshell, what I find difficult to accept is a wholly theoretical view being held as scientific reality when, in fact, the only validation of the AGW theory is by suspect computer models driven by assumptions and conjecture and supported by suspect "methodologies" designed to prove things that empirical observations are better-suited to determine, such as the predicted mid-tropospheric tropical warming "signature" of greenhouse gas warming (not observed by either satellite or radiosonde measurements!). Other gimmicks (e.g., the Mann, et al, "Hockey Stick" curve designed to eliminate the inconveniences of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and to certify a claim of "unprecedented" for late 20th-century warming) simply ring hollow upon close examination of all other accepted measures of climate history. While I freely admit I am a climate realist (or skeptic, but then all scientists should be skeptics) as opposed to climate alarmist, I have no interest in being wrong about this. Because my interest in climatology and geology armed me with knowledge of how continental drift changes the face of the earth significantly in as little as 25 million years, and that earth's typical climate (when not in an ice age cycle/ice epoch/ice era) is substantially warmer with no sea-level permanent ice, even at the poles, then it is hard for me to get excited about predictions of temperature rises that, by meaningful timeframes in climatology, are rather ordinary. Compounding my doubts are the geologic evidence of the atmospheric CO2 history and lack of any possible significant greenhouse gas causation for past climate change as illustrated above. I would be interested in your response to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu's recent paper, "Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming) and (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming)" attached below. Looking at the last seven years of your own chart, a clear cooling trend emerges: Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\gtc2008.gif" If atmospheric carbon dioxide is such a powerful driver (as claimed by the IPCC with their predictions of rapid warmth), then how is it possible to have a seven year cooling trend while carbon dioxide continues its upward march? Too many inconsistencies backed by too many weak assumptions are characteristic of the IPCC debacle. I apologize for failing to be as brief as I had intended. Despite our obvious differences, I do value your perspective and appreciate any helpful views you might have in this regard. Best regards, Bob Webster Vero Beach, FL PS: According to many local long-time residents, Vero Beach has just has one of the coldest winters (in terms of number of low temperature days, not record lows) in at least three decades. Outlook is for a cool, wet summer. On May 20, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Bob, I'd suggest you look at the IPCC Report (AR4). The quotes on some of our pages come from the Summary for Policymakers Report in 2007. You can access the report on this page [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ They seem to have also put up the frequently asked questions. On the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, I'd suggest you look at Ch 2. These show what you say modest changes in CO2 have on the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. Millions of years ago the continents were in different positions. Also as you mention global cooling - see the attached. This media belief wasn't the scientific concensus in the 1970s. The cooling papers got the media attention, but the majority even then were going for warming. Cheers Phil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Bob Webster [[2] mailto:bwebster@att.net] Sent: 20 May 2009 01:33 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Greenhouse gas warming question CRU: The following bold statement is contained on the page: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ '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' On what bases are the "greenhouse gas" causation and "human" impact claimed? I have read and followed this issue since it arose from the global cooling fears of the 1970s (having taken a keen interest in meteorology and climatology at age 13 in the 1950s and pursued my scientific interests through a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics). Climate history informs us that temperature rates of change (century basis) have ranged far greater than any of the small changes seen during the past several hundred years. Current change is well within nominal rates of change (per century). Most of earth's climate history has been typically far warmer with far higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Ironically, and, apparently inexplicably to the above conclusion, atmospheric CO2 has also been an order of magnitude higher than at present during a most severe ice era! Indeed by comparison to historic levels, earth's atmosphere is CO2-starved and dangerously close to the extinction level for plant life (low 100s ppm). To suggest that modest (by historic standards) elevations of CO2 to 600 or even 1000 ppm would cause significant warming is to deny historic evidence that is without question contradictory (fatally) to that suggestion! Humans have never known earth's typical climate (when it is not in an ice epoch of an ice era as it is at present). The current interglacial, while warm by comparison with an ice age, is still far colder than temperatures when earth is not in an ice epoch and very much colder than when earth is not in an ice era (i.e., ~90% of earth's life-supporting time has experienced far warmer temperatures). Atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been correlated with temperature on the scale that is strongest for the argument of causation (units of tens or hundreds of millions of years). The only scale showing a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is the scale of hundreds of thousands of years and that data clearly show that CO2 responds to temperature changes, it does not lead or cause them (due to ocean outgassing/absorption of CO2 with temperature change). Knowing that greenhouse gases have never been a significant cause of global climate change, it is puzzling to read the bold statement made above. Is there anything other than conjecture that can support the claims that temperature changes are (1) caused by CO2 and (2) primarily due to the CO2 that results from human industry? Thank you for consideration of my inquiry, Robert D. Webster Vero Beach, Florida ________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ IMPORTANT: The sender intends that this electronic message is for exclusive use by the person to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or the use of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender of your inadvertent receipt and delete this message from all data storage systems. Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\petersonetal2008.pdf" Bob Webster "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H.L. Mencken "I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant." -- H. L. Mencken "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -- MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts." -- Sen. Patrick Moynihan "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." -- Harry S. Truman ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ IMPORTANT: The sender intends that this electronic message is for exclusive use by the person to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or the use of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender of your inadvertent receipt and delete this message from all data storage systems. 624. 2009-05-21 09:16:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:16:26 -0400 from: Ray Bradley subject: Re: Fwd: Re: nomination: materials needed! to: Phil Jones Dear Mr Diplomacy, Good job! Ray At 08:04 AM 5/21/2009, you wrote: Malcolm, Ray, Mike is happy to be put forward next year (June 10). He says he will have another Science and another Nature paper by then! He says he remind me (and you) in good time. I'm sure he will! Cheers Phil At 22:59 18/05/2009, Malcolm Hughes wrote: I agree that someone should nominate Mike, although anyone who asks for an honour should be made to wait at least one year..... I am teaching all day everyday for the next three weeks (summer school) , will take a few days off before my wife goes to Russia for the summer, and then have the Wigley meeting followed by a trip to Yoorp. There may be a more important issue, which is that I'm already associated with a couple of other nominations (one of which I'm leading), so it would probably be best if we could find someone else to coordinate and be the first signatory. Alternatively, tell Mike we'll try next year... By the way, does he know Fred Singer is an AGU Fellow? It made me think about renouncing (!#@!) my fellowship. Cheers, Malcolm Phil Jones wrote: Ray, Malcolm, I thought I might get an email like this! Obvious question, do either of you want to take the lead on this? I'd be happy to write a supporting letter. Difficulty co-ordinating this is that I'm away next week and then two in June, and then there is Tom Wigley's symposium. Cheers Phil From: Michael Mann To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: nomination: materials needed! Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:31:16 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) 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: 22296719 - d5bdbb400b77 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: X-Antispam-Training-Spam: X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Hey Phil, I hope all is well w/ you these days. Been a while since I've actually seen you. Perhaps can convince you to make it to EGU next year? Looks like it will be in Vienna again. I rather enjoyed this one, and I think I may go back next year. On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;) I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate. anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 < [1]http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html Publications (download .pdf files): [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to! * 2125. 2009-05-21 09:18:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:18:58 +0100 from: "Colin Harpham" subject: SCORCHIO cfs to: "Clare Goodess" , "Phil Jones" Clare/Phil, If we were to use a different baseline to calculate the cfs in order to inflate the scenario for the central UHI cell could we justify it? Looking at it from an outsiders perspective I would ask the following questions: 1) Why has a different baseline been used to calculate the cfs, does this imply that the 1971-1990 period (for e.g. Urb3Anth) does not reflect observed climate? 2) If the baseline period is incorrect then can we have confidence in the WG scenario produced? 3) UrbAnth - noUrbnoAnth has been used to calculate cfs for an urban cell when we know from observed data that cell already contains urban and anthropogenic influences for 1971-1990. Or something along those lines... Opinions? Once I have finished the UKCP09 testing I'll calculate the cfs for UrbAnth - noUrbnoAnth and Urb3Anth - noUrbnoAnth to see what the numbers actually look like. Cheers Colin 3997. 2009-05-21 09:36:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:36:00 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: AR5 to: Keith Briffa , Hi Keith - thanks. Sorry to hear about your Mother. I think the invites have gone out for Venice, and so far the only one from AR4 Chap 6 going is me - or rather, I haven't heard from anyone else. Eystein isn't going since Norway has a bunch from the other WGs. Seems "representation" isn't working in our favor. I would really like more there, and I fear that if it's just me, it's another sign that paleo won't be a chapter since I can't be CLA again of such a chapter (fortunately for my family!). Based on limited discussions w/ Thomas, I also get the sense of a paleo chapter might be an uphill battle, but on the other hand, a conservative approach would be to stick close to the AR4 outline. That said, it appears that the gov's are pushing even harder for more regional, so... Your list is a big help, and I wonder if you could arm us with some good graphics where you can on these issues, especially the latest on Paleo model evaluation - showing what the models can and can't do. Of course, the non-paleo folks like to argue that if their is mismatch, it's the paleo data, but with the right results and presentation, that can be overcome. Need some compelling graphics that are post AR4 - if there are papers or manuscripts that's even better, but even if not at that stage. I'm going to guess that Gabi will be there (do you know?) and will do the sensitivity part. But, if you know of new stuff, pls send also. Your regional idea is a good one - want to share some compelling examples of where paleo (more than one proxy always good) is informing the full range of variability in specific regions, and illustrating ca last 50 years vs the longer record. I can think of some good examples, but you might have some recent ones I haven't seen. Wegan followup - should I ask Caspar? I haven't heard anything, but it would be good... Hydrologic fits well with regional, so I think I'd emphasize it, although some temp would be good too. More on extremes? Anything out there that's new and compelling? This is just a scoping mtg, so only a small subset of those who will be involved. You need to get your gov to push you once the chapter outline is decided (i.e., you get nominated for specific roles in specific chapters - or at least that is how it worked before - suspect you know the drill). I'm guessing that if there is no paleo chapter, then the backup will be to have strong paleo (at least a person) in relevant chapters, with a cross-cutting paleo caucus or something so that the paleo Las across the AR5 can work together to ensure there is consensus on things and that the parts make up a coherent and compelling whole. But, I'll be pushing for a chapter since that is clearly the best outcome. Need those compelling examples to make it work - need to show it's too much great stuff to be sprinkled throughout other chapters. Thanks again, Peck On 5/21/09 7:43 AM, "Keith Briffa" wrote: > Hi Peck and Eystein > sorry have not responded to recent emails re Palaeo stuff in next > IPCC assessment - have been away from the Unit and email because of > the death of my mother and ensuing issues. I simply would add that in > terms of pure pragmatism , efficiently stitching in Paleodata into > separate chapters is likely to be impractical - a self-standing > chapter - even of restricted length would be more feasibly achieved. > In terms of specific issues , top of my list would be model > validation progress , and a description of where we are in attempts > to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity with the use of > palaeodata - covered I know in Gab's chapter last time. Updating the > high-resolution work would have to be in there for continuity but > perhaps with an attempt to assess specific regional changes , and > between-proxy comparisons. If completed , "the big challenge" work > that arose from the Wengen meeting would be good. Then "new" data - > e.g. new proxies or areas not covered before - with much more on > hydrologic change. I agree about the inclusion of less-resolved > proxies. Finally, the "important issues we highlighted at the end of > the AR4 chapter should be reviewed and the issues updated. > Do you know whether the list for the scoping meeting in Venice has > been selected - if I have not been invited does this mean I will not be? > > 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 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 regalado@email.arizona.edu 1177. 2009-05-21 12:52:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: Valrie Masson-Delmotte , Denis-Didier Rousseau date: Thu May 21 12:52:46 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: cp-2009-3 - Missing Author Comment to: editorial@copernicus.org Dear Natasha, I don't see how you can make the assumption you have since your last email of May 13! Today is May 21 - 8 days later! We are preparing a revised paper!!! We had almost completed it when we saw that there was another comment! Valerie told me that you had all the comments on April 21. You informed me on May 13 that the review period had closed. It was then that I saw there was a third one. I didn't see the need to respond, until we decided how to revise the manuscript. I thought it was standard practice with journals to get the comments and respond with a revised paper with all the responses at the same time. In this way a second review will be able to see how we have responded. We have not been slow in this, but we have other things to do! My colleague has been away for a couple of weeks. We are trying to prepare a large amount of Supplementary Information as that was what one of the comments asked for. I'm attaching the comments as they are at the moment. They are nearly final except for details of exactly how we reproduce the Supplementary Material. This is the bit in yellow. I have gone out of my way to write this paper, at the request of the editor. If this paper ever comes out, I don't think I will be submitting another one. It seems perverse to have respond before revising the paper, and then given only 8 days to do it! Best Regards Phil At 12:01 21/05/2009, you wrote: Dear Prof Jones, With regret we have to inform you that we had to interrupt the peer-review process of your following manuscript: Journal: CP Title: The influence of the circulation on surface temperature and precipitation patterns over Europe Author(s): PD Jones and DH Lister MS No.: cp-2009-3 Unfortunately, you have not posted any Author Comment in the interactive discussion during the Final Response Phase. This comment is required as a reply to the contributions in the discussion and has to be posted before a revised paper can be submitted. Therefore, we assume that you are not going to submit a revised paper for the final journal publication. Perhaps this is simply due to an oversight on your part. In that case, you are kindly asked to contact me. Thank you very much for your cooperation! You are invited to monitor the history of your manuscript via the MS Overview: [1]http://editor.copernicus.org/CP/my_manuscript_overview To log in, please use your Copernicus Office User ID 45253. With kind regards, Natascha Töpfer Copernicus Publications Editorial Support Office editorial@copernicus.org on behalf of the CP Editorial Board Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2791. 2009-05-21 14:19:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:19:44 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12429155842290144" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:19:44 UT Message-Id: <1912429155841@gems> Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for your review of "How Will Earth's Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?" by Judith Lean and David Rind [Paper #2009GL038932], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Anne Mueller Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category B Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: Formal Review: Second Review of Lean/Rind Most of my comments have been dealt with adequately. I've spotted only a few minor things this time. 1. At the top of p2 (line 1) it would be good to refer to Easterling and Wehner (2009) after the word decade. This paper has only recently come out, but it is very relevant to the point here. It is also relevant to the discussion in the Results section on p3, lines 21-26. Easterling and Wehner also show that in future GCM simulations there are periods of a decade in the future where little warming occurs. 2. On p3 (line 21) the format has gone awry, perhaps in the making of the pdf. What you are doing here is using the global average and the gridded data from HadCRUT3. You just need to say HadCRUT3v - exactly in this way. You seem also to have got the global average, but this would seem to be superfluous information. The dataset name is what is important. 3. p4, line 12, I think 1978-79 should be 1997-98, unless you've discovered a hitherto unknown ENSO event! 4. This same paragraph would be clearer if some of the text was moved around. The model fitting period of 1970-99 seems key information that should be earlier. You then plot everything from 1980-2008. Is there a reason why you look how well the model works for 2001-2005 and not for 2001-2008? Is one of the factors not yet available? 5. Glad to see that you've dropped reference to European winter warming from volcanic events. What matters here is what the real world says. Do look at the long European winter series some time! 6. Finally, maybe you need to supply the origins of the phrase 'past is prologue'. It is an interesting source. I can see Chinese scientists perplexed when they find out what prologue means! References Easterling, D.R. and Wehner, M., 2009: Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Letts. 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810. 1194. 2009-05-21 15:44:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:44:44 -0400 from: "Matt Foster - civis mundi" subject: a message for environmentalists everywhere to: Dear Dr. Briffa, I am making every effort to contact as many environmentalists as possible in an effort to join them in a common cause. Please take a few minutes to evaluate these ideas as we are quickly running out of time. I read an article a couple of months ago in the Guardian Weekly where the environmental scientists in Copenhagen asked world leaders to please do something. I wrote to the editor that perhaps the scientists should better ask the people to get back into the democracy game as our representative leaders now represent special interests and that they can do nothing. If we could get as little as two percent of the population mobile we might have a chance. I am going to try to forgo a lot of rhetoric and try to get to the point. In the fight to save this planet we are fragmented into ten thousand separate organizations all fighting to be heard. (Not to mention the hundreds of thousands trying to expose the depth of the situation and trying to spur the public into action) Never has the saying "divide and conquer' been truer than today. If we continue on this road we will win a few battles but this end game will be lost. Now I have never seen an NGO or activist group or a socio-democratic party ever say lets cooperate. This will never happen nor would I want it to - but - what would happen if every organization said "let's have all our members in all our organizations unite under one name worldwide". This group could grow into millions - a formidable force. The initial responsibility of this group would be to find and recruit every environmentalist world wide. (The beginning) Lets for the moment call these people WORLD CITIZENS as this is a complimentary term but because of the bias against any single dominate language let's call ourselves CIVIS MUNDI when we refer to the international concept. (Nationally people can use their own words for world citizen) The basic premise is simple - you need no money and almost no time to get involved. There are no rules and no dues - but a few suggestions that hopefully could grow into a specific mission. The idea needs to be a bit of fun - the chance to meet others - a sense of purpose - a commitment to something that each individual thinks is important (nothing is dictated) There could be a symbol, a badge, a membership card perhaps, a registry just to show how many of us there are, a universal greeting, and whatever else shows our participation. (Every time we see the color terra cotta or the symbol it should bring our cause to mind) The first thing a person does is say "I am a world citizen" (Civis Mundi Sum). They then put this little tag after their name on their email. They make up a little signature box to put at the end with a little message of their own choosing. Now every message that leaves the computer carries a second message that basically says "I'm concerned and I am doing something - please join with us". Initially gathering together people under one name does little in itself but the suggestions go beyond the initial building of worldwide comradely. The suggestions go from (one) recruiting to (two) supporting a cause to (three) actual participation in democracy. Everyone finds their own comfort level but everyone needs to do something. We have a hopeless situation here in North America. America has eliminated all left ideology and now attacks anything that does not meet the radical free market anarchist's ideology. We need to reengage in representative democracy or we will never get anywhere. (My political chart has received some small praise from a political scientist in Holland - you might find it interesting to see pictorially how ideology has moved right) I have my ideas at [1]www.civismundi.net. I can be reached at [2]civismundi@civismundi.net or [3]world@golden.net or 519 621 9908 To make any inroads in this end game we need this idea to be spearheaded by someone with some influential power - Perhaps you might circulate this email to other scientists if you believe it has any merit. Sincerely, -- [cid:image001.jpg@01C9DA2B.0F94D1F0] Matthew Foster - Civis Mundi After thousands of generations of humankind - we are the last generation that can engineer a solution to today's environmental crisis. [4]civismundi@civismundi.net [5]http://www.civismundi.net/ Embedded Content: image001139.jpg: 00000001,32c15854,00000000,00000000 1120. 2009-05-21 16:28:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:28:18 -0400 from: "Matt Foster - civis mundi" subject: a message for environmentalists everywhere to: Dear Professor Jones, I am making every effort to contact as many environmentalists as possible in an effort to join them in a common cause. Please take a few minutes to evaluate these ideas as we are quickly running out of time. I read an article a couple of months ago in the Guardian Weekly where the environmental scientists in Copenhagen asked world leaders to please do something. I wrote to the editor that perhaps the scientists should better ask the people to get back into the democracy game as our representative leaders now represent special interests and that they can do nothing. If we could get as little as two percent of the population mobile we might have a chance. I am going to try to forgo a lot of rhetoric and try to get to the point. In the fight to save this planet we are fragmented into ten thousand separate organizations all fighting to be heard. (Not to mention the hundreds of thousands trying to expose the depth of the situation and trying to spur the public into action) Never has the saying "divide and conquer' been truer than today. If we continue on this road we will win a few battles but this end game will be lost. Now I have never seen an NGO or activist group or a socio-democratic party ever say lets cooperate. This will never happen nor would I want it to - but - what would happen if every organization said "let's have all our members in all our organizations unite under one name worldwide". This group could grow into millions - a formidable force. The initial responsibility of this group would be to find and recruit every environmentalist world wide. (The beginning) Lets for the moment call these people WORLD CITIZENS as this is a complimentary term but because of the bias against any single dominate language let's call ourselves CIVIS MUNDI when we refer to the international concept. (Nationally people can use their own words for world citizen) The basic premise is simple - you need no money and almost no time to get involved. There are no rules and no dues - but a few suggestions that hopefully could grow into a specific mission. The idea needs to be a bit of fun - the chance to meet others - a sense of purpose - a commitment to something that each individual thinks is important (nothing is dictated) There could be a symbol, a badge, a membership card perhaps, a registry just to show how many of us there are, a universal greeting, and whatever else shows our participation. (Every time we see the color terra cotta or the symbol it should bring our cause to mind) The first thing a person does is say "I am a world citizen" (Civis Mundi Sum). They then put this little tag after their name on their email. They make up a little signature box to put at the end with a little message of their own choosing. Now every message that leaves the computer carries a second message that basically says "I'm concerned and I am doing something - please join with us". Initially gathering together people under one name does little in itself but the suggestions go beyond the initial building of worldwide comradely. The suggestions go from (one) recruiting to (two) supporting a cause to (three) actual participation in democracy. Everyone finds their own comfort level but everyone needs to do something. We have a hopeless situation here in North America. America has eliminated all left ideology and now attacks anything that does not meet the radical free market anarchist's ideology. We need to reengage in representative democracy or we will never get anywhere. (My political chart has received some small praise from a political scientist in Holland - you might find it interesting to see pictorially how ideology has moved right) I have my ideas at [1]www.civismundi.net. I can be reached at [2]civismundi@civismundi.net or [3]world@golden.net or 519 621 9908 To make any inroads in this end game we need this idea to be spearheaded by someone with some influential power - Perhaps you might circulate this email to other scientists if you believe it has any merit. Sincerely, -- [cid:image001.jpg@01C9DA31.251B5250] Matthew Foster - Civis Mundi After thousands of generations of humankind - we are the last generation that can engineer a solution to today's environmental crisis. [4]civismundi@civismundi.net [5]http://www.civismundi.net/ Embedded Content: image00140.jpg: 00000001,727f3568,00000000,00000000 787. 2009-05-22 09:12:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 22 09:12:51 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: NAM graphs to: Steve Jones Hi Steve, can we delay until 1030 this morning please? Cheers, Tim At 19:22 16/04/2009, you wrote: Hi Tim, After a brief hiatus over Easter, I've put together some graphs using the data you sent me the other week, which I've attached for you to look at. First up are nam1 and nam2, which show the differences between the NAM series generated by Miller (black lines) and you (red lines). During the 20th century there's not much in the way of differences between the two, except for the variability in a couple of cases. Your NAM series show a greater propensity to increase during the 21st century than Miller's. In means.eps, I've plotted unweighted (black) and weighted (red) mean values from your NAM series according to the scores I've calculated for the various models. The scores are in scores.xls, and the mean values are in the csv files. The minimum score for any model has been set to 0.1 so all models have at least some contribution to the weighted mean series. The two mean series are ultimately pretty close, but the weighted mean shows a slightly slower acceleration through the 21st century. I'd still like to make a couple of Taylor diagrams to see has the two match up to the ERA-40 data, but that should be a quick job once we've got a NAM series for it. Shall we meet up soon and decide where we are and what conclusions might be drawn from all of this? Steve. 1900,-2.07 1901,-0.05 1902,-2.09 1903,2.15 1904,2.38 1905,0.86 1906,1.57 1907,-2.85 1908,0.14 1909,1.32 1910,0.94 1911,0.4 1912,2.1 1913,-0.28 1914,1.51 1915,-2.08 1916,-0.81 1917,1.04 1918,0.24 1919,-2.3 1920,-1.5 1921,-1.11 1922,-0.66 1923,0.15 1924,-1.86 1925,-0.42 1926,0.79 1927,-0.72 1928,1.44 1929,-0.28 1930,1.75 1931,3.84 1932,0.31 1933,0.77 1934,-1.64 1935,-0.23 1936,-3.45 1937,2.49 1938,-0.46 1939,-1.24 1940,0.67 1941,-0.96 1942,-0.62 1943,-1.05 1944,0.46 1945,0.29 1946,-1.28 1947,0.92 1948,0.37 1949,1.74 1950,1.09 1951,0.8 1952,1.66 1953,0.74 1954,-1.49 1955,-0.1 1956,-2.4 1957,-0.36 1958,0.71 1959,-0.33 1960,-1.7 1961,1.02 1962,-0.1 1963,-0.34 1964,-1.32 1965,1.03 1966,1.62 1967,0.72 1968,0.03 1969,-2.09 1970,1.25 1971,-0.63 1972,1.53 1973,-1.54 1974,-1.67 1975,0.59 1976,-3.26 1977,-1.22 1978,0.8 1979,1.15 1980,-0.44 1981,-1.66 1982,-0.4 1983,3.63 1984,-0.1 1985,2.77 1986,-2.24 1987,-1.99 1988,0.56 1989,1.31 1990,0.88 1991,-1.68 1992,-0.93 1993,-1.7 1994,1.34 1995,0.3 1996,-1.32 1997,1.62 1998,0.48 1999,1.88 2000,0.4 2001,1.64 2002,0.74 2003,0.11 2004,2.06 2005,1.17 2006,0.2 2007,0.18 2008,2.25 2009,0.58 2010,1.78 2011,-0.12 2012,0.07 2013,2.59 2014,-0.92 2015,0.37 2016,3.46 2017,1.05 2018,1.5 2019,1.1 2020,2.08 2021,2.88 2022,1.47 2023,0.7 2024,1.86 2025,0.44 2026,2.45 2027,2.45 2028,2.05 2029,2.27 2030,3.08 2031,3.21 2032,2.77 2033,2.23 2034,2.53 2035,-1.49 2036,-0.77 2037,3.4 2038,3.27 2039,3.01 2040,0.85 2041,3.09 2042,3.57 2043,0.78 2044,1.91 2045,1.88 2046,2.37 2047,1.58 2048,2.64 2049,1.9 2050,3.61 2051,4.63 2052,1.03 2053,3.2 2054,3.13 2055,5.29 2056,3.12 2057,2.02 2058,2.12 2059,2.78 2060,3.3 2061,1.62 2062,3.16 2063,4.23 2064,2.46 2065,5.34 2066,0.39 2067,4.34 2068,1.29 2069,1.73 2070,3.16 2071,2.27 2072,2.28 2073,2.58 2074,2.05 2075,1.11 2076,5.3 2077,4.17 2078,2.89 2079,3.95 2080,4.73 2081,4.33 2082,4.65 2083,-0.04 2084,4.12 2085,4.36 2086,3.43 2087,3.34 2088,7.14 2089,1.9 2090,3.42 2091,4.01 2092,3.73 2093,3.36 2094,2.3 2095,4.89 2096,3.72 2097,3.57 2098,4.76 2099,2.05 2100,6.57 1900,-0.74 1901,-2.14 1902,-1.77 1903,3.48 1904,1.68 1905,-0.62 1906,2.25 1907,-1.55 1908,-1.55 1909,2.02 1910,-1.34 1911,1.63 1912,0.14 1913,-2.43 1914,1 1915,-3.18 1916,-0.68 1917,1.82 1918,-0.7 1919,-1.66 1920,-2.67 1921,-1.79 1922,0.96 1923,0.23 1924,-2.93 1925,1.87 1926,0.96 1927,-3 1928,-0.69 1929,-1.97 1930,1.93 1931,4.11 1932,1.3 1933,0.21 1934,-0.58 1935,-0.22 1936,-3.47 1937,1.31 1938,-2.59 1939,-1.11 1940,-0.33 1941,-0.5 1942,-0.43 1943,-1.89 1944,-1.84 1945,2.56 1946,-2.19 1947,-0.82 1948,1.64 1949,2.01 1950,1.42 1951,1.77 1952,1.21 1953,2.09 1954,-3.11 1955,-0.84 1956,-1.28 1957,-0.93 1958,1.28 1959,0.07 1960,-1.79 1961,1.31 1962,-0.29 1963,-1.5 1964,-2.14 1965,1.36 1966,1.49 1967,0.05 1968,0.32 1969,-3.22 1970,1.77 1971,-0.67 1972,2.9 1973,-2.26 1974,-2.32 1975,0.61 1976,-2.79 1977,-1.6 1978,0.66 1979,2.92 1980,0.5 1981,-3.01 1982,0.77 1983,4.32 1984,0.55 1985,2.67 1986,-1.98 1987,-2.42 1988,-0.97 1989,1.98 1990,-1.06 1991,-2.84 1992,-1.44 1993,-1.58 1994,1.1 1995,1.31 1996,-1.22 1997,1.03 1998,-0.41 1999,0.52 2000,-1.55 2001,0.09 2002,-0.05 2003,-0.38 2004,1.29 2005,0.54 2006,-0.17 2007,-0.69 2008,1.3 2009,-0.84 2010,0.98 2011,0.01 2012,-0.43 2013,0.98 2014,-1.59 2015,1.94 2016,2.91 2017,-0.92 2018,2.54 2019,1.41 2020,1.65 2021,2.67 2022,0.67 2023,-0.07 2024,0.19 2025,0.62 2026,0.42 2027,1.56 2028,3.02 2029,1.25 2030,1.74 2031,3.85 2032,3.89 2033,0.89 2034,2.41 2035,-1.66 2036,-2.7 2037,1.09 2038,3.65 2039,1.55 2040,0.72 2041,0.76 2042,2.51 2043,-0.11 2044,0.87 2045,2.32 2046,0.94 2047,0.95 2048,0.78 2049,0.11 2050,5.37 2051,4.1 2052,-0.25 2053,4.05 2054,2.89 2055,6.24 2056,5.15 2057,0.63 2058,1.82 2059,3.18 2060,3.04 2061,0.96 2062,5.29 2063,5.02 2064,2.17 2065,5.04 2066,1.84 2067,4.39 2068,1.41 2069,0.33 2070,2.17 2071,1.4 2072,2.09 2073,1.52 2074,1.56 2075,0.67 2076,3.98 2077,5.98 2078,1.76 2079,3.59 2080,4.15 2081,3.89 2082,5.39 2083,-0.01 2084,2.62 2085,4.44 2086,4.43 2087,3.39 2088,7.02 2089,2.5 2090,1.34 2091,3.59 2092,4.02 2093,2.88 2094,2.65 2095,6.93 2096,2.67 2097,2.23 2098,4.81 2099,1.22 2100,5.85 2135. 2009-05-22 11:27:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:27:10 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley] to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, I think we should follow Harry Potter's lead. Instead of referring to our mutual friend as "you-know-who", we should use the designation "he-who-must-not-be-named". Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > I've sent the email onto Sarah and Keith. Asked for > a quick response. > I'm also working on a new 3-year DoE proposal. I should > have a draft fairly soon, so I can get onto thinking about > the presentation on June 19 again, and the evening. > > I heard from Peter Thorne that you-know-who's comment > on an IJC paper got rejected. > You-know-who initiated another attempt to get the CRU temperature data. > Have got a few snarky emails the last two nights. Expecting some FOIs > but none have appeared yet. > They have found out that Switzerland has agreed to but not yet > ratified some Environmental > Information Regulations (Aarhus Convention), so are probably looking to > have a > go at the University of Bern and Thomas Stocker at somepoint. Never > thought > I would know so much about the Law! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 02:37 13/05/2009, Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I've been hard at work on the DOE >> proposal for PCMDI's core funding. It's proving to be quite a big job. >> >> As you can see from the forwarded email, Peter Brimblecombe is no >> longer able to attend the Symposium - which means that we'll lose one >> of our speakers. Any chance of persuading Sarah to jump into the >> breach and talk about the development of MAGICC? >> >> If this is not feasible, I guess we could still ask Marty Hoffert to >> discuss Tom's role in the development and application of EBMs. Sarah >> would be much better, though. >> >> 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 >> X-Mozilla-Keys: >> Return-Path: >> Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) >> by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; >> Tue, 12 May 2009 06:10:20 -0700 >> Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83]) >> by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with >> ESMTP id n4CDAJBY008988 >> for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:10:20 -0700 >> X-Attachments: None >> Received: from nsziron-3.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.83]) >> by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 12 May 2009 06:10:18 -0700 >> X-Attachments: None >> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true >> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: >> AmkGAAYSCUqL3oK5d2dsb2JhbACBSoh4gwyJRgEMCwgJDgilVAmPKgGCTIE1BQ >> Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk ([139.222.130.185]) >> by nsziron-3.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 12 May 2009 06:10:17 -0700 >> Received: from [139.222.131.131] (helo=ueams02.uea.ac.uk) >> by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) >> id 1M3rkN-0000uz-Te >> for santer1@llnl.gov; Tue, 12 May 2009 14:10:15 +0100 >> Received: from [139.222.99.141] (helo=envpb6) >> by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1M3rkN-000889-9B >> for santer1@llnl.gov; Tue, 12 May 2009 14:10:15 +0100 >> From: "Peter Brimblecombe" >> To: >> Subject: RE: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley >> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:10:11 +0100 >> Message-ID: <7929F9BED68C42CEBA8C03B1B6865F50@envpb6> >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset="iso-8859-1" >> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 >> Thread-Index: AcmkJ+PX5EVLz63aSQynqpOUoGDKkQu2vlLg >> Importance: Normal >> In-Reply-To: <49BAD7B4.9000804@llnl.gov> >> >> Hi Ben: >> >> Many apologies, but my travel has got very complicated and I had hoped I >> might unravel this, but it has not proved possible. I do hope the >> celebrations go really well... >> >> Peter >> >> Peter Brimblecombe >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> Phone (+44) (0) 1603 593 003 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] >> Sent: 13 March 2009 22:01 >> To: Krishna Achutarao; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Caspar Ammann; >> president@ucar.edu; Rick Anthes; t.atkinson@ucl.ac.uk; t.atkinson; >> David C. >> Bader; Bamzai, Anjuli; Tim Barnett; barron@ucar.edu; Andr Berger; Ray >> Bradley; Keith Briffa; p.brimblecombe@uea.ac.uk; southern@ucar.edu; 'Ken >> Caldeira'; charlson@chem.washington.edu; adai@ucar.edu; >> t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk; j.churchill@uea.ac.uk; Clara Deser; Phil Duffy; >> Edmonds, James A (Jae); ienting@unimelb.edu.au; grahamfarmer@yahoo.com; >> Graham.Farmer@fao.org; Folland, Chris; dford@mcmaster.ca; Peter Foukal; >> Andrew Gettelman; wlgates@gmx.net; peter gent; glantz@ucar.edu; peter >> gleckler; chris.green@mcgill.ca; Jonathan Gregory; harvey; Klaus >> Hasselmann; >> marty.hoffert@nyu.edu; thosholt@googlemail.com; mhughes; mike; James >> Hurrell; 'Philip D. Jones'; Thomas R Karl; dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au; >> mick.tiempo@googlemail.com; jtkon@ucar.edu; killeen; kleypas@ucar.edu; >> Knutti Reto; wily@ucar.edu; jaleggett@crs.loc.gov; Janice Lough; >> Michael C. >> MacCracken; Jerry Mahlman; mark.meier@colorado.edu; Michael E. Mann; >> michael.manton@sci.monash.edu.au; mcginnis@ucar.edu; Linda Mearns; carl >> mears; Jerry Meehl; Malte Meinshausen; Mitchell, John FB; >> neville.nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au; Doug Nychka; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; >> Tim >> Osborn; j.palutikof@griffith.edu.au; Parker, David (Met Office); >> tad.pfeffer@colorado.edu; rpielkejr@gmail.com; hugh.pitcher@pnl.gov; Niel >> Plummer; Sarah Raper; philip.rasch@pnl.gov; Andy Revkin; Richels, >> Richard; >> Alan Robock; Terry L. Root; j.salinger@auckland.ac.nz; >> j.salinger@niwa.co.nz; m.salmon@uea.ac.uk; Ben Santer; >> john@pik-potsdam.de; >> 'Michael Schlesinger'; schimel@ucar.edu; Stephen H Schneider; >> prslawso@mecheng1.uwaterloo.ca; Richard Smith; Joel Smith; >> ssmith@pnl.gov; >> Susan Solomon; kenneth.strzepek@colorado.edu; David Taplin; Karl Taylor; >> Simon Tett; 'Kevin E. Trenberth'; Chris Vincent; r.warrick@waikato.ac.nz; >> Warren Washington; Robert.Watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk; >> peter.webster@eas.gatech.edu; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; >> r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk; Julie Arblaster; eholland@ucar.edu; Lisa Butler >> Subject: Invitation to attend Symposium for Tom Wigley >> >> Dear friends of Tom Wigley, >> >> As many of you may know, Tom Wigley recently retired from his position >> as Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research >> (NCAR). Tom remains affiliated with NCAR, but increasingly will be >> shifting his base of operations to Australia and the University of >> Adelaide. >> >> In an illustrious scientific career spanning over 45 years, Tom has made >> major contributions to our understanding of past, present, and future >> environmental (particularly climatic) change. His contributions are >> unique in terms of both scope and impact. They have been made in such >> diverse areas as aqueous geochemistry, plume rise theory, the origin of >> life, dendroclimatology, the construction and analysis of observed >> surface temperature datasets, climate change detection and attribution, >> the development and application of energy balance models, integrated >> assessment, climate impacts, CO2 and climate stabilization, and >> geoengineering. He also has made significant scientific contributions to >> all four IPCC reports, and to a number of other national and >> international assessments of various aspects of climate science. >> >> Professor Phil Jones and I are organizing a one-day "Wigley Symposium" >> to honor Tom. This is an opportunity to thank Tom for advancing and >> enriching our field. It is also an opportunity to celebrate his past >> accomplishments, to look forward to new ones, and to wish him well for >> the future. >> >> We hope you will be able to attend the Symposium, which will take place >> at NCAR on June 19, 2009, immediately following the annual NCAR >> Community Climate System Modeling Workshop in Breckenridge. >> >> With assistance from Tom, Phil Jones and I are in the process of >> finalizing a program for the Symposium. The intent is to have a series >> of thirty-minute lectures on various aspects of climate science, >> highlighting Tom's contributions to our field. Several lectures will >> also cover other scientific areas in which Tom has worked. >> >> Within the next two weeks, we will be circulating an agenda for the >> Symposium and some logistical information. In the interim, please mark >> June 19th on your calendars! >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben Santer and Phil Jones >> >> (P.S.: There will be funding to cover the cost of a Symposium dinner on >> the evening of June 19th. Save in exceptional cases, however, most >> Symposium participants will have to pay their own travel and >> accommodation expenses). >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3050. 2009-05-22 14:20:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 22 14:20:08 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: WG tests to: C G Kilsby Chris, I am not going to be in the UK June 17-20. I'll be in Boulder, CO. So, if launch is 18th and your new friend does what he says, you'll have to explain. Colin is finishing off a series of plots of the WG for the 10 key sites. All is still going well. He will also do some extra plots which can be used to explain Fig 5 - in the WG Report - somewhat more. As you know this is the WG fitted to the base RCM run. Users shouldn't think these plots indicate futures for LHR. The deltas are OK, but this RCM has about 30-50% more sunshine hours in the control run cf the observed. It took us a worried 10 minutes this morning to realise this. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1018. 2009-05-22 15:19:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:19:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: AR5 to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - thx. Please do send the material that you and Tim are working on if you think it's compelling and will help make the case for paleo. I hear you on the chapter issue - just don't know yet what we're up against. Will talk to Caspar re: Wengen. I bet the reason you're not going to Venice is because there are too many Brits doing top climate science... Very impressive, but it does have a down side. But, you'll be in the mix I bet where it counts. Thx again, best, peck On 5/22/09 8:11 AM, "Keith Briffa" wrote: > Hi Peck > thanks for this response and update - I am happy I asked now because > I was imagining that it was something personal that resulted in my > non invitation - but if the Palaeo field is so bare I feel less > stigmatized! As for your points - truth is that I don't have a lot > that I can show re model data comparison but will try to send > something from work Tim and I have been doing along these lines as a > pointer. Asking Caspar would be useful all round because I have heard > nothing about post-Wengen for a while. I take your point re the > likelihood of no stand alone chapter - but I feel that getting the > palaeostuff well and consistently represented , if spread about , > will be difficult. The regional detail will of course depend on what > gets done in coming years but the hydrology work (better addressed > regionally as you say ) will I feel make progress. Some of us, (Ed > and Richard Seager and other European colleagues) are meeting > informally here next month to look at prospects for such work in > Europe over the next few years. > > I think you and your family may be better served by you being spared > the CLA role next time - I was thinking anyway that this time I would > rather defer to someone else anyway - we are still in ongoing dispute > (under Freedom of Information rules) about releasing our IPCC-related > emails , as I believe are other universities. We have absolutely > nothing to hide but there is a principal of academic freedom to > uphold here - at least I think so. > > that's all for now ... love and best wishes to Julie and little ones > > Keith > > At 17:36 21/05/2009, you wrote: >> Hi Keith - thanks. Sorry to hear about your Mother. >> >> I think the invites have gone out for Venice, and so far the only one from >> AR4 Chap 6 going is me - or rather, I haven't heard from anyone else. >> Eystein isn't going since Norway has a bunch from the other WGs. Seems >> "representation" isn't working in our favor. I would really like more there, >> and I fear that if it's just me, it's another sign that paleo won't be a >> chapter since I can't be CLA again of such a chapter (fortunately for my >> family!). Based on limited discussions w/ Thomas, I also get the sense of a >> paleo chapter might be an uphill battle, but on the other hand, a >> conservative approach would be to stick close to the AR4 outline. That said, >> it appears that the gov's are pushing even harder for more regional, so... >> >> Your list is a big help, and I wonder if you could arm us with some good >> graphics where you can on these issues, especially the latest on >> >> Paleo model evaluation - showing what the models can and can't do. Of >> course, the non-paleo folks like to argue that if their is mismatch, it's >> the paleo data, but with the right results and presentation, that can be >> overcome. Need some compelling graphics that are post AR4 - if there are >> papers or manuscripts that's even better, but even if not at that stage. >> >> I'm going to guess that Gabi will be there (do you know?) and will do the >> sensitivity part. But, if you know of new stuff, pls send also. >> >> Your regional idea is a good one - want to share some compelling examples of >> where paleo (more than one proxy always good) is informing the full range of >> variability in specific regions, and illustrating ca last 50 years vs the >> longer record. I can think of some good examples, but you might have some >> recent ones I haven't seen. >> >> Wegan followup - should I ask Caspar? I haven't heard anything, but it would >> be good... >> >> Hydrologic fits well with regional, so I think I'd emphasize it, although >> some temp would be good too. More on extremes? Anything out there that's new >> and compelling? >> >> This is just a scoping mtg, so only a small subset of those who will be >> involved. You need to get your gov to push you once the chapter outline is >> decided (i.e., you get nominated for specific roles in specific chapters - >> or at least that is how it worked before - suspect you know the drill). >> >> I'm guessing that if there is no paleo chapter, then the backup will be to >> have strong paleo (at least a person) in relevant chapters, with a >> cross-cutting paleo caucus or something so that the paleo Las across the AR5 >> can work together to ensure there is consensus on things and that the parts >> make up a coherent and compelling whole. But, I'll be pushing for a chapter >> since that is clearly the best outcome. Need those compelling examples to >> make it work - need to show it's too much great stuff to be sprinkled >> throughout other chapters. >> >> Thanks again, Peck >> >> >> On 5/21/09 7:43 AM, "Keith Briffa" wrote: >> >>> Hi Peck and Eystein >>> sorry have not responded to recent emails re Palaeo stuff in next >>> IPCC assessment - have been away from the Unit and email because of >>> the death of my mother and ensuing issues. I simply would add that in >>> terms of pure pragmatism , efficiently stitching in Paleodata into >>> separate chapters is likely to be impractical - a self-standing >>> chapter - even of restricted length would be more feasibly achieved. >>> In terms of specific issues , top of my list would be model >>> validation progress , and a description of where we are in attempts >>> to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity with the use of >>> palaeodata - covered I know in Gab's chapter last time. Updating the >>> high-resolution work would have to be in there for continuity but >>> perhaps with an attempt to assess specific regional changes , and >>> between-proxy comparisons. If completed , "the big challenge" work >>> that arose from the Wengen meeting would be good. Then "new" data - >>> e.g. new proxies or areas not covered before - with much more on >>> hydrologic change. I agree about the inclusion of less-resolved >>> proxies. Finally, the "important issues we highlighted at the end of >>> the AR4 chapter should be reviewed and the issues updated. >>> Do you know whether the list for the scoping meeting in Venice has >>> been selected - if I have not been invited does this mean I will not be? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >>> >>> >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute of the Environment >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> Email: jto@u.arizona.edu >> PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 >> regalado@email.arizona.edu > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 regalado@email.arizona.edu 1669. 2009-05-22 17:01:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:01:55 +0100 from: "Lenton Timothy Prof \(ENV\)" subject: RE: Leverhulme tipping points to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Great, Phil, That is a chilling example! I agree that this is a better interval to study - it gives me a good case study example to pull out in the interview with the Leverhulme Trust. I will take your and Keith's names in vain in the presentation I give to Leverhulme putting you on the list of collaborators. Thanks, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 May 2009 15:02 To: Lenton Timothy Prof (ENV) Subject: Re: Leverhulme tipping points Tim, I thought it was only the skeptics who read Hubert Lamb's books! I say this as you can read much of what you want into what he said! We've never really looked at past climate change and disease. I'd expect that the climate component was relatively minor. I think that climate adds to a problem in the past, rather than initiating the issue. I'd be happy to be involved and Keith probably would as well. It would be better to look at some period that is more recent. The attached is one such event, but it is a case that probably won't have an analogy in the future. The book referred to in the paper 'Arctic Ireland' is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arctic-Ireland-Extraordinary-Forgotten-1740-41/d p/1870132858 http://www.whiterowpress.com/arctic.htm well worth reading. I have a copy. More people died and more people left Ireland between 1740-43 than in the potato famine over a century later. The Shannon froze over and people couldn't be buried! In Ireland it is referred to as the forgotten famine - and it really has been forgotten! The year 1740 and the few years after would have been bad in England too. There had been many good years and the population rose dramatically as more survived with the good harvests. Then came 1740..... It was that cold! Cheers Phil At 09:45 22/05/2009, you wrote: >Dear Phil, > >Related to preparing to present the attached proposal for a research >programme (in a shortlist of 5 - please do not circulate further) I >have been looking for historical examples of links between climate >regime shifts and disease (also food production, conflict). This led me >to reading parts of Hubert Lamb's 'Climate, history and the modern >world', including some fascinating stuff about 'ergotism' or 'St Anthony's fire' >(p 199-200). > >Anyway, I was writing just to try and find out if you or anyone else in >CRU was still interested in or working on links between past climate >change and disease / food production / conflict / societal change? (I >know Nick Brooks is into it.) > >Also, if we get the proposal funded I would like to link to CRU on both >historical case studies and future vulnerability. So perhaps I could >have a quick chat with you about that sometime. > >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 5295. 2009-05-22 18:01:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:01:05 +0100 from: "Stephen Dorling" subject: Re: NERC Knowledge Transfer Partnership: Call for Insurance to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil, I'll digest over the weekend. Couple of other things: 1. You mentioned, in the 'climate at uea' meeting with Bob Watson, Trevor et al the other week, the recent finding that humidity was declining in the measurement record. What should I refer to on that topic? Atmospheric chemistry types are talking about increases in absolute humidity (driven by warmer temps and more evap) driving changes in methane in the future - so why the observed declines and are those declines in absolute or relative humidity? 2. Ruth Leavett, current MSc Climate Change student, has volunteered to be weatherquest's experimental "climate correspondent" (don't laugh!) until she finishes her thesis in August. We're sort of mimicing a similar thing the BBC have done. The idea is that Ruth will monitor and keep weatherquest staff up to date (through a web page) with - Latest status of key indices (ENSO/NAO/CET/EWR/Grosswetterlagen) etc - Latest on climate negotiations (only very brief!) - Climate research findings/press releases emanating from CRU/Tyndall/ENV (its surprising how often we're caught out on the radio when we're asked about a UEA study we haven't yet heard about) - a few handpicked rss feeds It sounds a bit pathetic that we can't do this ourselves but I've been surprised how all-consuming an operational roster is. We'll see how it goes but if it is successful then we might like to recruit a replacement for Ruth, again from the MSc CC programme, when the next cohort arrive (perhaps paid this time!) Any comments on this? How's recruitment going? Any sign of additional assistance for the coming year? Still no date for UKCP? S ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]s.dorling@uea.ac.uk Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Fwd: NERC Knowledge Transfer Partnership: Call for Insurance Intellectual Capital Initiative Steve I thought just what CRU does! Then I read it - seems more what Richard did. It isn't inadequate climate data, it's the claims data! Cheers Phil Inadequate historical data The types of events that generate large losses for the types of facilities in question are few and far between. As such, traditional curve fitting based methodologies fall somewhat short in describing the risk. In addition, following events that cause major losses, engineering and risk management practices are updated to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence, in theory lending less value to the few existing historic data points. Subject: NERC Knowledge Transfer Partnership: Call for Insurance Intellectual Capital Initiative Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:54:13 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NERC Knowledge Transfer Partnership: Call for Insurance Intellectual Capital Initiative Thread-Index: AcnaHBcFP8wtPjo/QB27+Pre46vzIAAA7SsQACVO6RAAC08KcA== From: "Goodwin Nicholas Dr \(ACAD\)" To: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" , "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Bateman Ian Prof \(ENV\)" , "Asher Minns" , "Few Roger Dr \(ODG\)" Cc: "Dorling Stephen Dr \(ENV\)" , "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" , "Watkinson Andrew Prof \(ENV\)" <> Dear All, Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested and contact me at the earliest opportunity. Details attached. **Climate Change Risks and the Insurance Industry - Knowledge Transfer Partnerships** Deadline for Outline Proposals is Friday 12th June 450,000 is available for Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) in a new funding call by NERC, the Technology Strategy Board and the Insurance Intellectual Capital Initiative (IICI, a partnership including Lloyds and other main insurers). Normally you would require an industry partner, but this call operates more like a normal research grant with IICI acting as the industry partner. The call has identified four main challenges they wish to address that might align with research in ENV, particularly CRU and Tyndall: (1) Inadequate historical data (2) Complex heterogeneous risks (reference to environment) (3) Complex non-linear hazard/loss relationships (4) Socio-economic trends The School of Computing is keen to do this with help from ENV. CMP works closely with Aviva. Projects would be for 2-3 years and employ an associate at post-doc level. Funding is at the full 100% fEC. Outlines are short (700-800 words) and very targeted. Kind regards, Nick __________________________________________________________________ Dr Nick Goodwin, Business Development Manager (Science) University of East Anglia Tel: 01603 591560 | Mobile: 07826 510640 | Fax: 01603 591550 Email: n.goodwin@uea.ac.uk | Web: [3]www.uea.ac.uk/business Research, Enterprise & Engagement 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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3556. 2009-05-25 06:56:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:56:10 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: Invitation to Review for The Holocene to: Keith Briffa Keith, Okay, I just agreed to do it. Now a favor to ask you. Can you check with UEA to see if it will send an invoice to Lamont for payment of all costs incurred by our meeting at UEA (housing, meeting room charges, coffee/tea breaks, etc)? The person to contact about this at Lamont is Moanna St. Clair (stclair@ldeo.columbia.edu). Having UEA bill Lamont directly will relieve Richard and I from having to put the charges on our credit cards, a real nuisance in terms of getting reimbursed. 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 May 22, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: > please accept - the answer is that it is likely someone who might > prefer you not to do it > Keith > > At 18:00 20/05/2009, you wrote: >> Keith, >> >> You miserable soul! You didn't even give me time to respond to >> "Manuscript Central" before you asked me to review a paper one minute >> later. Who is the author. Frankly, if it is someone from Beijing or >> Xian who hates Lamont and actively uncuts us for doing work in China, >> I am inclined to decline. That person can kiss my arse. >> >> 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 May 20, 2009, at 7:12 AM, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> >>> 20-May-2009 >>> >>> Dear Dr. Cook: >>> >>> Manuscript ID HOL-09-0054 entitled "A 622-year regional temperature >>> history of southeast Tibet derived from tree rings" has been >>> submitted to The Holocene. >>> >>> I invite you to review this manuscript. The abstract appears at the >>> end of this letter. Please click the appropriate link at the bottom >>> of the page to automatically register your reply with our online >>> manuscript submission and review system. If you are unable to >>> review at this time, perhaps you would recommend another expert >>> reviewer. >>> >>> Once you accept my invitation to review this manuscript, you will be >>> notified via e-mail about how to access Manuscript Central, our >>> online manuscript submission and review system. You will then have >>> access to the manuscript and reviewer instructions in your Reviewer >>> Center. >>> >>> I realize that our expert reviewers greatly contribute to the high >>> standards of the Journal, and I thank you for your present and/or >>> future participation. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Prof. Keith Briffa >>> Associate Editor The Holocene >>> >>> To respond automatically, click below: >>> >>> Agreed: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=6PKwxf99H4RXZSH64dry >>> >>> Declined: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=JPF3jZx8B3R9dfmj5Qx4 >>> >>> Unavailable: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene?URL_MASK=B9d8X5fmmCKsZ46PDYc4 >>> >>> >>> MANUSCRIPT DETAILS >>> >>> TITLE: A 622-year regional temperature history of southeast Tibet >>> derived from tree rings >>> >>> ABSTRACT: A tree ring-width record spanning from AD 1377 to 1998 was >>> developed from Tibetan juniper (Cupressus gigantea) growing at sites >>> north of the deep gorge of the Yarlung Tsangbo River of southeast >>> Tibet. A linear regression model between ring width and mean >>> January- June temperature accounts for 35% of January-June >>> temperature >>> variance for the period 1961-1998. Based on this model, we >>> reconstructed January-June temperature variation history for >>> southeast Tibet during the past 622 years. Warm conditions occurred >>> during AD 1385-1418, AD 1443-1466, 1482-1501, 1523-1548, 1570s, >>> 1705-1759, 1770-1790, 1851-1888, 1910s, and 1938-1965, and periods >>> of relatively cold years are identified for AD 1419-1442, 1470s, >>> 1502-1522, 1550-1569, 1610-1640, 1680-1700, 1760s, 1791-1850, 1900s, >>> and 1965-1995. Spatial correlation between tree ring and observed >>> temperatures indicates that the reconstruction is representative of >>> temperature change for southeast Tibet. Regional cold conditions >>> during around AD 1625, 1685, 1760, 1800-1850, 1890-1930 and >>> 1965-1995, and warm conditions around 1710, 1730-1750, 1850-1890 and >>> 1930-1960 can be identified in the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Our >>> reconstruction show good agreement with modelled regional >>> temperature derived from an ECHO-G model simulation. Common cold >>> periods around 1470, 1685 and 1845 corresponding to the Sprer >>> Minimum, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum periods of low >>> solar activity and increased volcanic activity were identified, >>> indicating that solar and volcanic activity played an important role >>> in temperature change of this region. The discrepancy between >>> modelled and reconstructed temperatures was noted around 1965, >>> reflecting that temperature decrease in the late-20th century is >>> anomalous. > > -- > 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/ 291. 2009-05-25 16:36:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "tim Osborn" date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:36:10 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: FOI and IPCC AR5 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith & Phil, I guessed right: David Holland does intend to obtain IPCC AR5 correspondence *during* the preparation of AR5 rather than afterwards: "So far the Information Commissioners Office has tried to throw out two of my complaints and is sitting on the rest. The ICO is under resourced and overloaded and the EIR is a lot more trouble for them than the FOIA. We may have to go through two years of guerilla war but you can all join in. The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held. I doubt this point has escaped our friends at the IPCC." The bit about "you can all join in" has a link to whatdotheyknow.com, which assists people in making FOI requests. This encouragement of others to join his campaign/war might eventually help us, if it is enough to count as vexatious. Tim -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ 3921. 2009-05-26 15:11:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Schneider , Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Jonathan Overpeck date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:11:35 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision to: Gifford Miller , Darrell Kaufman Hi Darrell, Giff et al - great news ditto! Giff's take on the noise issue is good. We can point out in our reply, and in the ms if room (often the editor will give you the extra space to deal w/ reviewer comments - refs too, not figs) that because proxy noise is fairly uniform (Giff says nicely), we commonly see larger climatic anomalies, due to greater climate forcing, more clearly in proxy recons than small changes. Anyhow, Giff nailed it. And speaking of Giff - congrats on the AGU fellowship about to be awarded! I have to give congressional testimony tomorrow on Darrell's future water supply (actually the CO River - he wishes!), and then fly to Peru on Thurs. I'll at least read and comment on the planes. More soon. Nice job Darrell. Best, Peck On 5/26/09 1:25 PM, "Gifford Miller" wrote: > Darrell (from AGU Toronto): > > Great news from Science! > > A quick comment on Amplification and signal to noise issues (comment > 1 below). It think you meant that the referee felt that Arctic > amplificaton did not translate to a more robust signal because the > noise would be equally amplified. I don't know that we can challenge > the "climate noise" but we can make the case that the "proxy noise", > that is, the uncertainty in proxy calibration, is, as far as I know, > the same in the Arctic as in lower latitudes. Consequently, the > larger temperature signal expected in the Arctic can be more reliably > detected by our proxies because it is more likely to exceed the > sensitivity limits of our proxies. If we assume the "climate noise" > is more or less gaussian, then we should be better able to detect the > relatively subtle temp changes of the Holocene in the Arctic than > elsewhere. > > Giff > > > > > >> Co-authors: >> I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our >> SCIENCE manuscript (attached). The decision isn't final, but it >> looks like good news, with very reasonable revisions. Reviewer #1 >> had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather thorough. >> I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help >> with three: >> >> (1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate >> change is amplified in the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be >> higher too. We don't have more than 1 sentence to expand on the >> assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and hope >> that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it >> from the text. Suggestions? >> >> (2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers >> influencing the mean values of the composite record, we should >> attempt a so-called "robust" regression procedure, such as median >> absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience with this? >> >> (3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of >> the relation between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM >> simulation. Namely s/he criticized the leveraging effect of the one >> outlier in the model-generated insolation vs temperature plot (Fig. >> 4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year. >> Dave: you up for this, please? >> >> Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you >> all have a look before I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we >> can turn this around this week. >> >> Thanks. >> Darrell >> > Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 regalado@email.arizona.edu 1112. 2009-05-28 06:09:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 May 2009 06:09:59 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: robust regression to: "K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk" Keith: Thanks for your thorough reply. I've attached the latest version of the manuscript. I think we're in pretty good shape with our analysis, including the calibration of the proxy data, but I would welcome your input at any level. It would be great to explore the stability of the long- timescale variation in the reconstruction, if you're up for that. The calibration (Fig. S3) is based on 10-year-binned means. I ran the regression with temp as the independent variable, then solved for temp algebraically (SOM Note C). The Spearman's ranked correlation coefficient is 0.88, compared with 0.89 for Pearson's. There might be a single, slight outlier, but the reviewer confused outliers in the proxy records with outliers in the calibration series. I will include the ranked correlation in the SOM note. I'm hoping to turn this around quickly, so please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Darrell Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2k synthesis v10.doc" On May 28, 2009, at 3:40 AM, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Darrell > First, well done indeed for getting this far in the review process. > The > points you make, on my reading here alone, are entirely correct. I > do not > though have access to my work computer until next week (for reasons > too > complicated to waste your time with). This means that I can not > access the > precise text or reviewer's comments (assuming you have sent these as > an > attachment to a previous message). > > Certainly any least squares regression will leverage the effect of > outliers - whether this is good or bad depends on the situation - what > can be more relevant is whether the regression is "forward" or > "inverse" > in the sense of the whether the regression model is formulated and > calibrated with climate as the dependent variable or alternatively the > mean proxy record, in the latter case with the equation then > rearranged > after calibration, to predict climate. Certainly the forward approach > applied at annual resolution can lead to a biased reconstruction in > the > sense that the low-frquency variance is suppressed. There is, > therefore, > scope for applying several regression approaches and comparing the > long-term variance produced. Having demonstrated a genuine temperature > association using the inter-annual data (and only after having done > so) > it may be worth recalibrating the regression using decadally smoothed > data (proxy and climate) to assess the time-scale stability of the > regression coefficient and to directly explore the stability of the > long-timescale variance in the reconstruction. > > The point you make regarding the OandS procedure seems fine to me. > It is > useful to establish whether the composite series is highly ifluenced > by > only one or two constituent series. > > The point about the rank correlation is presumably echoing the > reviewer's > worry that our data are not normally distributed and that this may > influence the regression unduly. It is worth comparing the rank > correlation against the usual Pearson. If significant difference is > apparent it would be worth stating this in a note. Simply repeating > the > regression with the few large outliers in the predictand series set > to the > mean (and with the equivalent predictor values likewise) would test > the > leverage theory directly. > > I will be in work and able to look at this stuff in more detail next > week. > > cheers > Keith >> Hi Keith: >> The reviewer had a suggestion that I could use your help with: >> >> 7. Page 5, lines 93-96: It seems to me that the Osborn and Briffa >> procedure does not add much in this instance. The concern is >> apparently leveraging of the fitted regression equation by one or >> several outliers. I think this is a relatively minor concern in this >> instance given the number of decades that enter into the regression. >> Moreover, it seems to me that the Osborn and Briffa diagnostic gives >> weight to what is happening in the tails of the distribution of the >> decadal values, rather than to the centre of the distribution, which >> is where the signal of interest presumably lies. Thus I think it >> would >> be preferable to use a so-called robust regression procedure, such >> as median absolute deviation regression, to assess the possible >> influence that outliers may have had. Additionally, it may also be >> useful to consider the use of simple rank-based procedures (e.g., >> calculation of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient). >> >> It seems that the reviewer was confused about the application of of >> the O&B procedure. It doesn't concern the regression at all, but >> instead, the influence of a few extreme proxy records on the >> composite. So, in response, I will add a few words to clarify the >> approach and explain to the editor where the reviewer went wrong. But >> I wanted to double check that you agree with this. I also don't know >> what the reviewer had in mind when s/he suggested using the Spearman >> rank correlation coefficient. >> >> Any comments? >> thanks. > > 900. 2009-05-28 12:22:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:22:57 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision to: Darrell Kaufman , David Schneider , Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Miller Giff , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Jonathan Overpeck Hi Darrell et al - got a chance to read the paper and comments enroute to Atlanta. Here's some feedback.. General - comments are modest and should be easy to accommodate. That said, I think we have to take the comments of Rev 2 seriously. I'm guessing that its Francis Zwiers and in any case, he knows what he's talking about regarding stats. Also - IMPORTANT - I'd make sure we check and recheck every single calculation and dataset. This paper is going to get the attention of the skeptics and they are going to get all the data and work hard to show were we messed up. We don't want this - especially you, since it could take way more of your time than you'd like, and it'll look bad. VERY much worth the effort in advance. Ok Rev 1 - wow - never had it so good. Rev 2 General comment - we should take this one seriously. Get Caspar and Bette's help. The new synthesis could be telling us (especially when the outlier in Fig 4B is discounted - see below) that the Arctic is, in reality, more sensitive to changes in radiative forcing than reflected in the model. Are there other experiments or reasons to think this is true? If so, let's make this point and back it up with these other pieces of evidence. For example, does the CCSM get Arctic warming from the earl/mid Holocene to present correctly? Does the model underestimate the Arctic change obs over the last 100 years. Since the reviewer raised this, you could add some refs and prose if needed to respond. Not a lot, but some. And, we need to respond one way or the other. Specific comments 1. agree, in the abstract, I suggest changing the sentence to read "This trend likely reflects a steady orbitally-driven reduction in summer insolation, as confirmed by a 1000-year transient climate simulation." Note that this removes more than enough words to meet the eds requirement too. 2. for this one, I'd simply state that the forcing is stronger in the Arctic than at lower lats (double check how much) and also add what Giff suggested. 3. agree, make the suggested clarification 4. important (!) and hopefully easy. I leave to whomever did the calculation to make sure any serial correlation bias was taken into account. Make sure all p values are thus corrected. 5. ditto, makes sense too 6. clarify 7. this reviewer knows what he/she is talking about - do what they suggest, and double check it's done well. 8. Don't delete the para. Instead point out that you've strengthened it and that it is important to place the new synthesis in a longer term Holocene context. It also clarifies to interdisciplinary readers why the Arctic is so sensitive (perhaps more sensitive than in models? - see above). That said, I would cite Kerwin et al 99 - I've attached it. It provides added detail and balance. Also, since you're responding to a reviewer comment and strengthening the ms, you can add the ref w/o hassle (or so I'm guessing on recent experience). 9. yep, delete all "attribution"s in the ms. On p 6, lone 129, can say "...support the connection between the Arctic summer cooling trend and a orbitally-driven reduction..." 10) reviewer is correct - see my response above for the general comment, and see if you can work with his/her ideas to improve. The outlier has to be just that?! Need an explanation before you can remove from any analysis, however. 11) makes sense - do it 12) yep - change text as suggested 13) agree, change p 7, line 153 to read "...1980s appears to have been the single..." 14) agree, change line 167 on p 8 to read "...trend. Our new synthesis suggests that the most recent 10-year..." Other suggested changes.... P. 3 line 69 - change region to read regional P 6 line 128 - "(-2600 to -1600AD) isn't going to make sense to readers. Please provide some context - SOM or ?? P 7 line 145 - insert "Arctic" before "summer" P. 11 line 234 change to read "...century. Ten-year means (bold lines) were used..." Because you don't really say what the bold and unbold lines are - this will help the reader make sure they have it right. Fig 4 and caption - need to explain why the isolation axes are labeled differently - the numbers, and that both are still cover the same number of Wm-2. Didn't look at SOM, but make sure it's all bomber too, since there is a good chance it will get PICKED apart, and any errors thrown back in our face in a counter productive manner. Thanks! Nice job. Best, Peck (probably w/o email for a while in the Amazon, although one never knows...) On 5/26/09 1:08 PM, "Darrell Kaufman" <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> wrote: Co-authors: I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our SCIENCE manuscript (attached). The decision isn't final, but it looks like good news, with very reasonable revisions. Reviewer #1 had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather thorough. I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help with three: (1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate change is amplified in the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be higher too. We don't have more than 1 sentence to expand on the assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and hope that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it from the text. Suggestions? (2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers influencing the mean values of the composite record, we should attempt a so-called "robust" regression procedure, such as median absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience with this? (3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of the relation between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM simulation. Namely s/he criticized the leveraging effect of the one outlier in the model-generated insolation vs temperature plot (Fig. 4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year. Dave: you up for this, please? Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you all have a look before I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we can turn this around this week. Thanks. Darrell Begin forwarded message: From: Lisa Johnson <[2]ljohnson@aaas.org> Date: May 26, 2009 12:25:40 PM GMT-07:00 To: Darrell S Kaufman <[3]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> Subject: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision 26 May 2009 Dr. Darrell S Kaufman Department of Geology Frier Hall Knoles Dr Northern Arizona University Box 4099 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 UserID: 1173983 Password: 307923 Dear Dr. Kaufman: Thank you for sending us your manuscript "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling." We are interested in publishing the paper as a Report, but we cannot accept it in its present form. Please revise your manuscript in accord with the referees' comments (pasted below) and as indicated on the attached editorial checklist and marked manuscript. I have also made some suggestions regarding shortening and clarification directly on the manuscript. Because of the nature of the reviewers' comments and revisions required, we may send the revised manuscript back for further review. Please return your revised manuscript with a cover letter describing your response to the referees' comments. We prefer to receive your revision electronically via our WWW site ([4]http://www.submit2science.org/revisionupload/) using the User information above. In your letter, please also include your travel schedule for the next several weeks so we can contact you if necessary. The revised manuscript must reach us within four weeks if we are to preserve your original submission date; if you cannot meet this deadline, please let us know as soon as possible when we can expect the revision. The cost of color illustrations is $650 for the first color figure and $450 for each additional color figure. In addition there is a comparable charge for use of color in reprints. We ask that you submit your payment with your reprint order, which you will receive with your galley proofs. We also now provide a free electronic reprint service; information will be sent by email immediately after your paper is published in Science Online. Science allows authors to retain copyright of their work. You will be asked to grant Science an exclusive license to publish your paper when you return your manuscript via our revision WWW site. We must have your acceptance of this publication agreement in order to accept your paper. Additional information regarding the publication license is available in the instructions for authors on our www site. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. Please let me know that you have received this email and can read the attached files. Sincerely, Jesse Smith, Ph.D. Senior Editor ___________________________________________________________________________________ [cid:3326358178_1079548] ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ [cid:3326358178_1100494] ___________________________________________________________________________________ Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: [5]jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 [6]regalado@email.arizona.edu Embedded Content: image.png: 00000001,3e910253,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: image1.png: 00000001,35902c45,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\kerwin_et_al&role&1999.pdf" 4190. 2009-05-28 15:41:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:41:45 -0400 (EDT) from: AAAS Member Services subject: Special Invitation from AAAS President Peter Agre to: [1]Can't see this email? Click here to view in your browser. [2] AAAS + U = D Science Careers Dear Colleague, As the President of AAAS, I bring to the position a strong belief that, as scientists, our contributions to the public good come not only through our research, but from our civic engagement. On June 24 at 12:00 p.m. EST, please [3]join me for a webinar on how science is currently being used in defense of human rights, and what our community can do to further those efforts through the application of science and technology. This dialogue is a unique opportunity for AAAS members, like you, to participate in an in-depth discussion of this core element in AAAS's mission of advancing science and serving society. During the webinar, I will lead a panel of experts in discussing the ways in which scientists currently impact human rights work, and what can be done to engage more scientists and scientific associations in the protection of human rights. To participate, please [4]register here. Since 1977, the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program (SHRP) has pioneered a variety of scientific and technical applications that are now standard tools of the human rights community including, using forensic and genetic sciences to identify victims of mass atrocities, protecting human rights communications with electronic encryption technologies, and employing satellite imagery to document human rights violations. But there is more work to be done -- and we need your help. I hope you will join me on June 24 to explore the many ways in which we can use science to make human rights a reality for all. Sincerely, Peter Agre Peter Agre, MD President American Association for the Advancement of Science PS: If you are unable to attend the live webinar, the event will be available for on demand viewing within 48 hours of the initial broadcast. In the interim please visit [5]AAAS online to learn how you can help make a difference. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ This email was sent to P.JONES@UEA.AC.UK To get on and off our e-mail lists, please [6]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: [7]membership@aaas.org Science International Bateman House 82-88 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1LQ United Kingdom Privacy Policy: [8]http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/privacy.dtl [ AAAS / Science does not endorse any 3rd party products or services advertised here. ] 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved. One pixel image 3787. 2009-05-28 16:11:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:11:03 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: question to: "K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk" Yes, I am beginning to think that the model has somewhat lower sensitivity than seen in the proxy data, as suggested by the reviewer. And, yes, the model data are based on 50-year means whereas the proxy data used 100-year means. We did this to keep the n the same for the two regressions (model = 1000 years; data = 2000 yr). I suppose I could use 50-yr means from the proxies and just randomly select half of the data for comparison. Before we go down that road, our NCAR co- authors are going to get back to me with more information on the model. This just in from Dave: I don't want to jump to the conclusion that the model is not sensitive enough. After all, for the T31 simulation (the resolution used for the mid-Holocene orbital run) t is ~3 degrees colder in the Arctic in the model's pre-Industrial climate compared to present day (1990); this is almost 3X the global average change. The Arctic is even colder when increasing the resolution to T42 (more realistic sea ice). It is possible that orbital forcing using T42 resolution would have higher sensitivity - that is one caveat we could make. Let me know if you have other suggestions. Darrell On May 28, 2009, at 3:45 PM, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Darrell > I am intriqued about how the model can get the one very anomalous warm > point that does likely influence the regression result for simulated > data > against model insolation. Have you looked into this? It is likely > fortuitous that the regressions in Fig 4 give the same slope, > because of > this. Also , what would be the difference if insolation was > calculated in > the same way for both a and b ? Am I right in remembering that they > were > not in fact the same? > > Keith > 2870. 2009-05-29 11:21:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: Bo Vinther date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:21:35 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: additional co-author to: Jonathan Overpeck , David Schneider , Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Miller Giff , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Overpeck Jonathan Co-authors: Bo Vinther (Niels Bohr Institute) will be joining us as co-author of the Science paper. Bo provided a correction factor for the isotope values from DYE-3 to account for changes in in the elevation of the ice that flows to the drill site, which we used in the synthesis. He also provided the annual data keyed to his most recently revised age models for Agassiz, Renland, and for NGRIP. Our paper will be the first to publish NGRIP data at a resolution higher than 20-year averages. Including Bo will provide representation from the N Hemisphere ice-core community, and satisfies NGRIP protocol for data publication. SCIENCE policy requires "Any changes in authorship must be approved in writing by all the original authors". I will now inform Science of the modification and expect that you will hear from the editorial staff. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Darrell Darrell S. Kaufman Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192 [1]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ 1315. 2009-05-29 12:28:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:28:16 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23] to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Michael and I are putting together a draft response to submit to the ICO when requested and we are reviewing the 'evidence' that supports our case. I don't seem to have a copy of the correspondence that you mention from Jouzel, Solomina & Ammann) that you mention below. Nor can I find any correspondence from John Mitchell regarding his attitude to the release of the requested information - could you have a look at your files and forward the correspondence to me please? We are meeting Monday afternoon so if I could get it before then it would be great - understand that this is very late notice so no worries if you can't get to it. Many thanks in advance. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:36 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23] > >Hi again, > >I've put together the attached table listing all those named in the >FOI request or who we have relevant correspondence with, together >with their response to our enquiries about confidentiality/release of >materials. > >It is based on the responses from colleagues that I sent you last >12th May, plus 3 further responses (Jouzel, Solomina, Ammann) that >arrived after that. > >Hope this suffices. > >I've got hard copy of typical correspondence, plus hard copy of the 3 >further responses regarding confidentiality. Should I send these via >internal mail to Dave? What is your internal address? Just "Dave >Palmer, LIB"? > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 10:12 23/04/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Tim [et al], >>I'd like to add my thanks as well - I've had a quick view of the >>document and will provide comments suggestions in the near >future. Rom >>my perspective, it's a question of providing both context and reasons >>why the information 'fits' within the exemptions that we have cited so >>the evidence/context needs to align/support those exemptions. >>The other piece of work that I will attend to is mapping the request >>onto EIR, should the ICO decree that we must go that route... >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >> >Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:01 AM >> >To: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: RE: ICO request >> > >> >Tim, >> > >> >Thanks very much for this. Dave and I have had to move our >> >meeting yesterday from this morning to 7th May, so if you need >> >abit more time to let us have any further information you >now have it! >> > >> >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: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:05 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >> >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: RE: ICO request >> > >> >Hi Dave and Michael, >> > >> >attached is a replacement to the draft that Phil sent earlier. I >> >think it covers items 1, 3, 4 and 6 on the list below, though we >> >could perhaps expand on 6 if necessary. The previous letters from >> >Susan Solomon and our co-authors should of course accompany this as >> >support. Note that Keith has not had a chance to see any of this >> >because he had to go to Liverpool at urgent notice last Thursday due >> >to family illness and now bereavement and so is, >> >understandably, still away. >> > >> >I have collated some examples for item 5. Phil is taking a look to >> >see if they are a fair representation of the type of material. I'll >> >pass these on to you tomorrow (they are all hard copy). >> > >> >I'll make a table/list for item 2 tomorrow morning and >email it to you. >> > >> >Best wishes >> > >> >Tim >> > >> >At 15:01 17/04/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >> >> >> >>I hope that you have all had a really good Easter break. >> >> >> >>I have arranged to meet up with Dave Palmer next Thursday >(23rd April) >> >>to progress the response to the ICO. If there is any >information from >> >>the action list (included below for ease of reference) >that you could >> >>send me in advance, I would be grateful. >> >> >> >>Many thanks >> >> >> >>Michael >> >> >> >> >> >>ACTION LIST: >> >> >> >>1. Details of web links for the copy of the final IPCC report >> >as well as >> >>links to drafts and comments on drafts. >> >> >> >>2. List of members of the working group - I will then do a >table that >> >>shows who replied to Tim's email. >> >> >> >>3. A description/statement of the process followed by IPCC authors, >> >>including that much of this was by round table discussion >> >> >> >>4. Any IPCC guidance that was given to authors and how they were >> >>expected to operate. >> >> >> >>5. Some examples of the types of email exchanges that took >place that >> >>could go to the ICO >> >> >> >>6. Statement clarifying the possible damage to international >> >>collaboration if email exchanges of this kind can be made publicly >> >>available >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > 261. 2009-05-29 13:16:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:16:36 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23] to: Keith Briffa ,Phil Jones Hi Keith and Phil (cc Dave), please see Dave Palmer's email below. I'd already sent him (last year) correspondence from a number of our IPCC colleagues indicating their view about the confidentiality of their emails, and today I forwarded to him equivalent emails from Jouzel, Solomina and Ammann. However, I can't find anything from John Mitchell indicating his position re. any correspondence with him. Do either of you have anything that indicates his wish to keep such material confidential? I recall that he was very clear about this, but perhaps only via a phone call? Not sure how much it matters... I don't seem to have any correspondence from him anyway! Tim At 12:28 29/05/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: >Tim, >Michael and I are putting together a draft response to submit to the ICO >when requested and we are reviewing the 'evidence' that supports our >case. I don't seem to have a copy of the correspondence that you >mention from Jouzel, Solomina & Ammann) that you mention below. Nor can >I find any correspondence from John Mitchell regarding his attitude to >the release of the requested information - could you have a look at your >files and forward the correspondence to me please? >We are meeting Monday afternoon so if I could get it before then it >would be great - understand that this is very late notice so no worries >if you can't get to it. >Many thanks in advance. > >Cheers, Dave > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:36 AM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) > >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23] > > > >Hi again, > > > >I've put together the attached table listing all those named in the > >FOI request or who we have relevant correspondence with, together > >with their response to our enquiries about confidentiality/release of > >materials. > > > >It is based on the responses from colleagues that I sent you last > >12th May, plus 3 further responses (Jouzel, Solomina, Ammann) that > >arrived after that. > > > >Hope this suffices. > > > >I've got hard copy of typical correspondence, plus hard copy of the 3 > >further responses regarding confidentiality. Should I send these via > >internal mail to Dave? What is your internal address? Just "Dave > >Palmer, LIB"? > > > >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 3228. 2009-05-29 13:53:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:53:24 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Financial support for Tom Wigley's Symposium to: "Bamzai, Anjuli" Dear Anjuli, Thanks very much for your expeditious and positive answer. I look forward to seeing you at Tom's Symposium! With best regards, Ben Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: > Ben, > > Your DOE fellowship has flexibility on how you choose to spend the > funds. Make sure the travel and food etc is done within rules for DOE > and lab travel, and miscellaneous expenses. E.g. the travelers need to > use U.S. carrier, no liquor (I know you said you'd make sure that was > out), etc. > > So some dotting and crossing to be done, that end! > > Anjuli > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:31 PM > To: Bamzai, Anjuli > Subject: Re: Financial support for Tom Wigley's Symposium > > Dear Anjuli, > > That's very encouraging news - many thanks for checking into this > matter. I'll await confirmation before proceeding with any payment for > food, travel, or accommodation expenses. > > After my experiences with Steven McIntyre's FOIA requests to DOE and > NOAA, I just wanted to make sure that I had dotted all the "i's" and > crossed all the "t's"! > > With best regards, > > Ben > > Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: >> Ben, >> I don't believe there are any specific rules that would prohibit you >> from picking up meal costs, or travel support under your Fellowship. >> As I recall, there was complete flexibility on the way you use the >> Distinguished Scientist Fellowship funds, however I'm trying to get a >> confirmation on this. >> >> I hope I get a response soon, and will forward as I hear. >> Best >> Anjuli >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] >> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:24 PM >> To: Bamzai, Anjuli >> Subject: Financial support for Tom Wigley's Symposium >> >> Dear Anjuli, >> >> I know you are busy this week with proposal reviews, but I'd be very >> grateful if you could answer two quick questions. >> >> As you know, I'd like to use some portion of my DOE OBER Distinguished > >> Scientist Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom Wigley's >> Symposium. The primary purpose of the financial support would be to >> cover the cost of food for the Symposium reception and Symposium >> dinner on June 19th. This estimated cost of the food is less than > $4,000. >> Fellowship money would not be used to pay for any alcohol. >> >> I've also been asked (by Mike MacCracken, Natasha Andronova, and Marty >> Hoffert) whether I could assist them in covering travel and >> accommodation costs they incur in attending the Symposium. I'm >> anticipating that the total travel and accommodation costs for Mike, >> Natasha, and Marty would be less than $2,500. >> >> So my specific questions are as follows. Under the terms of my >> Fellowship, is it permissible: >> >> 1) To use Fellowship money to cover the cost of food for the Symposium > >> reception and dinner? >> >> 2) To use Fellowship money to cover travel and accommodation costs >> that Mike, Natasha, and Marty will incur in attending the Symposium? >> >> Given my recent close encounter with Freedom of Information Act >> requests, I just want to make sure that 1) and 2) represent correct >> and appropriate use of my Fellowship money. >> >> Many thanks for your help with this, Anjuli! >> >> 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4083. 2009-05-29 14:01:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 29 14:01:14 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: urgent easy - attribution of impacts nominations to: Gabi Hegerl , Thomas Crowley Gabi, Yes to dinner sometime - I have some new T-shirts! Matt wasn't that involved in UKCP09. James Murphy was the lead from the MOHC end. You can propose me! I am going to Venice. I would have gone to Bergen (for IPCC and extremes), but for an extremes meeting in Mexico. So do propose me! You might like to see the email below. I have raised this with Thomas. Most is a quote from a skeptic. We are still involved with an FOI about who changed what and why in Ch 6! Cheers Phil Hi Keith & Phil, I guessed right: David Holland does intend to obtain IPCC AR5 correspondence *during* the preparation of AR5 rather than afterwards: <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> "So far the Information Commissioners Office has tried to throw out two of my complaints and is sitting on the rest. The ICO is under resourced and overloaded and the EIR is a lot more trouble for them than the FOIA. We may have to go through two years of guerilla war but you can all join in. The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held. I doubt this point has escaped our friends at the IPCC." The bit about "you can all join in" has a link to whatdotheyknow.com, which assists people in making FOI requests. This encouragement of others to join his campaign/war might eventually help us, if it is enough to count as vexatious. Tim -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK [2]www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ At 13:17 29/05/2009, Gabi Hegerl wrote: Hi Phil, I am going too and Tom is accompanying me - we have to have dinner some point, would be nice!! expert meeting: would Matt be a good person to suggest from UKCP09, since you dont sound keen? (or are you happy to be proposed?) Gabi Phil Jones wrote: Gabi, A few thoughts. 1. A good person from WG2 is Tim Carter. tim.carter@ymparisto.fi David Karoly will know about him thru WG2. Tim would be a good contact for developing country scientists in the D&A field, but David would know them as well. 2. The UKCP09 climate change projections will be released on June 18 by DEFRA. There ought to be much media attention - unless there are more MP expenses revelations! UKCIP have some worked examples on impacts in the UK, but these aren't end-to-end. 3. I'm going to Venice next month - are you going? Not sure I want to get involved in another initiative in September. Cheers Phil PS Maybe we ca work the Turney consortium bid into something more focussed? PPS - I saw Tom's piece in the Guardian yesterday. At 12:10 29/05/2009, you wrote: Hi guys, David and I have been asked to come up with names for the impact attribution expert meeting to be held in Geneva, Sept 14 -16. It would really help us if you could give me a) an indication if you are interested in going and have something relevant to contribute (eg impact relevant WG1 type changes) b) if you know a good scientist from the impacts community who you think should be invited (please give me a few keywords on interest/expertise). Developing nations and generally underrepresented geographical locations would be particularly great to hear about thanks everybody! I NEED THIS BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEKEND apologies!!! Gabi -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences, 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 [3]http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 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, 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 [4]http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3318. 2009-05-31 18:27:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jason Lowe , Maria Noguer date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:27:52 +0100 from: "Nicholls R.J." subject: RE: A proposal for QUEST-GSI-2? to: Nigel Arnell , "Tim Wheeler" , Tim Osborn , "Dawson T.P." , Richard Taylor , "pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk" , "rjh@ceh.ac.uk" , "richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk" , "e.fraser@see.leeds.ac.uk" , "graham.pilling@cefas.co.uk" , "sari. kovats" Following the others, I think that an earlier proposal would be best to maintain momentum and maximise what we can deliver to AR5. Before, proceeding I would recommend talking to NERC - is there any steer there? The disadvantage is time -- I am available for some of June, but only discrete windows. Best Wishes Robert From: Nigel Arnell [mailto:n.w.arnell@reading.ac.uk] Sent: 22 May 2009 15:49 To: Tim Wheeler; Tim Osborn; Dawson T.P.; Nicholls R.J.; Richard Taylor; pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk; rjh@ceh.ac.uk; richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk; e.fraser@see.leeds.ac.uk; graham.pilling@cefas.co.uk; sari. kovats; n.w.arnell@reading.ac.uk Cc: Jason Lowe; Maria Noguer Subject: A proposal for QUEST-GSI-2? Dear all, I know that we have not finished QUEST-GSI yet, but it is timely to think about "QUEST-GSI-2". The QUEST-GSI framework has given us an excellent opportunity to make a major contribution to IPCC AR5 and the DECC AVOID programme (as it evolves). I am proposing that we submit a proposal to NERC for a new project to build on QUEST-GSI. I have attached a very preliminary outline, summarizing how we would (i) run with new scenarios and (ii) enhance the science (although I haven't yet specified how we might do that - recognizing that "running with new scenarios" will involve some new science too). The key question is whether we seek to make a proposal for the 1 July 2009 NERC deadline or the 1 December 2009 deadline. The main advantages and disadvantages of each are: July (with potential start in April 2010) advantages continuity more time to do the science Disadvantages time to prepare proposal too soon to present results from QUEST-GSI in proposal too soon to bring in new partners December (with potential start in summer 2010 at the earliest) Advantages time to prepare a good proposal Able to include examples from QUEST-GSI Disadvantages risk of break with QUEST-GSI Shorter time to do the work I would greatly appreciate any comments. I have not discussed this with anybody at NERC or in QUEST. Regards Nigel Professor Nigel Arnell Director Walker Institute for Climate System Research University of Reading Earley Gate RG6 6BB UK +44-118-378-7392 www.walker-institute.ac.uk 408. 2009-06-01 15:40:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:40:51 +0100 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Summary to: Phil Jones Phil, Thanks for taking the time in the meetings. Hope that traffic wasn't too horrendous. Please update as you see fit. What I think we decided was this: We hold back on HadCRUT4 until both HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 are published. We aim for this release to be Dec 2010 / Jan 2011 We have parallel internal versions once HadSST3 is being updated Envisage in 2010 John K undertaking an update to CRUTEM to accomodate extra stations and tweaking land / sea merge and global average calculation steps. CRUTEM4 / HadCRUT4 paper would consist of: 1. New data (see action on PT) 2. Tweaked error model (urban and screens geographically variant) 3. Section assessing sensitivity to land-sea merge 4. Global average calculation assessment Actions: PT to contact Matt Menne of NCDC to try to ascertain the likely extra data we could gain from their holdings. PT to contact Tom Peterson to try to gain an urban / rural assignment catalogue. Post-AR5 would have to be a more in-depth error model and the grand vision although Phil expressed doubts about their efficacy / value for money vis-a-vis other potential uses. 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 2844. 2009-06-01 17:41:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , Christine McCallister , "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Participants So Far to: lbutler@ucar.edu Dear Lisa, Following Anjuli's email of last Friday (formally authorizing the use of my DOE Fellowship funds for payment of some Symposium-related expenses), Christine has been looking into the "rules for DOE and lab travel, and miscellaneous expenses" mentioned by Anjuli. This has proved to be quite time-consuming. Despite Anjuli's authorization, DOE rules prohibit us from using my Fellowship funds to pay for food at a "meeting". I CAN use my DOE Fellowship money to pay for food at a "conference"! There are somewhat complex DOE rules governing the distinction between a "meeting" and a "conference". Christine and I are now trying to argue that Tom's Symposium is a "Co-Sponsored Conference". I think we may be successful with this argument - but it will require completion of some paperwork on my part. It's my birthday later this week, and as birthday present, my girlfriend Annie booked a trip to Lake Tahoe. Annie did this several months ago, and it's difficult to change the booking now. So I'll be taking vacation on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of this week. I'll be back in my office this Friday. I'm sorry that I won't be able to work on answering Symposium questions until Friday. I'll try to get all remaining paperwork done then (e.g., regarding the justification for classifying the Symposium as a "conference", updating the participant list, etc.) I'll have my cell phone along in Tahoe, so feel free to call me (925-325-0481) with any questions! With best regards, Ben Lisa Butler wrote: > Hi Ben and Tom, > I received the lodging lists from the Golden Buff and Millennium this > morning. Rather than just forwarding them to you, I'm attaching my Excel > spreadsheet because I also have notes about some who have personal > accommodations. Note that the hotel info is outside of the print area, > so you can only see it on the screen; if you want it to print you will > need to change the print area to include that far right-hand column. > Please let me know if you have heard from any of the folks unaccounted > for because later this week I am going to send out a request for RSVPs > from anyone we haven't heard from. > Also let me know if getting this info in Excel is problematic for you, > if so, I'll turn it into a Word table (but not today -- I have to leave > at 1:30 PM today for a class). > > Ben, would you mind giving Christine a gentle nudge about sending me the > billing info so I can get the menus started? I should really get the > orders in this week! > Thanks and cheers, > Lisa > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5184. 2009-06-02 08:52:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:52:09 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email to: Keith Briffa ,Phil Jones it goes on and on.... is it fair to say that Susan Solomon's position as WG1 co-chair allowed her to speak on behalf of the IPCC on this matter of confidentiality? Tim >Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email >Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:45:45 +0100 >From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" >To: "Tim Osborn" >Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" > >Tim, >I met with Michael today and I think we are making progress on a >response to the ICO when we 'present' our case for the actions we >have taken on this matter. > >One question did arise however; in claiming an exemption under >s.27(2) and (3) (see: >http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_3#pt2-l1g27 >for section 27), the section makes reference to the expectations of >the international organisation. We proceeded on the basis that >Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC as an >international organisation and that her statements represented those >of the IPCC. Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC >and if she does not 'represent' the IPCC, who would, or would be in >a position to state their position on the confidentiality of >information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case? > >Cheers, Dave > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:28 PM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >Subject: RE: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email > > > >Dave, > > > >for Dominique Raynaud, we *did* get input (see my table and the > >correspondence -- very last entry in last year's document). > > > >for the other 5 in your list below, I can confirm that we didn't > >receive any response to our request for their view on > >confidentiality. Susan Solomon had indicated the IPCC view that > >confidentiality should kept, so they may rely on this. I don't > >believe we hold any correspondence from Olago, Ramesh or Zhang > >anyway, but we probably do from Villalba and Fyfe (indeed some from > >Fyfe was in the sample I sent you). > > > >Finally, in my table I indicate that for Richard Peltier he had not > >clarified his position. However, I note that in my compilation of > >responses from last year, a response from him is present and he asks > >that confidence be maintained. Please could you > >update/correct that table? > > > >Tim > > > >At 15:09 29/05/2009, you wrote: > >>Tim, > >>Quick question - judging by the lack of correspondence on the > >file, and > >>your notation on your list, could you confirm that we did NOT receive > >>any input from the following: > >> > >>Daniel Olago > >>Rengaswamy Ramesh > >>Dominque Raynaud > >>Ricoardo Villalba > >>De'er Zhang > >>John Fyfe > >> > >>Cheers. Dave > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >> >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:00 PM > >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >> >Subject: ICO request [FOI_08-23]: Ammann email > >> > > >> >Dave - here's the third. Less forthright, perhaps, but still clear > >> >that his intent was that the emails were for limited > >distribution only. > >> > > >> >>Cc: "keith Briffa" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >> >>From: Caspar Ammann > >> >>To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > >> >>Subject: Re: request for your emails > >> >>Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:14:46 -0600 > >> >> > >> >>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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >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 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 4484. 2009-06-02 09:42:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 2 09:42:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: information, please to: harrytaylor_29@yahoo.com Harry, Have you looked at the IPCC reports at this web address. [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html I can't do jpeg files. Have you looked also at our information sheets? [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ Cheers Phil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: harry taylor [[3]mailto:harrytaylor_29@yahoo.com] Sent: 31 May 2009 19:39 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: information, please Hello, I am Harry A. Taylor Jr., NASA space scientist, retired, and I would like to request the favor of some information on your work regarding Climate Change and Global termperatures. I researched the atmospher and ionosphere, flying an reporting instruments on many rockets, Earth satellites, and a Probe and Orbiter at Venus. I have also done work in the climate and Sun Weather areas, and have been associated with researchers such as Friss Kristensen, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, etc. Now, retired, I mostly am invited to speak to groups and clubs. I use the occasions to publicize new developments in the debate on man produced global warming. I of course believe in Natural variability and reject the hype now greatly distracting world initiatives. I would like to do better in this "hobby", and thus ask for your assistance in a modest way. Simply put, I would greatly benefit from receiving JPEG files of key illustrations you have produced, and also presented on your web site, including charts of historical global temperature, comparisons with other data, etc....anything highly pertinent to encouraging awareness of the past records, and the present trands of significant cooling. So, that is it....JPEG files of key illustrations and related explanatory text if possible.....as it is, I can copy some articles from the net, but since I use computer projected visuals in my talks, I need the JPEG files so I can work with the illustrations in preparing talks. I will certainly reference and credit all contributions and will be very appreciative of what I hope you will send my way....I look forward to interacting with you and would of course be please to send you copies of any of my publications .....all the best, Harry Taylor, Melbourne Fl. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1824. 2009-06-02 10:24:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:24:29 +0100 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Re: Summary to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil. FOI looked more serious after legal had had a look until we noted a gotcha. Sadly may reflect poorly on John K. Can you give me a bell when you get this message as I want to clear our response with you first before penning it? 01392 886552. I'll be away from desk 12.00-13.15 otherwise in. On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 09:44 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > Peter, > One minor thing - rest OK. > Cheers > Phil > > At 15:40 01/06/2009, you wrote: > >Phil, > > > >Thanks for taking the time in the meetings. Hope that traffic wasn't too > >horrendous. Please update as you see fit. > > > >What I think we decided was this: > > > >We hold back on HadCRUT4 until both HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 are published. > > > CRUTEM4 and HadCRUT4 will get published together. > > > >We aim for this release to be Dec 2010 / Jan 2011 > > > >We have parallel internal versions once HadSST3 is being updated > > > >Envisage in 2010 John K undertaking an update to CRUTEM to accomodate > >extra stations and tweaking land / sea merge and global average > >calculation steps. > > > >CRUTEM4 / HadCRUT4 paper would consist of: > >1. New data (see action on PT) > >2. Tweaked error model (urban and screens geographically variant) > >3. Section assessing sensitivity to land-sea merge > >4. Global average calculation assessment > > > >Actions: > > > >PT to contact Matt Menne of NCDC to try to ascertain the likely extra > >data we could gain from their holdings. > > > >PT to contact Tom Peterson to try to gain an urban / rural assignment > >catalogue. > > > >Post-AR5 would have to be a more in-depth error model and the grand > >vision although Phil expressed doubts about their efficacy / value for > >money vis-a-vis other potential uses. > > > >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 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- 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 3870. 2009-06-02 14:43:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Miller Giff , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Overpeck Jonathan , Bo Vinther date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:43:50 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: a few comments on the latest draft to: David Schneider Dave: Thanks for your helpful suggestions. (1) Your first comment refers to a key statement in the abstract and we need to make sure it's crystal clear. We need to somehow quantify the extent of recent warming in context of the last 2000 years. Would it be cleaner to just say, "based on our reconstruction, the 1990s was the warmest decade of the first 200 decades AD?". Or, "the last half-century (1950-2000 AD) included four of the five warmest decades of the last two millennia". These are easier to grasp, but they do not include two important aspects: - our main conclusion that the overall cooling trend makes the recent warming even more unusual than previously assumed (granted, not by much). - the exceptional warming that has taken place in the last 10 years; our reconstruction ends at 1999, so significantly under-represents the warming that has taken place. The current statement "During the most-recent decade, temperatures rose 1.4C higher than the projected value" takes into account both the projected cooling and the 21st century warming. I'm open to suggestions. What do others think? (2) I have not done any correlations or spectral analysis to compare our Arctic reconstruction to other Hemispheric averages. It would be great if someone wants to tackle this for either this paper or in the future. I have all of the data in a tidy spreadsheet. (3) I have now added: "General Comments: The reviewer was concerned that the relation between orbital forcing and temperature response is stronger in the proxy data than in the climate simulation. Reviewers comment #10 included additional helpful suggestions for improving the data-model comparison. We have re-analyzed the CCSM model output to include a full 2000-year-long transient simulation. This places the proxy data on par with the model data, and led to improved regression statistics, which now show more convincingly that the climate sensitivity of the CCSM is in good agreement with the sensitivity of the proxy reconstruction." Thanks, Darrell On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:51 PM, David Schneider wrote: Darrell et al.: Just a few comments on the latest draft: 1) Lines 25-27: "temperatures rising 1.4 degrees higher than projected..." is confusing. When I first read this, I thought you are referring to model simulations. Having read the rest of the text, it becomes clear you're referring to projecting the linear trend from the proxy data forward. Can you make this clearer in the abstract? By the way, the 20thC model simulations show warm season temperatures rising about 1.5 degrees from about 1900 to 2000, for example: [1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/%7Edschneid/areatimeseries1.gif 2) In Figure 3 F, you show 'this study' compared with Moberg, Mann et al., etc. Are there any good correlations, spectral coherence, etc. between this study and any of the others? This might bolster the arguments made in lines 135-145. 3) I think the reply to Reviewer 2 needs a general comment about the revised analysis showing the climate sensitivity of the CCSM to be in good agreement with the proxy-inferred sensitivity. And better regression stats than before, thanks to his helpful suggestions. Dave 4551. 2009-06-03 09:21:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C G Kilsby" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , c.harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Wed Jun 3 09:21:33 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Phone call... to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" Kathryn, Had to rush off after the phone call last night. As you might have guessed from my comments on the phone yesterday, I didn't think much of Jacqui's arguments. I was alerted up to the attached a few minutes before - see section 7 (pages 61-62 in the pdf, which appear as pages 49/50). There seems a disconnect between the people Jacqui talks to and the real users who will access and use UKCP09. Chris and I know that EARWIG has been used by the EA extensively, but it is by people who know what they are doing. I don't think she meets real users, but managers. Her comments about the Thames Barrage showed this. They won't be interested in the WG, but in the marine report. Users will have to be re-educated in how they access and use UKCP09. I've been saying this all along. This is exactly what happened with UKCIP98 and UKCIP02. I think the learning curve will be much steeper for them this time. Perhaps UKCIP should be organizing some workshops post launch. Should we be discussing this on June 12? The real issue is that she has been lead to be believe that UKCP09 is much more certain in the projections, but in reality the opposite is probably true. When users get to see the results, they are going to say that there is too much uncertainty. As an aside the two pages in the attached has many inaccuracies. I've no idea who they consulted and who in DEFRA read these two pages. The first 4 paragraphs are OK. The next one is based in ignorance of what UKCP09 has done. The next distorts what IPCC 2007 said. The next distorts the word subjective. The next just shows that the authors know nothing about how climate modelling is done! The final three on the second page are just as bad, but they at least say that issues should be resolved once UKCP09 is released. They seem to want greater ranges in the projections - someone should tell them that is exactly what they are going to get. These two pages seems to have been written by someone who knows little about UKCP09 and more importantly who has not done any real quantitative impacts work in the past. I know you're not involved, but there is a briefing session about the National Risk Assessment call tomorrow afternoon. One thing that should be emphasized at the launch is that users should read all the reports and the guidance material before attempting to do anything. There is a lot to take in. I'd ignore anyone making comments the day after launch as they just won't have had time to read and digest what is in the reports. I think though that there are too many so-called climate experts out there who have already made up their minds - based on snippets of what has been done in UKCP09 and hearsay. After launch we might find out who these so-called experts are! On a more cheerful note at the end - we at UEA are very happy with the WG. We think it is working fine. Cheers Phil At 17:23 02/06/2009, Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) wrote: Hi Phil, What are your thoughts on the phone call we just had? It sounds to us like a fundamental difference of opinion over the intelligence of the users and whether you should provide material that contains uncertainty at all! However itd be interesting to hear what you thought of Jacquis arguments. Kind Regards, Kathryn Kathryn Humphrey Research and 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1057. 2009-06-03 15:07:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:07:25 +0100 from: "Parker, David" subject: RE: Tom's thoughts on urban errors ... to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" , "Phil Jones" , "Stott, Peter" Peter Thanks. I agree we should ask Tom for the actual numeric metadata or its on-line address. David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ -----Original Message----- From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:34 PM To: Phil Jones; Parker, David; Stott, Peter Subject: Tom's thoughts on urban errors ... Hi, Peter, The attached paper describes the rural/urban metadata we have for most stations in GHCN (at least as of 1999). We should be able to easily provide you with both the map and night lights metadata, as I believe they are on-line with GHCN. My personal view is: I heard the world's foremost urban meteorology expert, Tim Oke (Canada), say that urbanization takes place on three scales: micro (on the scale of a garden), local (on a scale of a park) and meso (on the scale of the city). Of the three, he said the mirco is most important and the meso is least. I have seen a lot of lousy urban heat analysis, such as papers which looked at the temperature difference between rural and urban but used the temperature difference itself as the metric for which was the most urban and most rural. Of the analyses that seemed robust, they tend to find little or no uhi bias in homogeneity adjusted data. My view is that this is because the adjustments to account for sudden changes in the micro and local scales which, by the very nature of comparison to neighboring stations, adjusts for subtle meso scale biases. Everybody wants to add an estimate of what UHI bias might be into their error bars, but it seems to me that rather than trust folk lore that there is a uhi bias, they first need to find one systematically in the network. Until they do that, the former is just hand waving to appease the know-littles. Jim Hansen adjusts his urban stations (based on night-lights) to nearby rural stations, but if I recall correctly (I'll send that paper shortly), he warms the trend in 42 percent of the urban stations indicating that nearly half have an urban cold bias. Yet error analyzers want to add a one sided extra error bar for uhi..... Regards, Tom -- 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 776. 2009-06-03 15:29:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: helama@cc.helsinki.fi date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:29:11 +0200 from: Hkan Grudd subject: Re: request to collaborate/co-author to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith and Samuli, I am, too, anxious to see this paper written and am willing to collaborate 100%. All the best, Hkan Hakan and Samuli I am soon coming out of my teaching load for a few months - I am anxious to get a couple of papers written and would like to persevere with the analyses I did largely following the ADVANCE project. One idea I had was the demonstration of the RCS approach to producing the Fennoscandia long ring-width series , focusing on the quantitative demonstration of the timescale and time dependent signals in the Swedish and Finnish data - issues that arise - and possibly links to variability elsewhere. I showed some of this work at the Bergen meeting a few years ago. Would you be willing to collaborate and co-author such a paper. I would very much hope that if we get the right spin - we might try submitting it to Nature. I would use only the ring width data covering the last 7000 years ( as we have now) in this paper. 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/ -- ________________________ Hkan 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 3328. 2009-06-03 16:24:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:24:51 +0200 from: Reinhard Bhm subject: WG: AW: Revised paper to: "'Johann Hiebl'" , "'Phil Jones'" , "'David Frank'" , "'Maurizio Maugeri'" , "'michele'" Dear Co-authors of "THE EARLY INSTRUMENTAL WARM-BIAS: A SOLUTION FOR LONG CENTRAL EUROPEAN TEMPERATURE SERIES 1760-2007", A mail from Phil reminded me that I perhaps have forgotten to pass on to you this letter of acceptance from Mai 22nd sent by Rudolf Brazdil, the editor of the special Millennium-issue of Climatic Change. So the paper seems to be accepted now, although the last definite decision still has to be taken by Stephen Schneider. Best regards Reinhard -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- Von: Brazdil Rudolf [mailto:brazdil@geogr.muni.cz] Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Mai 2009 10:22 An: Reinhard Bhm Betreff: Re: AW: Revised paper Dear Reinhard, our recent e-mail reports were running paralelly ... OK, many thanks, now I am able to put all together and send to Climatic Change. I hope Prof. Schneider will accept my proposal on acceptation of this article and you will be contacted in any reasonable time by publishers ... With many thanks and best regards, Sincerely Rudolf 3223. 2009-06-03 18:23:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , Bradley Ray , Keith Briffa , Miller Giff , Otto-Bleisner Bette , Overpeck Jonathan , Bo Vinther date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:23:38 -0600 from: David Schneider subject: Re: spatial pattern to: Darrell Kaufman I don't think we should go there. Any PC analysis on proxy data will be picked apart by the skeptics, even if it yields some useful insight, and I don't recall there being anything too exciting in the pattern given the limited amount of data. Dave On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Darrell Kaufman <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> wrote: Dave and Nick: I've been thinking about the remaining holes in the manuscript. Spatial patterns are important. At one point we explored the spatial pattern of the PC scores. I think it would be good to bring this up in the SOM. I could make a dot map showing the site locations and their correlations with PC1. The upshot would be that the proxy types are not uniformly distributed, and there are too few records to discern any spatial patterns from any geographical or proxy-type bias (e.g., high-elevation ice cores). Thoughts? Darrell 4892. 2009-06-04 12:23:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:23:35 +0100 from: "HAYES, LUCY (DECC - CESA)" subject: Request to nominate you for proposed IPCC Special Report on to: Dear Phil, I am a member of the climate science team in DECC. I am writing to ask whether you would wish to be nominated as an author of the IPCC Special Report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks". Please note that a Science Steering Group set up by the IPCC Bureau will select the final participants, so there is no guarantee that you will be selected as an author. If you are happy for us to nominate you, I would be grateful if you would identify your preference for the chapters you would wish to work on and in what capacity you would wish to participate: Please see the attached form. For more details on the chapters, see the Special Report scoping document, also attached. I would also be grateful if you had any recommendations for other people who we could consider as authors for the report. For any recommendations, please send a brief summary of why you think they would be suitable and their contact details. We would also be grateful if you would let us know if you would prefer not to be nominated. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Lucy Hayes. <> <
> Lucy Hayes Scientific Adviser Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis (CESA) Department of Energy and Climate Change Whitehall place London lucy.hayes@decc.gsi.gov.uk Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCC-XXX14.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Form for nominees - chapter preferences.xls" 764. 2009-06-04 14:33:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Thu Jun 4 14:33:11 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Keith's Online Data to: Mike Mike, Attached are two tree ring data files which need to be added to the website data, accessible via - Keith - Philosphic Transactions paper - data. item 6 needs wording change from 1. 6. the combined set of tree-ring measurement data that make up Fennoscandia regional chronology for the AD period are in file "[1]TornFinADring.raw" (ASCII text) in [2]Tucson format (see Grudd et al. 2002, Eronen et al. 2002, Helama et al. 2002 for versions of separate Swedish and Finnish chronologies constructed from these, or very similar, data) 2. to 3. 6. the combined sets of tree-ring measurement data that make up the Fennoscandia, Yamal and Avam-Taymyr regional chronologies for the AD period are in files "[3]TornFinADring.raw", "YamalADRing.raw" and "TayBavRing.raw" (all ASCII text in [4]Tucson format ). 4. Thanks 5. Tom 4978. 2009-06-05 12:28:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:28:53 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Fwd: Request to nominate you for proposed IPCC Special Report to: Phil Jones Phil Yes - I would be interested in being a lead author. Most obvious chapter is chapter 3 (but could probably also contribute a bit to chapters 4 and 5). Andrew Dlugolecki's interests would be more in the later chapters. Clare At 12:48 04/06/2009, Phil Jones wrote: Clare, Tim, Do either of you want me to pass your names onto Lucy? If so, can you give me a few sentences? I think I might suggest I can be a Review Editor for one of the early chapters. Cheers Phil X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: LUCY.HAYES@decc.gsi.gov.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1244114619!29874543!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [62.25.106.208] Subject: Request to nominate you for proposed IPCC Special Report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:23:35 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Request to nominate you for proposed IPCC Special Report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks" Thread-Index: AcnlBuY1paat4Z4RRkCtETldn8i3Xg== From: "HAYES, LUCY (DECC - CESA)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2009 11:23:35.0687 (UTC) FILETIME=[E685E970:01C9E506] 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: 23288866 - 6242b1f892c1 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23288866&m=6242b1f892c1&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23288866&m=6242b1f892c1&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23288866&m=6242b1f892c1&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Dear Phil, I am a member of the climate science team in DECC. I am writing to ask whether you would wish to be nominated as an author of the IPCC Special Report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks". Please note that a Science Steering Group set up by the IPCC Bureau will select the final participants, so there is no guarantee that you will be selected as an author. If you are happy for us to nominate you, I would be grateful if you would identify your preference for the chapters you would wish to work on and in what capacity you would wish to participate: Please see the attached form. For more details on the chapters, see the Special Report scoping document, also attached. I would also be grateful if you had any recommendations for other people who we could consider as authors for the report. For any recommendations, please send a brief summary of why you think they would be suitable and their contact details. We would also be grateful if you would let us know if you would prefer not to be nominated. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Lucy Hayes. <> <> Lucy Hayes Scientific Adviser Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis (CESA) Department of Energy and Climate Change Whitehall place London lucy.hayes@decc.gsi.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 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: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 3391. 2009-06-05 12:38:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jun 5 12:38:27 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Request to nominate you for proposed IPCC Special Report on to: "HAYES, LUCY (DECC - CESA)" Dear Lucy, I'm away part of next week, so a reply now. In it there is my request to be an RE and also three other posssibilities. I'd like to nominated as a Review Editor for Chapter 3. If you need me to fill in a nomination form then I will. I filled one in for the Extremes workshop in Norway in March this year. I also filled one in for the Venice scoping meeting across all three WGs (meeting July 13-17). I'm also hopeful of being nominated as a CLA/LA in the main WG1 report (AR5). As for others - there are three possibilities. Tim Osborn - also in CRU at UEA (t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) Tim has sent me this chapter 3: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment or chapter 9: Case studies (assuming that the cases shown will want some climatological context, e.g. how unusual the event was, whether the type of event considered is likely to be influenced by climate change) Brief supporting statement: Well published in climate and climate change field (>70 publications), spanning wide range of disciplines (past, present, future change; data, models; precipitation extremes including those that produce droughts and floods). Have led and worked on UK science projects, UK applied projects (e.g. funded by UK Water Industry Research, Environment Agency), coordinated EU collaborative project), so I have experience of working across disciplines and with users of science. I was a contributing author for two chapters of IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). I have researched extensively on UK precipitation extremes, though also have experience with temperature extremes and droughts during instrumental record and in future climate scenarios. Then there is Clare Goodess - also at CRU, UEA (c.goodess@uea.ac.uk) Clare hasn't sent me anything, except that she'd like to be involved. She co-ordinated a large EU project (STARDEX) on downscaling and extremes. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/stardex/ and Andrew Dlugolecki (ANDREW DLUGOLECKI ) Andrew used to work in the insurance industry and is an attached academic to CRU at UEA Andrew recently edited the large report on extremes, risk and insurance for the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). At the link below is the press release from Feb 2009. [2]http://www.cii.co.uk/app/news/default.aspx?endstem=1&id=913. The report was called 'Coping with Climate Change' All three would be good nominees from the UK. I'm fully aware that the number of selected UK authors though will be low. Best Regards Phil At 12:23 04/06/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, I am a member of the climate science team in DECC. I am writing to ask whether you would wish to be nominated as an author of the IPCC Special Report on "Extreme events and disasters: Managing the risks". Please note that a Science Steering Group set up by the IPCC Bureau will select the final participants, so there is no guarantee that you will be selected as an author. If you are happy for us to nominate you, I would be grateful if you would identify your preference for the chapters you would wish to work on and in what capacity you would wish to participate: Please see the attached form. For more details on the chapters, see the Special Report scoping document, also attached. I would also be grateful if you had any recommendations for other people who we could consider as authors for the report. For any recommendations, please send a brief summary of why you think they would be suitable and their contact details. We would also be grateful if you would let us know if you would prefer not to be nominated. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Lucy Hayes. <> <> Lucy Hayes Scientific Adviser Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis (CESA) Department of Energy and Climate Change Whitehall place London lucy.hayes@decc.gsi.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5157. 2009-06-06 11:08:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:08:07 -0600 from: "Eugene.R.Wahl" subject: [Fwd: Re: Tim Osborn's visit and talk ideas] to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim: Here is Dave Anderson's selection from the topics you kindly offered. I concur with his judgment about which would be of most interest to the Earth Systems Research Lab (ESRL) here at NOAA-Boulder. For my part I'm interested in both (i) and (ii), in particular "pseudo-proxy study that looks into how good temperature reconstructions need to be to constrain some climate model parameters" in (i) and "exploring uncertainty in patterns of future climate change at national-to-global scales" in (ii). So, we should have plenty to talk about! Very good, and really looking forward to your visit. If you would like, you are also invited to come and visit over the weekend you'll be here with Barbara (my wife) and myself, at our home in Colorado Springs 95 miles south of Boulder. We would be most happy to host you. That said, please feel totally free to make whatever plans suit you the best; we won't be in any way bothered if you prefer to stay the weekend in Boulder. It is a very nice and interesting place -- one of the most interesting and active small cities in the US in fact, like a somewhat toned-down Berkeley CA. [The only thing to be aware of if you do come to CO Springs is to make sure we arrive back in Boulder in time for your talk on Monday morning at 11:00. I typically use the regional bus transit system, which is very good, with the exception that they can run late if the traffic is bad through Denver. That doesn't happen much in the warmer time of year, but it would be something to take into our planning.] -- 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 Return-path: Received: from kritimys.paleo.noaa.gov (kritimys.paleo.noaa.gov [140.172.166.31]) by email.boulder.noaa.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug 26 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0KKS001H3AU9BZ@email.boulder.noaa.gov> for Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:10:57 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:10:57 -0600 From: "David M. Anderson" Subject: Re: Tim Osborn's visit and talk ideas In-reply-to: To: Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov Message-id: <4A2989E1.4060208@noaa.gov> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) References: Original-recipient: rfc822;Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov Lets go with ii, hopefully of more direct interest to ESRL, and explore the paleo topics with our group. Dave Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov wrote: > Hi Dave: > > Here is Tim Osborn's response to my query of yesterday about his talk > subject. Can you give me your preference and I'll pass that along to > Tim. I'm fine with whatever you think is best. > > Peace, Gene > > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for taking the poll and making these suggestions. I don't > have very much recent work on the NAO to present, and what I do have > is more about present/future than past. In terms of recent work, I > have just two things to offer... > > (i) various comparisons between palaeoclimate reconstructions and > model simulations for recent centuries (3 specifically aspects: > temperature seasonality changes, southern hemisphere temperature > changes, and a pseudo-proxy study that looks into how good > temperature reconstructions need to be to constrain some climate > model parameters). > > (ii) exploring uncertainty in patterns of future climate change at > national-to-global scales, based on results from multi-GCM and > (possibly) perturbed-physical-parameter-GCM ensembles. This focusses > on climate scenarios and including meteorological drought. > > Would either of these suit, do you think? I can think up more > appealing titles! (i) is palaeo, (ii) is future. Even if you think > (ii) would be of wider interest, I'd still be keen to talk over (i) > in person with you while I'm there. > > T. > -- 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 747. 2009-06-08 10:13:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:13:02 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: New Proposal to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil, Since you intend to submit before Sept 2009, it'd be in response to the general solicitation [1]http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/FAPN09-01.html The number is DE-PS02-09ER09-01 I'm feverishly working towards completing decisions on the Regional Modeling solicitation. I hope I can complete so I attend part of the CCSM and Tom Wigley Symposium. Best Anjuli ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:07 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: New Proposal Anjuli, I'm nearing completion on a new proposal submission for mid July 2009. When I go onto grants.gov it seems as though I need a specific call? Do you have ay idea how I can get a revised submission pack? Finally - has much changed since 2006? I gather from Ben that you might be in Boulder on June 19. If so, I will see you then! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3194. 2009-06-09 21:10:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , , , date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:10:42 +0100 from: "Packer, Kathryn (ACC)" subject: Re: Restricted- Defra Briefing Pack- KH comments to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" , "Lewis, Claire (ACC)" Thanks Kathryn Picking up on your final comments this chimes with agreement reached at a meeting John Beddington chaired with Julia, John Mitchell and James participating along with Brian Hoskins and others. It was agreed that we would send the science section of the briefing pack to all of them and then (Met office?) Would work up a more detailed version for Julia, Johns B and M, other Chief Scientific Adviser would use (not expected to go back into Ministerial pack). So could you send this to John M and James too, then suggest Julia has a look and then it goes out to all at the John Beddington meeting today and to the SG and UP at the same time. Is that OK? Kathryn ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) To: Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Lewis, Claire (ACC) Cc: 'Roger Street' ; Jenkins, Geoff ; Ag Stephens ; Phil Jones ; Colin Harpham ; C G Kilsby ; UKCIP08 Sent: Tue Jun 09 20:59:39 2009 Subject: Restricted- Defra Briefing Pack- KH comments Hi Claire, Here are my comments (in track changes) on the briefing pack. I have looked at the narrative, The UK Climate Projections, part of Building Britain's Future, and the Science Behind the Projections. I haven't look at the sectoral and regional sections or the ACC section. I've done this in a bit of a rush to get it back to you and out to the project team asap. Could copyees please look at the UK Climate Projections and Science behind the Projections sections and let me have any further comments by close tomorrow (Wednesday) (very sorry for the silly deadline). This is a high level document pitched for any reader to dip in and out of (rather than reading everything) and is meant to give information so that they can respond quickly to questions rather than get a detailed knowledge of all of the issues. So if you want to change/add anything please could you keep it short, basic and to the point. Note that quite a few sections are still unfinished. This pack is planned to be circulated to the steering group and users' panel next week, for use if they are approached with questions on launch day, as well as going to Ministers. I don't think we will send the SG and UP all of it, but probably just the sections specific to the Projections. Claire/Kathryn do you think that's a good idea? Kind Regards, Kathryn <<2009-06-09 Ministerial Briefing v2.10 KATHRYN HUMPHREY.docx>> Kathryn Humphrey Research and 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. 4538. 2009-06-11 10:49:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David Pugh" , "Phil Jones" , "Kennedy, John" date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:49:57 +0100 from: "Parker, David" subject: RE: SST bias advice to: "Philip Woodworth" Philip For bucket corrections, see Fig. 18 of the attached paper (Folland and Parker, 1995). In June 1860 near the Falklands (upper left panel), the estimated correction is less than 0.1 deg C. An underlying assumption is that about 75% of buckets were wooden at that time (Section 8d on page 351). However the instrumentation is likely to have varied from ship to ship, and unless we know what was done on board the Erebus, we cannot be absolutely sure of the bias. The Folland and Parker (1995) corrections are relative to a modern (1951-1980) mix of in situ SST data from engine intakes, insulated and uninsulated buckets and hull sensors. Corrections relative to the 1961-1990 reference period we now use will be very similar, but Thompson et al (2008)* have now pointed out the need for corrections to modern data. As AVHRR data are calibrated using buoys, and buoys appear to be biased slightly cold compared to ships (consult John Kennedy for more details), then the AVHRR may be biased cold, by an amount approaching 0.1 deg C, fortuitously yielding next-to-no bias relative to wooden buckets in Falklands winter! * Thompson D.W.J., Kennedy, J.J., Wallace J.M., Jones, P.D. 2008: A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature. Nature, 453, 646-649 doi:10.1038/nature06982. Regarding the contents of ICOADS, see http://icoads.noaa.gov/ and/or contact Scott Woodruff. I hope this helps, Regards David David Parker, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:34 AM To: Parker, David Cc: Philip Woodworth; David Pugh Subject: Fwd: SST bias advice Philip, Been away Tues/Wed. Sending this reply back via David Parker, in case he has some more thoughts. First I'm not sure how much SST data are in ICOADS (even the CLIWOC work as well) from obs taken while a ship is in port or at anchor. I'd presume they get included, but they would seem like pier obs, so may be flagged as such. When I say flagged, you'd only know by looking at the locations and noticing these don't change for a month! Presumably the SST obs were taken with a bucket, which in the 1840s would have been a wooden bucket. This bias from wooden buckets is smaller than with the later canvas buckets (1890s to 1940s). David can probably tell you what this would be for wooden buckets in the 1850s. My guess is that it would be quite small - any adjustment for it would be an increase of between 0 and 0.2deg C, probably near the lower end. I also think you're better off talking to David than Dick Reynolds. Cheers Phil >Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:48:04 +0100 >From: Philip Woodworth >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) >Gecko/20050909 Red Hat/1.7.10-1.1.3.2 >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: Phil Jones , David Pugh >Subject: SST bias advice >X-Null-Tag: caf7d41d5458c87a0a940973831edf98 >X-MailScanner-NERC-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information >X-MailScanner-NERC-ID: n597m2XU032119 >X-MailScanner-NERC: Found to be clean >X-MailScanner-NERC-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), > SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.5, required 5, autolearn=not spam, > BAYES_00 -3.50) >X-MailScanner-NERC-From: plw@pol.ac.uk >X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 1794432, limit: 512000) >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 > > >Hi Phil, > >Have you any advice on the below? I sent this to Reynolds in NOAA >but I am not sure he is around still? Anyway, as you were a >co-author of the IPCC chapter I wondered if you might have some >idea. I think I mentioned previously our work in the Falklands: > > >I would be very grateful for advice on likely bias in a set of >historical sea surface temperature measurements compared to the >primarily AVHRR ones of today. I have read up a bit on this subject (the >appendix to the measurement chapter in the 4AR was very useful) but >still find it hard to grasp what the possible biases might be. > >We are making comparisons of sea level measured in the Falklands in 1842 >by James Clark Ross to those of today, and in part of that work we >compared Ross's 'mean temperature of the sea surface' (see attached tif >image of one page of his journal) with those from the 'sst.mnmean.nc' >file from the CDC for 1981 onwards which is based on your (Reynolds) >2002 work. > >The Ross temperature for southern winter 1842 is about the same as you >get for a similar time of year in the CDC file (about 4.1 deg C). But do >you have any feel for how they might be relatively biased and, if so, >have you a reference we could quote? I realise this is a bit of long >shot - there is no information in his book I have found explaining how >the temperature measurements were made or the time of day. > >Many thanks in advance for the advice. > >Phil Woodworth > >-- >This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC >is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents >of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless >it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to >NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Folland&Parker_QJRMS_1995.pdf" 1875. 2009-06-11 17:43:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: simon Tett , "'Gabi Hegerl'" , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:43:13 +0100 from: Sandy Tudhope subject: Re: NERC Climate Consortium bid-meeting in July? to: Chris Turney Hi Chris, Very sorry for the slow reply; it has been a particularly hectic end to the academic year here. Gabi, Simon and I are all keen on the idea of possible projects in the area you've identified, and with the researchers you've drawn together. But there are a couple of practical 'buts'!: a) Neither Simon nor Gabi can make it for your proposed early July date. b) We are all particularly interested in developing a tighter focus, likely around 18th and 19th century, i.e., extending the pre-instrumental data set, particularly for the tropics and southern Hemisphere, and using the combined data and modelling approach to address questions of climate sensitivity to natural forcings, forced and unforced variability, tropical-extratropical linkages and more (all embedded within your outline I know!). I am also aware (from my recent membership of the NERC Consortium Panel) just how important it is to demonstrate that a Consortium approach is the ONLY viable way to tackle a problem ... if it could be tackled by a number of standard grants then it does not qualify as 'good' consortium material. So, I think we feel that while a Consortium approach might well work (indeed we have thought a little bit about an iterative approach to data-collection, analysis, and modelling where each step informs the next), it may also be the case that some of the topics in your outline would be more successfully tackled by standard grant approaches with sub-sets of us. I know that this is probably exactly the sort of discussion you were hoping to have in July; I'm just letting you know the areas we currently feel the most excited about. SUGGESTION: Depending on the uptake you've had to your July meeting suggestion, could we suggest, as an alternate, the possibility of holding off until September when everybody is (hopefully) back from the summer? We'd be very happy to host in Edinburgh if that is any help. If you decide to go ahead with the July meeting, i.e., strong uptake from the rest of the group, then I will do my very best to attend. Let me know ... and if it would be easier to discuss some of this by phone suggest a time and number and I'll give you a call. (I'm ccing this to the UEA group as we've had discussions about the merits of an 18th-19th century focus for quite a while). Many thanks again for taking the lead in this. All the very best, Sandy (and for Simon and Gabi). Chris Turney wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Apologies for the delay. Things have been manic with admin and teaching. That > said, I think we're starting to make some progress with the NERC proposal. > We've tried to take on board all of the comments you kindly sent but it became > clearly fairly early on that we need to get together to thrash out where to from > here. > > As you know, the NERC Consortium bids need approval of a 2 pager before a > complete bid can be submitted. With this in mind, Peter Cox and I are aiming to > secure funds from the University of Exeter to host a 2 day getaway to thrash out > a finalised 2 pager, outlining precisely what we want to do and justifying a > Consortium bid. The aim would be to submit this to NERC at the end of the 2 day > . (Ultimately, we're hoping we might submit the completed, final bid for the 1 > December deadline). We're just putting the finishing touches to get the funds > for this meeting but in advance of this I wanted to check on your availability > in early July? If we leave it much later we hit field season and from September > are back into another academic year of madness. I was wondering about sometime > during the 1-3 July. Any good? > > Simon and Tim: It would be great to have you on board so please let me know if > you're interested. No worries if not. > > Just for reference, I've attached a revised version of the text. Hope this > helps to kick things off. > > With very best wishes, > > Chris > **************************************************** > *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* > > Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing carbon the way > nature intended/ > // > > 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.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 Sandy Tudhope, School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, Edinburgh University, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW,U.K. Tel: +44 131 650 8508 +44 131 650 4842 (sec.) Fax: +44 131 668 3184 e-mail: sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1314. 2009-06-12 10:51:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:51:48 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: UPDATE - Information Commissioners Office and Mr Holland to: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Dear All, I am writing for two reasons: (i) to ask for clarification on one issue in this case (ii) to update you on the appeal by Mr Holland to the ICO (i) Could someone please get back to Dave and I on a query about IPCC authority: "We proceeded on the basis that Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC as an international organisation and that her statements represented those of the IPCC. Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC and if she does not 'represent' the IPCC, who would, or would be in a position to state their position on the confidentiality of information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case?" If Susan does not have this role then we need to contact the person who does - (ii) below explains why. (ii) Tim provided lots of really helpful information, on the basis of which Dave and I met a couple of times to begin to shape the response to the ICO. We have now received the formal request from the ICO to respond - we have until 30th June to do this. They have asked that we also consider the request under EIR (which is why we are reveiwing our assumption about Susan Solomon and need to take that forward as appropriate, depending on your response to (i)). Yesterday, Dave and I met with Jonathan Colam and agreed the way forward for the response to the ICO, which will be that our assessment under EIR means that we would also not reelase the information requested. Dave will have a draft response ready by the end of next week and this will be sent to the Registrar & Secretary and VC to (a) make them aware of the issue and (ii) to seek their views on how we may wish to proceed if the ICO finds in Mr Holland's favour. Jonathan shares our view that this issue relates to academic freedom and international relations. I will keep you all posted. Do get in touch if you have any queries or comments. 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 4188. 2009-06-12 12:10:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones date: Fri Jun 12 12:10:33 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC to: Susan Solomon Dear Susan, you may remember that about a year ago we had a Freedom of Information request from David Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved. Phil was also involved because Holland asked for internal CRU/UEA documents too. UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely affected if these materials were released. The latter view was based in part on your email (copied below) indicating that releasing further material was not appropriate. Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must explain its reasons for rejecting the original request. I've been asked this: "We proceeded on the basis that Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC as an international organisation and that her statements represented those of the IPCC. Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC and if she does not 'represent' the IPCC, who would, or would be in a position to state their position on the confidentiality of information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case?" Now I realise that you aren't co-chair WG1 anymore, so I have two questions: (i) during the time when you were co-chair WG1, is it fair to say that your position did allow you to represent the IPCC view (or just the IPCC WG1 view)? (ii) can you suggest who we should contact who can currently represent the IPCC view on this matter? We really need someone who is fully aware of the issues surrounding this and appreciates the context of this request! We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while drafting these important reports. I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog: <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46 "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held." If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held". All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5 correspondence *during* the drafting process. This would, in my opinion, adversely affect the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC. Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. Best regards Tim At 15:44 09/05/2008, you 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 657. 2009-06-15 11:59:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:59:32 -0700 from: JCLIM subject: JCLIM Request to review Comment/Reply JCLI-3146 and 3281 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Osborn, I am writing to ask if you would be so kind as to assist me in making an editorial decision concerning the suitability of publishing: 1) Comment on: A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: Stochasticity and robustness by Christiansen, Schmith and Thejll (JCLI 3146) and 2) Reply to Comment on "A surrogate ensemble study .." by Rutherford, Mann, Ammann, Wahl (JCLI 3281) In particular, I am writing to ask if you would be able to provide me with a review that assesses: 1) The technical merit of the attached comment/reply 2) The clarity of the comment/reply 3) Whether or not the comment/reply is of sufficient merit and interest to the readership of the Journal of Climate to warrant its publication. In the event you are unable to serve as reviewer for this comment/ reply, suggestions of other possible reviewers would be very much appreciated. We appreciate the time and effort needed to careful review manuscripts. It is through the advice of experts in the field like yourself that the high standards of the Journal of Climate are maintained. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Weaver Chief Editor for the Journal of Climate ================================== Laura Buttner Chief Editorial Assistant, Journal of Climate School of Earth and Ocean Sciences Ocean, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences Building A307 University of Victoria PO Box 3065, Victoria, BC V8W 3V6 Canada Phone: +1 250 472 4006 Fax: +1 250 472 4004 jclim@uvic.ca 855. 2009-06-15 12:47:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Jenkins, Geoff'" , "'Murphy, James'" , Ag Stephens , "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" date: Mon Jun 15 12:47:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: WG log file outputs to: David Sexton , Chris Kilsby , "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" Dave, Chris, We were never going to provide the raw data - neither the station data nor the gridded 5km station data. Met Office Commercial should say NO to both of these. Providing 61-90 averages is not a breech, as you can effectively get these from the observed data provided with UKCIP02 and also the fields that John Prior is setting up for Roger Street. Table 2 of the WG Report is what the Change Factors look like. We all agree that we shouldn't be supplying these. This Table was just an example. In reality, this set will change for each of the 100 runs that the user will be supplied with for the future. Users will be confused by the multiple sets of change factors. So, I think we can't supply either the driving stats for the future or for the present. We might have to revisit this for Launch 2, but from what Ag said earlier, we can't change anything anyway. Cheers Phil At 10:31 15/06/2009, David Sexton wrote: Hi, Kathryn will have the definitive answer to this. Met Office Commercial Division own the precipitation data produced by NCIC. Although we can use this data inside the UI and WG in UKCP09 we cannot distribute it. And I wonder if providing 1961-90 means from WG might effectively be in breach of this. Cheers, David On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:09 +0100, C G Kilsby wrote: > OK - slight problem: if we provide the actual driving stats for future runs, and also for 6190..., then you can easily get the CFs and obs stats. > > Will look pretty odd if we don't provide driving stats for 6190 as well as future. > > Chris > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Sexton [[1]mailto:david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk] > >Sent: 15 June 2009 08:48 > >To: Jenkins, Geoff > >Cc: C G Kilsby; Phil Jones; Murphy, James; Ag Stephens; > >Humphrey, Kathryn (GA) > >Subject: RE: WG log file outputs > > > >Hi, > > > >yes, I agree with this. I seem to remember talking about > >providing the actual WG driving statistics but nothing more > >i.e. observed baseline or change factors. > > > >Cheers, David > > > >On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 12:44 +0100, Jenkins, Geoff wrote: > >> Chris > >> I agree completely. David is away this week, but I impage he > >would to > >> - I am copying this to James in case he wants to comment. > >> Cheers > >> Geoff > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: C G Kilsby [[2]mailto:c.g.kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] > >> Sent: 09 June 2009 12:22 > >> To: 'Phil Jones'; Sexton, David > >> Cc: 'vassilis glenis'; 'Stephens, A (Ag)'; Jenkins, Geoff; > >'Humphrey, > >> Kathryn (ACC)' > >> Subject: WG log file outputs > >> Importance: High > >> > >> All: on Ag's request, Vas is preparing a version of WG which > >generates > >> a log file for output by the WG which (might) include various > >> statistics/metadata related to the WG run/fitting. > >> > >> Can we just check please what is needed, and sensible to include in > >> this > >> file: > >> > >> 1. I can't remember exactly what was agreed previously (but in any > >> case we need to review this now). My recollection is that we had > >> agreed to not give out this type of inforrmation on the > >internal workings/data! > >> > >> 2. It may be sensible to provide some stats/info on the WG > >run to give > >> the user some idea of what has been done, to identify the > >variant/run > >> later, or even to give some more confidence in the product; > >> > >> 3. It is not sensible to provide detailed info on the actual change > >> factors for each variant (David - I think this has been the > >MOHC line > >> throughout? These can't be obtained elsewhere, so we shouldn't give > >> them out through the WG as a backdoor?!) (If we did this, > >they would > >> actually get the "untransformed" CFs); > >> > >> 4. So, some middle way may be best, but it is difficult to > >see what is > >> the best option to provide some useful info (case 1 above) without > >> giving out all the CFs, (case 2 above) and observed > >statistics (which > >> are also not generally to be dished out!) which would be > >given out if > >> we gave info for the control case. > >> > >> In any case, for the temperature and other wx variables, not all of > >> these are directly available for us to print out straightforwardly > >> (they are estimated/offset within the CRU WG by regression etc.) > >> > >> My inclination is to give out very little of these observed and > >> perturbed stats, as in addition to the points above, they will only > >> cause/allow users to dig around and misinterpret how the WG > >is working. > >> Case 1 is probably already satisfied by knowing a unique variant id > >> number given by the existing output through the UI? > >> > >> The most useful data for the user are the actual WG outputs > >(for 6190 > >> and future cases)- they should analyse these to calculate the stats, > >> rather than any "target" statistics which may or may not be > >accurately > >> matched by the WG, and are in any case only single values, without > >> natural variability attached. > >> > >> In summary, we don't want users getting hold of and obsessed by the > >> WG/climate model output Change Factors etc: we want them to > >> analyse/use the WG time series outputs ! > >> > >> Comments please, > >> > >> > >-- > >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 [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > -- David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk [4]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1576. 2009-06-17 11:05:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 11:05:58 EDT from: Richie subject: solar radiation to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Mike, I am e-mailing you to see what your reaction is to how I am planning to generate % changes of Solar Radiation. One alternative is to not modify the base solar radiation and say that we do not know what the numbers are. But after looking at some of the %change in precipitation (large changes) I prefer not doing that. My plan is to use the formulas that Mark gave me to convert your control run sky cover to sunshine and then to solar radiation, and then do the same procedure on your decadal averages and to then make a ratio of the two, which I would then apply to the observed SR. What do you think of that idea? Richie 3944. 2009-06-17 15:04:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:04:55 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23) to: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Tim/Phil, One of the tasks I have is making a case under FOIA for our claim that the section 12 'appropriate limit' of 16 person hours to collect and review initially the requested information would be exceeded. It would be helpful if you could confirm some things that discussed in this connection; namely, the date range of the information requested (i.e.. the length of involvement in the IPCC process), and some idea of the volume of communications. Our sample set of 17 documents covers Nov 2004 to July 2006 with 11 documents coming from Jan 2005 alone. This information may also prove useful to a claim under EIR that the request is 'manifestly unreasonable' where the DEFRA guidance notes that such request '...could include requests for information that place a substantial and unreasonable burden on the resources of a public authority." It could cover cases in which extensive searching of databases or file is necessary or extensive redaction is required. Indeed one of the factors explicitly mentioned is "...whether the work involved would require an unreasonable diversion of resource the provision of the public services for witch the publish authority is mandated".. Additionally, the availability of other publicly available information is a factor where the request is for the same information in a different format Sorry - didn't mean to get into my EIR argument there - however, information on effect of locating this information and the extent of the information would be useful. Thanks! Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 2134. 2009-06-17 15:22:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,m.agnew@uea.ac.uk,Tim Osborn date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:22:54 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: FW: Actions from today's meeting to: Jim Hall , "R.J.Nicholls@soton.ac.uk" , "mark.new@ouce.ox.ac.uk" , Kevin Anderson , "Shepherd J.G." , "'Rachel Warren'" ,Asher Minns Dear Jim This looks good from the CRU perspective. We would certainly be interested in playing a leading role on the climate scenario interpretation/adaptation topic. Looking at gaps, Maureen Agnew may be able to contribute to work on health and/or tourism. I'll leave her to indicate how much of a major role she feels she could take in this respect. But good to see Sari Kovats/LSHTM listed as leading on health. She will also be in Venice next week - so let me know if there is anything to be discussed with her. You have a gap for Business. With respect to insurance, one potential person to involve is Andrew Dlugolecki (it might be possible to do this through his 'honorary' position as CRU Visiting Fellow). For marine aspects, could also involve Stephen Dye from CEFAS/MCCIP. Aldina Franco - a new lecturer in ENV but sitting in CRU http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/francoa came to talk to me about this yesterday - she is potentially interested in the biodiversity and ecosystems aspects, though after discussion thought her work might not be so immediately relevant. But was going to talk to Rachel as well. William Cheung was also appointed at the same time (is sitting in CRU, but spending quite a bit of time working at CEFAS) - he is an expert in marine ecosystems and fisheries - http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/cheungw. Best wishes, Clare At 22:56 16/06/2009, Jim Hall wrote: > >Colleagues > >Find below and attached the information I have just communicated to >AEA. I've pieced this together from the various emails I've received >from Tyndall colleagues over the last couple of days. I sent this >off now because I had a deadline of tonight, but please take a look >and let me know if there is anything wrong or missing. I've had to >use my imagination to fill in a few gaps; any mistakes were not >intentional; please be patient. > >Friday's meeting in London will be very important for establishing >the project structure and responsibilities, from which will flow the >budget. Whilst the key roles are not yet fixed, please think very >carefully now about the roles that you or your colleagues might be >willing/able to fulfill. My opening shot is in the attached >spreadsheet: are those who are named happy with this? If you (or any >of your Tyndall colleagues) are particularly keen to take on large >chunks of work then let me know so that I can argue for this to >happen (and to attract the necessary budget). > >Hope this is all clear. > >Best wishes > >Jim > 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 3529. 2009-06-18 08:47:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:47:02 -0600 from: ssolomon@frii.com to: "Tim Osborn" Dear Tim, Keith, and Phil Thanks for your message. I am appending the IPCC principles and procedures. As far as I know, these are the only source for any official IPCC position on related matters (see section 4.1 of the procedures for some relevant information). What I provided to you in the message below sent previously can only be interpreted as a personal opinion and not an 'official' statement, and that is why I stated that how one wished to respond is up to that person. I would be happy to discuss this further. Please call me this morning at 1-303-497-4401. best regards Susan At 12:10 PM +0100 6/12/09, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear Susan, you may remember that about a year ago we had a Freedom of Information request from David Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved. Phil was also involved because Holland asked for internal CRU/UEA documents too. UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely affected if these materials were released. The latter view was based in part on your email (copied below) indicating that releasing further material was not appropriate. Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must explain its reasons for rejecting the original request. I've been asked this: "We proceeded on the basis that Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC as an international organisation and that her statements represented those of the IPCC. Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC and if she does not 'represent' the IPCC, who would, or would be in a position to state their position on the confidentiality of information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case?" Now I realise that you aren't co-chair WG1 anymore, so I have two questions: (i) during the time when you were co-chair WG1, is it fair to say that your position did allow you to represent the IPCC view (or just the IPCC WG1 view)? (ii) can you suggest who we should contact who can currently represent the IPCC view on this matter? We really need someone who is fully aware of the issues surrounding this and appreciates the context of this request! We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while drafting these important reports. I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog: <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46 "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held." If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held". All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5 correspondence *during* the drafting process. This would, in my opinion, adversely affect the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC. Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. Best regards Tim At 15:44 09/05/2008, you 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 Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCCPrinciples.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCCProcedures.pdf" 2914. 2009-06-18 10:10:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:10:42 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23) to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, Didn't make it through to you the first time.... Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:03 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \" Subject: RE: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23) Phil, Thanks for any work you can put in on this - much appreciated & apologies for not getting all this to you sooner. Just to add - some indication of the burden searching would put on you/Tim/Keith, and, the effect it would have on your other work would help our 'manifestly unreasonable' argument under EIR. I understand the importance of all of this to you and colleagues so I'm trying to construct the best case possible.... Enjoy Denver & the mountains - I'm envious! Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:26 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \" , "Jones Philip >Prof \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" >, "Colam Jonathan Mr \" >Subject: Re: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23) >Importance: High > > Dave, > I've just landed in Minneapolis en route to Denver/Boulder. > Tim should be on his way on Thursday. > We'll try and answer asap. > > Cheers > Phil >> Tim/Phil, >> One of the tasks I have is making a case under FOIA for our >claim that >> the section 12 'appropriate limit' of 16 person hours to collect and >> review initially the requested information would be exceeded. >> >> It would be helpful if you could confirm some things that >discussed in >> this connection; namely, the date range of the information requested >> (i.e.. the length of involvement in the IPCC process), and >some idea of >> the volume of communications. Our sample set of 17 >documents covers Nov >> 2004 to July 2006 with 11 documents coming from Jan 2005 alone. >> >> This information may also prove useful to a claim under EIR that the >> request is 'manifestly unreasonable' where the DEFRA >guidance notes that >> such request '...could include requests for information that place a >> substantial and unreasonable burden on the resources of a public >> authority." It could cover cases in which extensive searching of >> databases or file is necessary or extensive redaction is required. >> Indeed one of the factors explicitly mentioned is >"...whether the work >> involved would require an unreasonable diversion of resource the >> provision of the public services for witch the publish authority is >> mandated".. Additionally, the availability of other >publicly available >> information is a factor where the request is for the same >information in >> a different format >> >> Sorry - didn't mean to get into my EIR argument there - however, >> information on effect of locating this information and the >extent of the >> information would be useful. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >> >> ____________________________ >> David Palmer >> Information Policy & Compliance Manager >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, England >> NR4 7TJ >> >> Information Services >> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >> >> >> > > > 4914. 2009-06-18 15:32:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:32:26 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response requirements (GOOD to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Gents, I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him to enquire about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at this stage - he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would be accepted and considered by the ICO. More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned and that it might be some time prior to that happening! Ergo, I have no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at the ICO for some time in regards this request. Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days 'deadline' for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that several key figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper indicated that as nothing much would be happening with the information we sent to the ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on the response time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he suggested that we either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the requested information to them.... In short, we have a lot more time to construct a well-reasoned case on this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this conversation with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I don't want to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad process if the ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you concur?. I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do submit our case, it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil. I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible (more likely early next week?) The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the requested documents. We could simply defer what we would have said by 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas? I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as robust a case as possible. ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 590. 2009-06-18 16:52:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:52:26 +0000 (GMT) from: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI subject: Re: CII sceptics to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk A couple of points of information. 1. the CII did not publish my letter, because the sceptics threatened them with an action for libel, which the CII's lawyers said could be justifiable. I would be interested to know if CRU has access to legal advice, and what they think?See attached final version. 2. I have been appointed a member of the UK Subcommittee on Adaptation under Lord Krebs, for a period of 5 years, wef from 22nd June (under embargo till then). It is a part-time, paid post, and will not stop me being a Visiting Research Fellow at CRU, and may indeed be very useful, though of course I will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Andrew --- On Sat, 2/5/09, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: [Fwd: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)] To: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Saturday, 2 May, 2009, 5:55 PM Andrew, The CII should be shocked by the sceptical article. I was in Geneva last week and talked to experts in CO2 and sea-ice measurement. On the latter, the map Monckton shows is a comparison of winter days! I'd really emphasize the Arctic sea-ice decline in summer, as they can't expain this decline. In a footnote to the time series plot of sea ice amounts, there is mention of a underwater volcano. This is the Mid-Atlantic ridge ! This is spewing out heat from Iceland right down to Tristan da Cunha! This is a complete red herring! I'm attaching a couple of plots about CO2 increase and a recent paper. Monckton is assuming a linear increase in CO2 increase. This is wrong it is exponential. So we are above the IPCC SRES scenarios in terms of emissions. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: CII sceptics (fwd) From: "Philip Jones" <[1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk> Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56 pm To: [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:38:32 +0000 (GMT) From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI <[3]andlug@btopenworld.com> To: Phil Jones <[4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Cc: [5]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, [6]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, [7]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: CII sceptics Phil (et al) I have done a thorough letter to the Chartered Insurance Institute. I think they are really shocked at the defects in the sceptical article they sponsored naively (see attached). One aspect I did not cover was trends in CO2 as there were so many other obvious errors. Can you say what the errors or misrepresenations are in the graph on page 4 of the attached pdf by Monckton please. Finally, CII have decided they will make the full CII report 'Coping with Climate Change' publicly accessible on their website after I badgered them . I will tell you when it actually happens. Thanks again Andrew Dlugolecki --- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones <[8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote: From: Phil Jones <[9]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: [10]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, [11]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <[12]andlug@btopenworld.com> Cc: [13]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM Andrew, Presumably you have found all these links. If not sit down before looking at them. I've pasted a number of links below. In some of them you will see very familiar diagrams. [14]http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html This one seems very useful. It might be a way to respond. Your responses so far seem to be in this type of format. What I think has happened in CII is the Monckton has put together most of the text from things he already had, and a paragraph has been added at the front and one at the beginning to give the CII context. In one of the ones below is his address Monckton of Brenchley Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ 30 December 2008 Brenchley is in Kent, but he lives up your way! [15]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/ [16]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhtt p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconside red.pdf [17]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html [18]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening .pdf Cheers Phil Dear Andrew et al, Clare has been away in Vienna, but she should be back later today. We see things like this all the time - mainly on blog sites though. It is difficult to know how to respond to them. When they appear in print, they probably should be responded to, but we all have many things to do. The points you make are all sound, and there are many more that we could also make and add. Most will be technical, so not that relevant to almost all readers of CII. Here are a couple of relevant recently (or soon to be) published papers. The ones M&M select are just the ones to make their arguments. They miss hundreds on the other side. Maybe a brief response pointing out their main mistakes? Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CII sceptics From: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <[19]andlug@btopenworld.com> Date: Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm To: "maureen agnew" <[20]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk> "Clare Goodess" <[21]c.goodess@uea.ac.uk> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Maureen and Clare subsequent to launching the report, CII has published a ridiculous article which undermines their own position and discredits our report implicitly. I think it was as a result of pressure from an internal sceptic at a senior level, in order to show 'balance'. I attach the scanned article ( which looks OK if you open it in Word Office), and also my proposed rebuttal. I would welcome your thoughts urgently. Cheers Andrew Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [22]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- & nbsp; Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sceptics.letter.afd.may1.doc" 3110. 2009-06-18 23:44:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:44:35 +0100 (BST) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: RE: Launch of UKCP] to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil Despite Myles statement his has been the most negative voice today - interviewed on Newsnight - and Kirsy Wark also referred to criticism from LSE - Myles point seemed to be about going to too high a resolution (he mentioned 5 km) and lack of peer review. Kirsty Wark also went on about lack of peer review in an interview with Hilary Benn - but then her main complaint with him seemed to be the government not going far enough, eg., with respect to building on flood plains. But Hilary Benn has been pretty impressive all day. Generally I think things have gone quite well today. Though the emphasis has been on Met Office (Defra, UKCIP and UEA have all had fewer mentions). And in fact in the presentations today the weather generator and UEA only got mentioned once by Chris West. There were a lot of people at the launch - 200? - and most of the questions from stakeholders were more on policy issues than the projections. Managed to get one set of hard copies and a couple of CDs. This morning, I did a couple of radio interviews (by mobile) with Radio Norwich and Radio Heart (was Radio Broadland). I turned down an offer to be interviewed by ITN about sea level at Happisburgh! Suggested Stephen Dye instead (who was at launch today) - somebody else from CEFAS ended up doing it at Southwold - but not shown in the end on local or national news. Brian Hoskins was at the launch - spotted him berating Bob Watson in a corner! Nigel Arnell was also there - but very quiet. So now its back to the mundane things like promotion training and trying to get salary costings out of Janice! Hope things are going well in Colorado. Clare ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: RE: Launch of UKCP From: "Myles Allen" Date: Wed, June 17, 2009 10:40 pm To: "Hoskins, Brian J" "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" "claudia tebaldi" C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk "Nigel Arnell" alberto.montanari@unibo.it elaine.barrow@sasktel.net "Carter Tim" "Wells N.C." corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no "jaak monbaliu" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Brian, Thanks very much for this, and we all appreciate you are being put in an impossible position. I hope you don't mind my getting this off my chest to my fellow reviewers, and rest assured I won't be actively seeking to say anything to anyone tomorrow, but I'm afraid I don't accept that obtaining user buy-in is more important than implementing the recommendations of the scientific review panel. I also don't accept that the sensitivity studies they have done in response to our review (in which, I understand, cases in which changes to inputs had a substantial impact on results were quietly dropped), nor releasing the 11-member RCM ensemble, represent an adequate substitute for presenting what a conventional, IPCC-style, model-intercomparison exercise would have found. Yes, an IPCC inter-model range cannot be interpreted as a PDF (which I assume is the loss of functionality Bob is referring to), but this does not prevent it being useful as one measure of uncertainty: the US Climate Impacts Assessment that has just been released contains (as far as I can tell on a cursory reading) no PDFs, only inter-model ranges, and I'm sure many people will still find it useful. Will DEFRA's response be made public? It is potentially rather explosive, since the "buy in" remark implicitly acknowledges that, if users were offered a simpler alternative that they can actually understand, many, perhaps most, might prefer it. Myles ________________________________ From: Hoskins, Brian J [mailto:b.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 17 June 2009 14:59 To: Hoskins, Brian J; 'Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]'; 'claudia tebaldi'; Myles Allen; 'C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk'; 'Nigel Arnell'; 'alberto.montanari@unibo.it'; 'elaine.barrow@sasktel.net'; 'Carter Tim'; 'Wells N.C.'; 'corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no'; 'jaak monbaliu' Subject: RE: Launch of UKCP Dear All UKCP will be launched tomorrow (see attachment). I asked DEFRA for a document saying how they had responded to our review and have received the attached from Bob Watson. I wanted you to have this information before the launch so that if you are contacted by anyone you can reply with a proper background. The response by DEFRA and the Met Office has been very significant , although not going the whole way we may have liked in a perfect world. There is no doubt that the product launched and the wrapper around it is a heck of a lot better for your efforts! Thanks again for you work on the review and the friendly way it was done. Best wishes Brian . Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\untitled-236.htm" 2633. 2009-06-22 15:08:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:08:35 +0100 from: Rob Allan subject: ACRE Data and Data Visualisation meeting in September to: Andrew Lorrey , Maria Antnia Valente , Amy Luers , Antonio S. Cofio , "Albert (KNMI)" , "Dr. Ingeborg Auer" , Philip Brohan , Brnnimann Stefan , Manola Brunet , "Brandsma, Theo (KNMI)" , Penny Brook , "Buontempo, Carlo" , "Wilkinson Clive Dr (ENV)" , Catharine Ward , Gil Compo , Gil Compo , denniswheeler1948@msn.com, Rick Crouthamel , "Caroline.Kimbell@nationalarchives.gov.uk" , Dennis Wheeler , Scott D Woodruff , Howard Diamond , Daniel Pauly , Deborah Hemming , Ed Geary , Ed Parsons , Eric.Freeman@noaa.gov, Edward Hanna , Joelle Gergis , Joelle Gergis , Ricardo Garcia Herrera , H Kontongomde , Inika Taylor , Phil Jones , sylvie jourdain , Martin Juckes , Juerg Luterbacher , Lisa Alexander , michele , Maurizio Maugeri , "Saunby, Michael" , Catherine Marzin , Alexia Massacand , "Nicholson, Alex" , neil.kaye@metoffice.gov.uk, nick.rayner@metoffice.gov.uk, yvind Nordli , Omar Baddour , Philip Woodworth , Roger Stone , "Parker, David" , Russell Vose , Tom Ross , "f. williamson" , "Wang,Xiaolan [Ontario]" , Pascal Yiou , zaiko@comp.metro-u.ac.jp, CNS-NHBAL@mod.uk, sjoynes@sdf-eu.org, Serhat Sensoy , Mariano Barriendos , diogo.de.gusmao@metoffice.gov.uk, Chris Lintott , arfon.smith@gmail.com, jacala@libertysurf.fr, yvestourre@aol.com, tourre@medias.cnes.fr Dear All, I've contacted some of you about looking to hold an ACRE Data and Data Visualisation meeting at the Met Office in September this year. This would build on a smaller planning meeting on this topic held in Bologna in May, which some of you attended. I'm very keen to get a good mix of climate scientists plus those from libraries, archives and museums, and in the IT side of visualisation of weather and climate data. There will be about 10-12K available towards the cost of this meeting, though I had hoped for more, so I'm going to have to make sure that it is carefully used. This will probably mean that I'll have to look at funding primarily travel costs for those attendees that need them. After some juggling of dates, and given that we should move on this now, I'm planning to have the meeting at the Met Office in Exeter in the UK from the 14th to the 16th of September. If you have haven't already, could you let me know of your availability for this meeting and the level of travel support that would be required. If more funds were to surface before the meeting kicks off, I'd look to see if I could support more aspects of attendees accommodation and sustenance. 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://www.met-acre.org/ Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Mobile: +44 (0)7545 142536 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom. 5078. 2009-06-23 12:18:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Willett, Kate" , Peter Thorne date: Tue Jun 23 12:18:29 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: 2009JD012442 (Editor - Steve Ghan): Decision Letter] to: adrian.simmons@ecmwf.int, Dick Dee Adrian, Emails to Kate yesterday were returned by the ECMWF server (for your email address) but not for Dick's? I also found the two emails you sent last night in my spam list. No idea why this is happening. I found some other semi-important emails in my spam as well! Anyway - hope you get this email! All three reviewers are positive, which is good, but there is still a lot of to do as you say. Here are some initial thoughts. Before I begin - it seems as though Rev 2 comments have ended abruptly during #13. I'd suggest you ask if there is any more? Rev 1 I would have thought that the second point (larger trends in full ERA-INTERIM fields) was just an interesting aside, and not as important as the RH decline. I'll need to go back to see if sections 5 and 6 can be reordered/restructured? Both Reviewers 1 and 2 (they appear to be Kevin and Aiguo, but odd to have two people who only live a few rooms apart!) make quite a few statements about GPCC. We're doing updating work on the higher resolution CRU-TS (0.5 by 0.5 degree lat/long) datasets. We're doing comparisons with GPCC and for the Giorgi type regions (as in Fig 3.14 of Ch 3 of AR4) and the agreement is amazingly good. Maybe all you need to point to is this Figure and the previous one (Fig 3.12) to say that for land regions at the continental scale, it doesn't matter which datasets are used (for the period from the 1970s). The key thing is that they just use gauges, with no satellites. My view is that bringing in satellites as in CMAP and GPCP products can lead to problems, and some circularity with ERA results - as you'll be using some of the same satellite data products. The point to emphasize for precip is that GPCC is totally independent from any ERA (40 or Interim) input. I've come across these issues about GPCC before. I've been haranguing Bruno Rudolf and now Tobias Fuchs of GPCC to write something up for a number of years within AOPC! I think their QC is likely the best of all the centres, but they will continue to get these doubts if they don't write anything up. They should at least explain how they do their interpolation - it can certainly be done better. GPCC is using so much more data that is has to be better than any other product. They can't release the raw station data, and it seems they can't release the numbers in each grid box. There will be an HC paper on the buoy/ship SST issue, but this isn't yet used operationally. It will come, but not before your paper goes back. I hope it is fairly straightforward to do RMSs as well as correlations. We had SDs in the 2004 paper. I don't think RMSs would show anything untoward, but would take up some more space. WRT Rev 2, I'm not that convinced by some of Aiguo's arguments. Between us, I'm not that convinced by some of his data analyses. The ones involving PDSI leave a lot to be desired (this is coming to light in other work we are doing). Rev 2 #6 Obviously not read the paper(s). CRUTEM3 is a simple average of stations within a grid box. There is no interpolation! If there are no stations, then there is no value! I think this is the same for HadCRUH as well. Rev 2 #13 Comment seems to end abruptly. I'd like to know what I might have said! I don't think I've ever said I doubt GPCP! I am around all the time except for the week of July 12-17, when I'll be at the IPCC Scoping meeting in Venice. Kevin will be there as well. Aiguo will be in CRU the first few days of the week after (July 20/21) Cheers Phil At 22:53 22/06/2009, Adrian Simmons wrote: Dick It's a bit irritating getting a review one wants to nail just before leaving for Brussels for three days of EC-related meetings. I'm sure now that reviewer 2's comments on SYNOP numbers is easily answered. The number of GTS SYNOPs went up a lot, but that's not because there were a lot more stations installed - the existing one just started having their data transmitted more frequently than 6-hourly. But this should hardly have effected the RH2m analysis as it uses only the 0, 6 , 12 and 18UTC obs that have been there pretty well all the time. It only uses off-time obs if the value for the main synoptic hour is missing. The 4D-Var does assimilate more data over time, but here we appeal to fig 8 and argue that the increment does not shift over time. We already argue in the Appendix that the extra obs over North America may well be part of the difficulty HadCRUHext has for that region. Anyway I'd like to confirm that the number of used SYNOPs does not change much over time for the OI RH2m analysis. I know how to find the number in the job output, but I don't know how to retrieve the job output from the logfiles stored in ECFS. I would only look at a few samples. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know how to do this. In any case even if there was a problem with the numbers increasing sharply around 2000, this would manifest itself in a sudden drop in the RH time series, not a steady decline over the last few years. After a bit of thinking I can find several things wrong with reviewer 2's argument why q over land is insensitive to variations in q over sea (think coastal mountain ranges, deserts, drought regions - moisture does not simply build up everywhere over land via onshore winds from the boundary-layer until it rains), and the response can draw attention to other points made in the paper, such as the coherence of changes in the vertical, and the similarity (but lag) of the q series over land and sea. Hard to believe the latter is all coincidence. Also, there is a relationship between q and precip, not generally strong, but there's a high correlation for Australia. Better stop for now. Adrian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 2009JD012442 (Editor - Steve Ghan): Decision Letter Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:42:51 UT From: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org Reply-To: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org To: adrian.simmons@ecmwf.int Manuscript Number: 2009JD012442 Manuscript Title: Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational datasets Dear Dr. Simmons: Attached below please find 3 reviews on your above-referenced paper. One of the Reviewers has raised questions and made suggestions for important revisions, mostly involving organization and presentation. Please consider the Reviewer reports carefully, make the necessary changes in your manuscript and respond to me, explaining how you have addressed these comments. In your Response to Reviewer letter, please include a statement confirming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with submission in its revised form. The due date for your revised paper is July 20, 2009. If you will be unable to submit a revised manuscript by July 20, 2009, please notify my office and arrange for an extension (maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date, your manuscript will be considered as withdrawn. When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below. *The link below will begin the resubmission of your manuscript, please Do Not click on the link until you are ready to upload your revised files. Any partial submission that sits for 3 days without files will be deleted. <[1]http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5Bc4EasP6A2oLJ3I6A9jNWgL zbgfWly58nFGPxNeQZ> (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have access to your entire account for this journal.) **In order to save time upon acceptance, it would be helpful if files in the correct format are uploaded at revision. Article and table files may be in Word, WordPerfect or LaTeX and figure files should be separately uploaded as .eps, .tif or pdf files. If you have color figures, please go to the site below to select a color option. Please put your color option in the cover letter. [2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/e_publishing/AGU-publication-fees.pdf Sincerely, Steve Ghan Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres -----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information------------------------------ Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart Text Preparation and Formatting Manuscript Preparation Acceptable Electronic File Formats Editorial Style Guide for Authors Auxiliary Materials (Electronic Supplements) Artwork Preparation Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files Figure FAQ Prices for Color in AGU Journals AGU Copyright Transfer Form Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted) If you need assistance with file formats and/or color charges please e-mail jgr-atmospheres@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: [3]http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer Comments Reviewer #2 (Comments): Review of JGR Manuscript entitled Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational data sets by A.J. Simmons, K.M. Willett, P.D. Jones, P.W. Thorne, and D. Dee General comments: This paper provides a nice and useful summary on how the ERA-40 and ERA-Interim surface analysis products of temperature and humidity were derived, and a fairly comprehensive evaluation/comparison with the HadCRU surface data sets derived purely from surface observations, as well as with three other precipitation products. They found that in general the ERA surface temperature and humidity data from 1973 onward are in close agreement with the HadCRU data sets and that ERA precipitation also follows closely with gauge-based products, although long-term changes differ. Furthermore, the study reports a significant and steady decline in surface relative humidity (RH) over land from ~1999-2008 and suggested that the recent steady SSTs might be responsible for this land RH decrease. The manuscript is well written, the analysis appears to be comprehensive, and the results are of interest to many readers in the climate community. I think the paper should be published after some relat ively minor revisions. My main concern is the interpretation of the recent RH decline over land. To me, the RH decreases shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 look a bit spurious (non-climatic, e.g., lack of variations in Fig. 4 and stepwise changes in Fig.7) rather than realistic changes. They are also inconsistent with the RH changes during recent decades (up to 2004) reported in Dai (2006, JC), and this is not pointed out in the paper. As shown in Dai (2006), there was a 3-fold increase around the late 1990s in the number of surface humidity reports (mostly in North America but also over some other regions) included in the WMO SYNOP GTS reports. Furthermore, I personally found that there were other (undocumented) changes in the SYNOP reports around that time that led to shifts in derived precipitation and cloud frequencies over Euroasia and other places. Thus, there are reasons to suspect some non-climatic changes in the SYNOP reports around the late 1990s that might alter the RH trend over land. I also was not convinced by the physical explanation of the RH decline (p.23). Even if the surface q stayed the same over the oceans during the 1999-2008 period when land air temperature has been increasing, this can not explain the RH decrease over land. This is because as long as the marine air contains more water vapor than continental surface air (which is still true even if marine sfc. q did not increase), advection of marine air onto land should cause land q to accumulate and RH to increase until the land q and RH reach certain levels so that precipitation kicks in to remove the moisture over land. Remember that the atmospheric moisture storage (PW) is very small compared with the annual P and E fluxes, thus any perturbation in RH is quickly (within days) restored through surface E, vertical mixing, or lateral advection/mixing. If the RH in the marine air had decreased, then land RH would likely to decease too. Dai (2006) did not show RH decreases over oceans since the 1980s. I wish the authors of this paper would also show RH series over ocean, at least since the middle 1980s. For the ERA humidity data, the large well-known inhomogeneities in radiosonde humidity records will certainly propagate into the ERA background forecast and its analysis fields, making them not really suitable for long-term trend analyses. For example, all U.S.-operated radiosonde records (including many in the Pacific) before about Oct. 1993 report a dew point depression (DPD) of 30deg.C or a RH of 20% for any cases where RH is below 20%, which resulted in an abnormally higher frequency of reports of DPD=30deg.C and few reports below and no reports above DPD=30deg.C. This practice is also found in some Mexican, Canadian, Australian, and few other places (but stopped at different times from the late 1980s to the 1990s). In general, the newer humidity sensors during the last 10-15 years report more low RH or large DPD cases, whereas earlier ones had no measurements or incorrect values for these cases. One can see this shift in the histograms of daily DPD made by different humi dity sensors. Thus, one needs to be very cautious when radiosonde humidity data are used in assessing trends, even if they are used indirectly (as in the ERA surface humidity analysis). Some other comments: 1. Abstract: it gives the impression that even the long-term mean values for surface T, q and RH are the same between ERA and HadCRU data sets, which appears to be not the case as the respective means are removed in all plots. Please mention that the climatological mean may differ (if this is the case) even though the anomaly variations are similar. 2. Abstract, at the end: Please note that the mean precipitation amount and its change rate are not controlled by atmospheric water vapor amount (q), although higher q is often associated with higher P (e.g., tropical vs. high latitudes). Locally, you can have moist air passing by without any rain. Globally, annual P is controlled by how much moisture gets evaporated from ocean and land surfaces (i.e., P=E), and this surface E is primarily controlled by surface energy terms. In essence, P and E are water fluxes, and PW (or q) is the water storage in the atmosphere. People often link P to q because of the associated mentioned above (through low-level moisture convergence in a storm, etc.), and think that P change rates somehow should follow that of q or PW. However, and P (or E) and q are controlled by different processes and in general the flux terms are not coupled with the storage terms in a cycling system (e.g., no one would think P or E is controlled by water storage in t he ocean). 3. p. 3, top: the net radiative effect of clouds is relatively small, when their effect on solar radiation is included. To include clouds in the natural greenhouse warmth is a bit misleading because the higher surface temperature is maintained primarily by the greenhouse effect of water vapor and CO2. 4. p. 4, middle: Again, any sampling/reporting biases in WMO SYNOP reports could affect both ERA and HadCRUH humidity data. Thus caution is still needed. 5. pp.5-6, section 2a: So in essence, ERA-40 and ERA-Interim surface T, q, and RH are another analysis product based on surface observations, just like the HadCRU and other climate data sets. The only difference is in the analysis methodology (IO interpolation with the use of the ERA background forecast fields vs. other more conventional analysis methods). Like most users, I thought the ERA surface fields are more tightly coupled with the reanalysis model system. I think it would be helpful to point out the above at the beginning of this section or in the Introduction. 6. p. 7, top: Please briefly mention how the station anomalies were aggregated onto 5deg. grid in CRUTEMP3, e.g., by simply averaging station values within the grid box, or making use of correlated, nearby station data outside the box when sampling inside the box is sparse? I think most people would use the later to increase the coverage in the gridded products. 7. p. 7, bottom: Have any adjustments/corrections done for the most recent decades (1999-2008) in HadCRUH+ext? This is the period when RH decreases. Are there any homogeneity issues in combining the extended records with the homogenized HadCRUH? 8. p. 9, top: How could the fit of the ERA background forecasts capture multiple shifts induced by instrumental changes or reporting practices, especially when the future changes are needed to determine the timing and the size of a shift. Many statistical methods specifically designed to do these two tasks by analyzing the whole historical series still have difficulties in reliably detecting the locations of shifts and can only make a best guess regarding the real shift size. I wonder how one can do this in a reanalysis system when future records are not used yet, or nearby station series are combined together to form a grid box series that contain shifts from multiple stations (i.e., the stepwise patterns become very complex and look more like real variations). 9. p. 9, middle: I can't believe the GPCC people are still gridding precipitation total, not anomalies. This makes their products useless for long-term change analyses. Another land precipitation product from 1948-present that is derived from gauge records and the OI method is the PRECL from the NCEP Climate Prediction Center (CPC, ref: Chen et al. 2002, J. Hydrometorol.). I think that is a better products for assessing long-term changes in land precipitation, although the gauge coverage for recent years (after 1997) may be not as good as that of the GPCC. 10. p. 11, middle and bottom: need to point out in Abstract or Summary that differences in the mean exist between the ERA and HadCRU T and humidity data. 11. Fig. 1 and other Figures: I suspect that different mean values were removed in computing the difference series. If that's the case, then need to point out this (i.e., the difference is between the anomalies relative to their respective mean). 12. Fig. 4: also show RH over the oceans for the last 25 years? 13. Fig. 11: with the changing gauge coverage and gridding precipitation total, one can not trust the low-frequency variations in the GPCC products. Phil Jones and other have Reviewer #3 (Comments): Review of the paper entitled "Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational dataset" by A.J. Simmons, K. M. Willett, P. D. Thorne and D. Dee. Recommendation: Accept with minor changes. Summary of the paper: This is an elaborate study examining trends in temperature, humidity and precipitation from the latest ECMWF reanalysis, comparing with independent gridded analyses, which are also performed with utmost care. The paper revealed that the commonly accepted assumption that the relative humidity stays the same under global warming condition does not necessarily holds over land. This is an important finding and should be of interest to wide climate communities. There are several other important contributions, such as the sensitivity of observation coverage on long term trend, which can only be studied by the use of reanalysis that has full global coverage. This paper also presents that the ERA-40 and ERA-Interim are of very high quality and useable for low frequency climate studies. Major comments: 1. I am particularly impressed with the way the work is performed. This is a very elaborate work using a variety of datasets to present that there is a strong long time trend in temperature and humidity. This thorough work made it possible to convince readers these observed facts. Although the finding of the decrease in relative humidity over land is credible, it may be more meteorologically interesting and convincing if additional analysis is made to present the possible mechanisms of the absence of increase in specific humidity over land. If reanalysis is used, it is not impossible to estimate the change in the moisture transport into land areas (although this may involve considerable amount of work). It may also possible to examine the change in large scale mean land-ocean circulation that contributes to the transport of moisture. From heuristic point of view, stronger heating over land tends to strengthen upper level high and subsidence, which may prevent moisture to be transported inland, and such trend may be detectable from large scale reanalysis. In terms of the change in precipitation, moisture availability and relative humidity are important, but static stability and large scale convergence should also play an important role. If any of these additional analyses can be performed, or even discussed in qualitative manner, it will enhance the paper. 2. It is not very clear how the diurnal variations of temperature and humidity are handled in this study. It is helpful to state the time frequency of reanalysis output that is used to compute daily mean, and the way observed daily mean are obtained. 3. Are there any reason that the relative humidity or dew point depression is analyzed and not the specific humidity itself? 4. The paper is a little too long. One way to shorten it is to separating it into two parts by adding analysis suggested above, or separating the analysis of precipitation. This is just a suggestion and decision is up to the authors. Minor comments: 1. Page 6 & 11. The authors claim that the use of anomaly will reduce the influence of surface elevation differences. Can this be true even the relation between elevation and relative humidity/specific humidity is very nonlinear? 2. It may be friendlier to the reader why relative humidity and specific humidity are both examined. Some introductory remarks on the different impact of relative and specific humidity will help. 3. Page 13. Lines 298-300. These lines just present why the ERA-40 and Interim are different but not the reason for the ERA-Interim worse than ERA-40 over Africa. 4. Page 14. Lines 316-328. Is it possible to separate the actual reduction in the number of observations and the reduction in data used by CRUTEM? 5. Page 15. Line 364. It seems that the difference in analysis between ERA-40 and ERA-Interim seems to be used as a measure of the reanalysis accuracy. Is this a good assumption? 6. Page 17. Lines 392-397. Can it be possible to mathematically estimate the relation between the correlation of specific humidity and relative humidity? Since relative humidity is a function of specific humidity, temperature and pressure, it seems natural that the correlation for relative humidity should be lower. However, this will depend on which parameters are analyzed in the first place. -- -------------------------------------------------- Adrian Simmons European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK Phone: +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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2440. 2009-06-24 13:23:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Midgley, Pauline" date: Wed Jun 24 13:23:15 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Data access and IPCC to: Thomas Stocker , wg1 Dear Thomas, Attached is a document that you should only bother to look at it you have time to spare - stuck on a train or long flight. It is a submission by a skeptic to EPA in the USA. I'm sending it only for background. I wouldn't want this issue to be raised at the Venice meeting, but I think you'll likely to become more aware these people as AR5 advances. I was in Boulder last week and I spoke to Susan. We agreed that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4. These people know they are losing (or have lost) on the science. They are now going for the process. All you need to do is to make sure all in AR5 are aware of the process and that they adhere to it. We all did with AR4, but these people read much more into the IPCC procedures. See you in Venice Phil At 17:17 13/05/2009, Thomas Stocker wrote: Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI) Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about this when the first requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith Briffa and they informed us. What I did not know is that they have already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)! At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to balance: (i) FOI, and (ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not in the position to judge which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed to establish exactly that balance. However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion. One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities. In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this separation! We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to the level of the Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very basis of our assessment work. Thanks again and best regards, Thomas Phil Jones wrote: Dear Thomas, I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance for upsetting your morning! Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties. If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information Commissioner in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA these relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with these, but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your University and AR5. Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later is the same issue: Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? and When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these papers as the data haven't been made available for audit. Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as defined by the Aarhus Convention. You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it. I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained to FOI-responsible people at each institution. Keep up the good work with AR5! Cheers Phil Dear Mr Jones As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of enviromental information. For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this Regards 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [2]www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker ------------------------------------------------------------------ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4899. 2009-06-24 14:37:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:37:30 +0200 from: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Data access and IPCC to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil. We have not be inactive here at the TSU. I have approached a number of colleagues with the problem and expect more indications in the next few weeks to come. I hope that I will be able to have a clear view on the way forward by the time we think of nominations and when we like to inform our potential LAs and CLAs. Thanks and best regards and 'till Venice, Thomas Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > Attached is a document that you should only bother to look at it > you have > time to spare - stuck on a train or long flight. It is a submission by > a skeptic > to EPA in the USA. > I'm sending it only for background. I wouldn't want this issue to be > raised > at the Venice meeting, but I think you'll likely to become more aware > these people as > AR5 advances. I was in Boulder last week and I spoke to Susan. We agreed > that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4. > These people know they are losing (or have lost) on the science. > They are now > going for the process. All you need to do is to make sure all in AR5 > are aware > of the process and that they adhere to it. We all did with AR4, but > these people > read much more into the IPCC procedures. > > See you in Venice > > Phil > > > At 17:17 13/05/2009, Thomas Stocker wrote: >> Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI) >> >> Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about >> this when the first requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith >> Briffa and they informed us. What I did not know is that they have >> already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)! >> >> At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to >> balance: (i) FOI, and (ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening >> emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not in the position to judge >> which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed to >> establish exactly that balance. >> >> However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: >> open access to environmental data associated with damage, spills, >> pollution; the latter word is mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to >> take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion. >> >> One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the >> IPCC activities. In no way are we involved in decision making. We >> assess and provide scientific information. The decision makers are >> elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this separation! >> >> We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to >> the level of the Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very >> basis of our assessment work. >> >> Thanks again and best regards, >> >> Thomas >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Thomas, >>> I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance >>> for upsetting your morning! >>> Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with >>> another >>> attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't >>> normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests >>> when they >>> come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on >>> some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties. >>> If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # >>> 17. This >>> refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information >>> Commissioner >>> in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For >>> UEA these >>> relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing >>> with these, >>> but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your >>> University >>> and AR5. >>> Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I >>> suspect that >>> someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might >>> try later >>> is the same issue: >>> Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? >>> and >>> When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter >>> as we >>> can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these >>> papers as the data >>> haven't been made available for audit. >>> Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as >>> defined by the Aarhus Convention. >>> You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that >>> IPCC is >>> above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those >>> working in AR5 >>> would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, >>> as not everybody >>> will remember to do it. >>> I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin >>> to affect people's >>> lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed >>> pieces, but these >>> FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has >>> to be explained >>> to FOI-responsible people at each institution. >>> Keep up the good work with AR5! >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>>> Dear Mr Jones >>>> >>>> As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please >>>> explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using >>>> tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this >>>> is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure >>>> of enviromental information. >>>> >>>> For reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your >>>> absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in >>>> an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do >>>> you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> 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 >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2147. 2009-06-24 15:46:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:46:52 +0100 from: "peter.thorne" subject: Are you happy for us to be facile in response to this? to: Phil Jones After discussing with Marion we thought the most simple response was to name yourself but this could have ramifications for you. Probably easiest to discuss by phone. Let me know a good time to call. -- 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 Received: from EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com ([151.170.110.53]) by EXXMAIL02.desktop.frd.metoffice.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:42:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Return-Path: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2009 14:42:42.0787 (UTC) FILETIME=[07CFB330:01C9F4DA] Subject: RE: Public Interest Test re CRUTEM3 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:42:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1DB93763ADBC4E4D96F87FF4E75AD487035CA8F7@EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> In-Reply-To: <1245854147.8698.54.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Public Interest Test re CRUTEM3 Thread-Index: Acn02RAgufRAknTqSnizAbPhuKb7hgAABIiw References: <1DB93763ADBC4E4D96F87FF4E75AD487035CA8EE@EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> <1245853669.8698.52.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> <1DB93763ADBC4E4D96F87FF4E75AD487035CA8F3@EXXMAIL01.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> <1245854147.8698.54.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> From: "Archer, Marion" To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Copy email Dear Sir or Madam, According to your website page at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/download.html, your station data has been received under restrictions which do not allow it to be redistributed. Could you please give me a list of those parties (Name and affiliation) who have placed such restrictions on data redistribution. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this email address for all replies to this request: request-13492-c8e81373@whatdotheyknow.com Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers Is enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Met Office ? If so please contact us using this form: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ -----Original Message----- From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: 24 June 2009 15:36 To: Archer, Marion Subject: RE: Public Interest Test re CRUTEM3 Sure. Could you send it in full again so I don't paraphrase in the request to Phil Jones? On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:33 +0100, Archer, Marion wrote: > Peter > > With regard to the other request for name(s) of parties and > affiliation who have placed restrictions on data redistribution, could > you request an email from Phil Jones to say he is happy for us to > release his name and title etc for this request. > > Thank you for your help > > Regards > > Marion > > > Marion Archer > FOI/Data Protection Manager > Met Office Alexandria 1 > Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Direct Tel: > +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 > email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > See our guide to climate change at > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) > Sent: 24 June 2009 15:28 > To: Archer, Marion > Subject: Re: Public Interest Test re CRUTEM3 > > I'd rather this finished by midday so I could do the lunchtime run but > its not essential > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:26 +0100, Archer, Marion wrote: > > When: 30 June 2009 11:00-12:30 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, > > Edinburgh, Lisbon, London. > > Where: A2 pod > > > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > > To discuss recent EIR request from Mr McIntyre. He would like "value > > added data pursuant to the EIR Act 2004 in digital form, together > > with > > > any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which > > data > > > has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate adjusted to > > account for no-climatic influences". We need to undertake a Public > > Interest Test and come up with pros and cons regarding releasing > > information we hold and consider any exceptions that may apply. > > -- 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 3906. 2009-06-25 09:05:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Tim Osborn" , m.agnew@uea.ac.uk, r.warren@uea.ac.uk, a.footitt@uea.ac.uk, a.franco@uea.ac.uk, william.cheung@uea.ac.uk, susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk, j.darch@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:05:02 +0100 (BST) from: A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender to: "Clare Goodess" Hi Clare/all, My thoughts inline.... > First, we need to agree whether this is handled > as a research (through Janice) or consultancy > (through Sue) proposal. This needs to go through consultancy not research....in any case Janice needs time to work up FEC costings and all via research route and typically with these sorts of things you don't finally hammer down and agree inputs and costs across a project until a few days beforehand. Overall, it seems that > - > and will need to tell the university whether or > not we want to take the money as salary or not. No we don't, you don't decide what to do with the money until it's payout time...there are a number of options - take as (non-pensionable) bonus, donate to school pot or, if you can get it past finance you can try and charge yourself as a direct cost (to Tyndall/CRU or whatever) and attempt to get the money transferred....if you're lucky enough to be a Prof - Phil might have one - you can transfer to that via the school - Jacquie B and me have talked about this in the past - lots of options but all have got ages to decide and each individual can choose what to do. > Related to this decision is that of day rates. It > has been proposed that standard day rates should > be used for all Tyndall people. These would apply as follows to UEA > people: > > Phil: 750 > Tim, Rachel, Anthony, Aldina, William, Clare: 550 > Maureen: 450 > > But please see the email forwarded below from Sue > Johnson about these rates. They would be > top-sliced by 25%, but Sue's suggestion that we > may wish to up them by 25% would put us out of step with other Tyndall > groups. We should be very cautious of increasing further...i.e. don't even think about it...agreement of these (common range of) rates for different levels was my suggestion because we are competing with consultancies, these are the level of rates that they have and if you go higher then your bid is both expensive and stands no hope of passing the value for money tests - for example, we lost a bid for us and Geoff Darch at Atkins because costs were too high for a few of the Tyndall members and could/would not reduce them by the 20% asked of us by the Environment Agency - result - they gave it to someone else when we were the preferred bidder...greed loses you the prize ...my recommendation is to stick with where they are and if you really have increase anything - increase the days and just do it in a shorter time -this still makes your bid more expensive overall but at least it looks better in the value for money tests. > Second, we need to decide who will lead the UEA involvement. Is this for Sue and administration or for interactions with AEA? > > This answers most of the questions from Sue > Johnson below - except - are there any other UEA > people who will be named in the proposal? The > only other UEA names I've seen in any of the > emails are Asher Minns and Bob Watson. I don't think so > The final issue to mention now is the letters of > agreement and datasets and planned research > templates that AEA has sent out. We have just > returned these on behalf of CRU. William will > also complete and return this information to AEA > - and Aldina should do the same. Rachel/Anthony - > will you do this for the two of you? I haven't seen these things from AEA - could you forward them? > I'd be very grateful for your rapid responses to these questions. > > Best wishes, Clare > > > >>Subject: FW: Costing >>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:49:15 +0100 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: Costing >>Thread-Index: AcnwwQ6HB1jQHcGmQJ+qCEUfFW1FdgEEJPmw >>From: "Johnson Sue Mrs \(ACAD\)" >>To: "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" >> >>Hi Clare, >> >>I have just spoken with Janice about this and we wondered: >> >>1. How far this had progressed? >> >>2. Who was the UEA lead? >> >>3. If a decision had been made as to whether it >>was consultancy or research and who had made that decision? >> >>4. Who else from UEA is involved? >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Sue. >> >> >> >>---------- >>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>University of East Anglia >> >>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>591550 | Email: susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business >> >>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: Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD) >>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:34 AM >>To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >>Subject: Costing >> >>Hi Clare, >> >>I have had a look at the day rates, they seem >>fine, basically we can charge what the client >>will pay but I'm sure that price will be an >>issue here and it's probably better if each HEI >>charges roughly the same for their academics depending on their grade. >> >>Few points to remember: >> >>We have to charge VAT on consultancy. >> >>You should make sure that you have a travel >>budget if you are going to be required to attend meetings. >> >>Are there any other 'costs' that should be included? >> >>ENV will top slice the total cost by 10% and >>there is a 15% management fee so basically you >>will have a choice to make regarding the >>remainder (75%) you can either take this >>personally via payroll or choose to 'gift' some >>or all of it into a school consultancy income >>account where it can be used for travel, equipment, etc. >> >>If you wanted to maximise the amount that you >>receive you could ask Jim to increase the UEA >>daily rates he has given by 25% to cover this. >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Sue. >> >> >>---------- >>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>University of East Anglia >> >>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>591550 | Email: susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business >> >>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 >> >> > > 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 > > > 3989. 2009-06-25 09:43:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Agnew Maureen Dr \(ENV\)" , "Warren Rachel Dr \(ENV\)" , "Footitt Anthony Mr \(ENV\)" , "Franco Aldina Dr \(ENV\)" , "Cheung William Dr \(ENV\)" date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:43:42 +0100 from: "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" subject: RE: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender to: "Johnson Sue Mrs \(ACAD\)" , "Footitt Anthony Mr \(ENV\)" , "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" Hi All, If the work you are bidding for is research not consultancy then we use the UEA pay scale to calculate your day rates i.e. your total salary cost during the period of the award and divided by the number of working days in the period. Indirect and estates costs are generally entered separately onto the DEFRA form if it's a research project. Also you need to calculate your travel, consumables and equipment costs to enter as line items. This has to be done for the project as a whole and so as Anthony says its vital to know who is coordinating this from UEA so that person can amass all of the UEA budget figures to ensure we have not forgotten anything or any body. If this is to be a research project we Ned to have the full call for tenders immediately fro RE to check out the legal side of the call's terms and conditions to ensure that UEA can comply with its requirements e.g. insurance Janie _________________________________________________ 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: Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD) Sent: 25 June 2009 09:22 To: Footitt Anthony Mr (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Warren Rachel Dr (ENV); Footitt Anthony Mr (ENV); Franco Aldina Dr (ENV); Cheung William Dr (ENV); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) Subject: RE: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender Dear All, When deciding if something is consultancy rather than research we have to follow guidelines and make sure we can justify the decision, please see the table and text attached which may be of use. As well as daily rates you should also consider additional costs such as travel to meetings as these can soon mount up and should be in addition to your daily rate costs. You do have to make a decision regarding the income at the time of contract negotiation, the attached External Consultancy Form has to be completed, signed and dated BEFORE the contract commences to meet with the inland revenue guidelines. I have also attached the rules on Waiving income but would be happy to discuss this over the phone if it is agreed that this is consultancy rather than research. How have the other institutions involved decided that this should be handled? It would seem sensible if we all handled the project in the same way. Kind regards, Sue. ________________________________ Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager University of East Anglia Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 591550 | Email: susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business 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 >-----Original Message----- >From: A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk [mailto:A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:05 AM >To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew >Maureen Dr (ENV); Warren Rachel Dr (ENV); Footitt Anthony Mr >(ENV); Franco Aldina Dr (ENV); Cheung William Dr (ENV); >Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) >Subject: Re: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender > >Hi Clare/all, > >My thoughts inline.... > >> First, we need to agree whether this is handled >> as a research (through Janice) or consultancy >> (through Sue) proposal. > >This needs to go through consultancy not research....in any case Janice >needs time to work up FEC costings and all via research route and >typically with these sorts of things you don't finally hammer down and >agree inputs and costs across a project until a few days beforehand. > >Overall, it seems that >> - > and will need to tell the university whether or >> not we want to take the money as salary or not. > >No we don't, you don't decide what to do with the money until >it's payout >time...there are a number of options - take as (non-pensionable) bonus, >donate to school pot or, if you can get it past finance you can try and >charge yourself as a direct cost (to Tyndall/CRU or whatever) >and attempt >to get the money transferred....if you're lucky enough to be a >Prof - Phil >might have one - you can transfer to that via the school - >Jacquie B and >me have talked about this in the past - lots of options but >all have got >ages to decide and each individual can choose what to do. > > >> Related to this decision is that of day rates. It >> has been proposed that standard day rates should >> be used for all Tyndall people. These would apply as follows to UEA >> people: >> >> Phil: 750 >> Tim, Rachel, Anthony, Aldina, William, Clare: 550 >> Maureen: 450 >> >> But please see the email forwarded below from Sue >> Johnson about these rates. They would be >> top-sliced by 25%, but Sue's suggestion that we >> may wish to up them by 25% would put us out of step with >other Tyndall >> groups. > >We should be very cautious of increasing further...i.e. don't >even think >about it...agreement of these (common range of) rates for >different levels >was my suggestion because we are competing with consultancies, >these are >the level of rates that they have and if you go higher then your bid is >both expensive and stands no hope of passing the value for >money tests - >for example, we lost a bid for us and Geoff Darch at Atkins >because costs >were too high for a few of the Tyndall members and could/would >not reduce >them by the 20% asked of us by the Environment Agency - result >- they gave >it to someone else when we were the preferred bidder...greed >loses you the >prize > >...my recommendation is to stick with where they are and if you really >have increase anything - increase the days and just do it in a shorter >time -this still makes your bid more expensive overall but at least it >looks better in the value for money tests. > > >> Second, we need to decide who will lead the UEA involvement. > >Is this for Sue and administration or for interactions with AEA? > >> >> This answers most of the questions from Sue >> Johnson below - except - are there any other UEA >> people who will be named in the proposal? The >> only other UEA names I've seen in any of the >> emails are Asher Minns and Bob Watson. > >I don't think so > >> The final issue to mention now is the letters of >> agreement and datasets and planned research >> templates that AEA has sent out. We have just >> returned these on behalf of CRU. William will >> also complete and return this information to AEA >> - and Aldina should do the same. Rachel/Anthony - >> will you do this for the two of you? > >I haven't seen these things from AEA - could you forward them? > > >> I'd be very grateful for your rapid responses to these questions. >> >> Best wishes, Clare >> >> >> >>>Subject: FW: Costing >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:49:15 +0100 >>>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>>Thread-Topic: Costing >>>Thread-Index: AcnwwQ6HB1jQHcGmQJ+qCEUfFW1FdgEEJPmw >>>From: "Johnson Sue Mrs \(ACAD\)" >>>To: "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" >>> >>>Hi Clare, >>> >>>I have just spoken with Janice about this and we wondered: >>> >>>1. How far this had progressed? >>> >>>2. Who was the UEA lead? >>> >>>3. If a decision had been made as to whether it >>>was consultancy or research and who had made that decision? >>> >>>4. Who else from UEA is involved? >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>Sue. >>> >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>>University of East Anglia >>> >>>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>>591550 | Email: >susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>>Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business >>> >>>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: Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD) >>>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:34 AM >>>To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >>>Subject: Costing >>> >>>Hi Clare, >>> >>>I have had a look at the day rates, they seem >>>fine, basically we can charge what the client >>>will pay but I'm sure that price will be an >>>issue here and it's probably better if each HEI >>>charges roughly the same for their academics depending on >their grade. >>> >>>Few points to remember: >>> >>>We have to charge VAT on consultancy. >>> >>>You should make sure that you have a travel >>>budget if you are going to be required to attend meetings. >>> >>>Are there any other 'costs' that should be included? >>> >>>ENV will top slice the total cost by 10% and >>>there is a 15% management fee so basically you >>>will have a choice to make regarding the >>>remainder (75%) you can either take this >>>personally via payroll or choose to 'gift' some >>>or all of it into a school consultancy income >>>account where it can be used for travel, equipment, etc. >>> >>>If you wanted to maximise the amount that you >>>receive you could ask Jim to increase the UEA >>>daily rates he has given by 25% to cover this. >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>Sue. >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>>University of East Anglia >>> >>>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>>591550 | Email: >susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>>Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > > 4070. 2009-06-25 10:40:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Agnew Maureen Dr \(ENV\)" , "Warren Rachel Dr \(ENV\)" , "Footitt Anthony Mr \(ENV\)" , "Franco Aldina Dr \(ENV\)" , "Cheung William Dr \(ENV\)" date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:40:17 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: RE: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender to: "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" , "Johnson Sue Mrs \(ACAD\)" , "Footitt Anthony Mr \(ENV\)" Dear Sue and Janice All the tender documents are available on the Defra research competitions web site [1]http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/funding/competitions.htm - I thought we had already provided this information to you. But anyway, the call title is UK Climate Change Risk Assessment and the pack code is [2]CEOSA 0901, closing date 6 July. Since no-one else has offered to co-ordinate the UEA part of the bid, I will do so. My email yesterday listed who from UEA will be involved and the attached spreadsheet provided a list of project tasks. At this stage we do not have more written details from AEA. Attached to this email, is draft text which is being sent to AEA from CRU people and Rachel. This gives some indication of the work we will be doing - though this should be more clearly defined after the meeting next Monday at AEA. Anthony will be producing some text on his proposed work on co-ordinating the sectoral studies. Aldina and William have not yet been asked to produce text. I'm sure that AEA will tell us how many meetings to plan for. I do not envisage any equipment or consumable requirements (at least from the CRU participants). And at this stage, we do not know the specific level of UEA involvement (e.g., the number of days), again this should emerge from Monday's meeting. I know that you would both like more information at this stage, but UEA is just one part of a very complex consortium. Best wishes, Clare At 09:43 25/06/2009, Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\) wrote: Hi All, If the work you are bidding for is research not consultancy then we use the UEA pay scale to calculate your day rates i.e. your total salary cost during the period of the award and divided by the number of working days in the period. Indirect and estates costs are generally entered separately onto the DEFRA form if it's a research project. Also you need to calculate your travel, consumables and equipment costs to enter as line items. This has to be done for the project as a whole and so as Anthony says its vital to know who is coordinating this from UEA so that person can amass all of the UEA budget figures to ensure we have not forgotten anything or any body. If this is to be a research project we Ned to have the full call for tenders immediately fro RE to check out the legal side of the call's terms and conditions to ensure that UEA can comply with its requirements e.g. insurance Janie _________________________________________________ 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: Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD) Sent: 25 June 2009 09:22 To: Footitt Anthony Mr (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Warren Rachel Dr (ENV); Footitt Anthony Mr (ENV); Franco Aldina Dr (ENV); Cheung William Dr (ENV); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) Subject: RE: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender Dear All, When deciding if something is consultancy rather than research we have to follow guidelines and make sure we can justify the decision, please see the table and text attached which may be of use. As well as daily rates you should also consider additional costs such as travel to meetings as these can soon mount up and should be in addition to your daily rate costs. You do have to make a decision regarding the income at the time of contract negotiation, the attached External Consultancy Form has to be completed, signed and dated BEFORE the contract commences to meet with the inland revenue guidelines. I have also attached the rules on Waiving income but would be happy to discuss this over the phone if it is agreed that this is consultancy rather than research. How have the other institutions involved decided that this should be handled? It would seem sensible if we all handled the project in the same way. Kind regards, Sue. ________________________________ Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager University of East Anglia Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 591550 | Email: susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk Web: [3]www.uea.ac.uk/business 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 >-----Original Message----- >From: A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk [[4] mailto:A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:05 AM >To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew >Maureen Dr (ENV); Warren Rachel Dr (ENV); Footitt Anthony Mr >(ENV); Franco Aldina Dr (ENV); Cheung William Dr (ENV); >Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD); Darch Janice Dr (SCI) >Subject: Re: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender > >Hi Clare/all, > >My thoughts inline.... > >> First, we need to agree whether this is handled >> as a research (through Janice) or consultancy >> (through Sue) proposal. > >This needs to go through consultancy not research....in any case Janice >needs time to work up FEC costings and all via research route and >typically with these sorts of things you don't finally hammer down and >agree inputs and costs across a project until a few days beforehand. > >Overall, it seems that >> - > and will need to tell the university whether or >> not we want to take the money as salary or not. > >No we don't, you don't decide what to do with the money until >it's payout >time...there are a number of options - take as (non-pensionable) bonus, >donate to school pot or, if you can get it past finance you can try and >charge yourself as a direct cost (to Tyndall/CRU or whatever) >and attempt >to get the money transferred....if you're lucky enough to be a >Prof - Phil >might have one - you can transfer to that via the school - >Jacquie B and >me have talked about this in the past - lots of options but >all have got >ages to decide and each individual can choose what to do. > > >> Related to this decision is that of day rates. It >> has been proposed that standard day rates should >> be used for all Tyndall people. These would apply as follows to UEA >> people: >> >> Phil: 750 >> Tim, Rachel, Anthony, Aldina, William, Clare: 550 >> Maureen: 450 >> >> But please see the email forwarded below from Sue >> Johnson about these rates. They would be >> top-sliced by 25%, but Sue's suggestion that we >> may wish to up them by 25% would put us out of step with >other Tyndall >> groups. > >We should be very cautious of increasing further...i.e. don't >even think >about it...agreement of these (common range of) rates for >different levels >was my suggestion because we are competing with consultancies, >these are >the level of rates that they have and if you go higher then your bid is >both expensive and stands no hope of passing the value for >money tests - >for example, we lost a bid for us and Geoff Darch at Atkins >because costs >were too high for a few of the Tyndall members and could/would >not reduce >them by the 20% asked of us by the Environment Agency - result >- they gave >it to someone else when we were the preferred bidder...greed >loses you the >prize > >...my recommendation is to stick with where they are and if you really >have increase anything - increase the days and just do it in a shorter >time -this still makes your bid more expensive overall but at least it >looks better in the value for money tests. > > >> Second, we need to decide who will lead the UEA involvement. > >Is this for Sue and administration or for interactions with AEA? > >> >> This answers most of the questions from Sue >> Johnson below - except - are there any other UEA >> people who will be named in the proposal? The >> only other UEA names I've seen in any of the >> emails are Asher Minns and Bob Watson. > >I don't think so > >> The final issue to mention now is the letters of >> agreement and datasets and planned research >> templates that AEA has sent out. We have just >> returned these on behalf of CRU. William will >> also complete and return this information to AEA >> - and Aldina should do the same. Rachel/Anthony - >> will you do this for the two of you? > >I haven't seen these things from AEA - could you forward them? > > >> I'd be very grateful for your rapid responses to these questions. >> >> Best wishes, Clare >> >> >> >>>Subject: FW: Costing >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:49:15 +0100 >>>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>>Thread-Topic: Costing >>>Thread-Index: AcnwwQ6HB1jQHcGmQJ+qCEUfFW1FdgEEJPmw >>>From: "Johnson Sue Mrs \(ACAD\)" >>>To: "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" >>> >>>Hi Clare, >>> >>>I have just spoken with Janice about this and we wondered: >>> >>>1. How far this had progressed? >>> >>>2. Who was the UEA lead? >>> >>>3. If a decision had been made as to whether it >>>was consultancy or research and who had made that decision? >>> >>>4. Who else from UEA is involved? >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>Sue. >>> >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>>University of East Anglia >>> >>>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>>591550 | Email: ><[5] mailto:susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk>susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>>Web: <[6] http://www.uea.ac.uk/business>www.uea.ac.uk/business >>> >>>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: Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD) >>>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:34 AM >>>To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >>>Subject: Costing >>> >>>Hi Clare, >>> >>>I have had a look at the day rates, they seem >>>fine, basically we can charge what the client >>>will pay but I'm sure that price will be an >>>issue here and it's probably better if each HEI >>>charges roughly the same for their academics depending on >their grade. >>> >>>Few points to remember: >>> >>>We have to charge VAT on consultancy. >>> >>>You should make sure that you have a travel >>>budget if you are going to be required to attend meetings. >>> >>>Are there any other 'costs' that should be included? >>> >>>ENV will top slice the total cost by 10% and >>>there is a 15% management fee so basically you >>>will have a choice to make regarding the >>>remainder (75%) you can either take this >>>personally via payroll or choose to 'gift' some >>>or all of it into a school consultancy income >>>account where it can be used for travel, equipment, etc. >>> >>>If you wanted to maximise the amount that you >>>receive you could ask Jim to increase the UEA >>>daily rates he has given by 25% to cover this. >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>Sue. >>> >>> >>>---------- >>>Sue Johnson, Consultancy Manager >>>University of East Anglia >>> >>>Tel: 01603 591578 | Fax: 01603 >>>591550 | Email: ><[7] mailto:susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk>susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >>>Web: <[8] http://www.uea.ac.uk/business>www.uea.ac.uk/business >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > > 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: [11]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Rachel Warren international issues.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\UKCP09_WG_uncertainty1.doc" 4798. 2009-06-25 10:59:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:59:26 +0100 from: "Nick Pepin" subject: Re: Fwd: CRU surface temperature dataset to: "Phil Jones" Phil Thanks for this great detail. I am thinking that probably a raw radiosonde dataset may be better (I tried this before using the LKS dataset but station density was an issue and only ended up with around 20 station pairs) - it sounds as though things have improved dramatically in that area and will look at the sources you suggest. My hope is that at least I can find hundreds/thousands of stations near to my high elevation surface ones for comparison. If not I could interpolate spatially maybe between radiosondes to my surface sites since free-air climate (not meteorology) should be relatively smooth in space. I cannot interpolate between surface stations. I agree that reanalyses can be a can of worms (esp NCEP/NCAR)! As for the surface I'll also look at the site you suggest and get back if I have any Q/problems. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer some of my Q! Best wishes Nick >>> Phil Jones 24/06/2009 13:09 >>> Nick, I don't want to put off, but there is an awful lot of things wrong with NCEP/NCAR. They are probably OK for month-to-month variability, but if you look at some of the figures in Simmons et al (2004) you'll see that for trends they are practically useless before 1979. There is just so much wrong with the sondes which together with the introduction of satellite data in 1978/9 makes reanalyses awful. The Simmons paper is about how much better ERA-40 is than NCEP/NCAR. It is also telling you that you shouldn't be using NCEP/NCAR for trends - and ERA-40 is only OK in Europe and North America. A group of us are hopeful of getting an EU project funded to go through the Reanalysis input - surface and sonde. The aim is to put in all the homogenised surface and sonde data, so giving reanalysis better data input - and putting back all the data that missed the real-time cut. I'm not sure you're aware that no back data have ever got into the reanalyses. If data doesn't make the cut in real time, it can never get in later. The reanalysis source input doesn't collect back data! You'd be better off getting one of the newer sonde datasets. HadAT2 although developed in 2005 is beyond it's sell-by date. Have a look at the attached and this web site http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/leoweb/index.html Ra-ob core version 1.4 is the latest. The drop off in surface data isn't the fault of GHCNv2. The folks in Asheville are doing all they can to get additional datasets. Currently about 2000 sites are exchanged in real time. If the sites you want are not exchanged by Met Services in real time we can't get access to them except by asking each Met Service and/or waiting till the next volumes of the 10-year books (for 2001-2010) get released. CRUTEM3 has some additional station data going in for Australia and Canada, but apart from this we will have nothing more than GHCNv2. We could get a load more from the US quite easily, but coverage is reasonable there compared to the rest of the world. GHCNv2 and ourselves have lots of historic series, but these aren't updatable in real time, without continuous effort. Lots of projects were funded in the US and Europe in the 1980s and 1990s to get loads of data digitized, homogenized and accessible. It is possible to do things with daily data (SYNOPS) but these are only generally good enough for the good countries. http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop/?_nfpb=true&switchLang=en&_pageLabel=_dwdwww_klima_umwelt_datenzentren_gsnmc This site has what is available in real time - since 2001. This site can be very annoying. There is a link back to NCDC. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 17:48 23/06/2009, you wrote: >Phil > >Many thanks for your reply. This is very helpful, esp the Simmons paper. >I am aware there are issues with reanalyses although I do want to >try and use data representative of free air (and not contaminated >with surface obs)- hence NCEP/NCAR rather than ERA-40 maybe, and use >of pressure level data rather than 2 m or surface reanalysis temps >(which I think the Simmons paper is about). I don't want the >reanalysis to respond to surface issues and want it to be >independent (purely based on radiosonde and satellite coupled with modelling). >Of course this doesn't make the points irrelevant and I am looking >at these while deciding what to use. > >As regards surface data, I am interested in the Tmean you mention >used for CRUTEM3. Is this available and for how many stations? >GHCNv2 is not good after 1990 since many stations stop! It is >particularly dire after 2005 as you may realise? Please let me know >what you think? > >Best wishes and thanks for your help re this. > >Nick > > >>> Phil Jones 22/06/2009 10:38 >>> > > Nick, > I was away when your earlier message can in March, and I must have > forgotten it when I got back to Norwich. > We generally only put the gridded data on the web site. The >station data that > goes into CRUTEM3 is only monthly mean temperature. It is only >since the mid-1990s > that countries have routinely exchanged monthly mean Tx and Tn >data. Many countries > don't use these data to calculate mean T, instead using their >historical methods based > on fixed hours. > We do have an archive of historic Tx and Tn (monthly) but this >is almost entirely > based on GHCNv2 sources. We use these data in products like this paper > > >Mitchell, T.D. and Jones, P.D., 2005: An improved method of >constructing a database of monthly climate observations and >associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693-712. > > When you compare with Reanalysis trends you want to consider >looking at ERA-INTERIM > available from 1989-2008. There are also longer reanalysis products >developed by NOAA > (Gil Compo) from surface station data only (i.e. no sondes and no >satellites, so > consistent through time). > > Are you aware of this paper? Basically reanalyses will be wrong >before 1979 - except possibly > in Europe and North America. This paper has the reasons why >reanalyses will be wrong. > > Cheers > Phil > > > >At 15:06 17/06/2009, you wrote: > >Dear Prof. Jones > >You maybe had forgotten that I e-mailed you a while ago (March) > >asking about access to data for surface stations for work on > >temperature trends in complex topography (original e-mail and > details below). > >Since then I have been awarded a Royal Society Travel Grant to do > >some work on this in the U.S. and I will be examining the GHCNv2 > >dataset in detail (which I have). I would really like to be able to > >include a CRU dataset as well, since I did this in my original > >research and these datasets are highly regarded. > >If you are not the correct person to ask, maybe you could guide me > >to the right person! > >Many thanks for your reply. > >Best wishes > >Nick Pepin > > > > > > >>> Nick Pepin 09/03/2009 16:43 >>> > >Dear Prof. Jones > >You may remember that a few years ago (2005) I published a paper > >with Dian Seidel looking at temperature trends at high elevation > >surface stations and comparing them with reanalysis trends. I wish > >to update this work as part of another project, and was looking on > >the UEA website to see if any of the original stations have been > >updated. It is important that they are homogeneity adjusted as much > >as possible. > > > >It appears that nearly all of the datasets available on the web are > >gridded and therefore interpolated (which I don't want since > >interpolation influences what I am examining). Are any of the 3000 > >approx original stations available (mean monthly maxima and minima > >are good enough) which are used to create CRUTEM3 etc? > > > >In my original analysis I combined data from the CRU station dataset > >and GHCN (some stations were in both) and I would like to do the > >same again if possible. This is part of work looking at the effect > >of topography on temperature trend patterns on a global scale (it > >will be more detailed than preliminary work on this in the attached paper). > > > >Many thanks for your help > >Best wishes > >Nick Pepin > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4153. 2009-06-25 17:28:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:28:55 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: RE: Fwd: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,Tim Osborn ,m.agnew@uea.ac.uk I've been invited to the Tyndall brown bag lunch tomorrow and there will be a brief discussion about the proposal. I will do my best to stay calm when being lectured at by Anthony....... Clare >Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:50:30 +0100 (BST) >Subject: RE: Fwd: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender >From: A.Footitt@uea.ac.uk >To: "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" , > "Minns Asher Mr \" , > "Warren Rachel Dr \" , > "Adger Neil Prof \" , > "Footitt Anthony Mr \" , > "Goodess Clare Dr \" , > susan.johnson@uea.ac.uk >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 > >DEAR LORD!!!WHAT A THREAD OF EMAILS! > >Glad I switched it off so I could concentrate on other things! > >I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really >makes us (UEA as a whole) look like a bunch of amateurs - and people >wonder why I suggest establishing a Tyndall Ltd... > >Ok, things to be aware of - this is a very high profile project and >basically is where it's at as far as UK climate Change work goes. Prof Bob >Watson (also Chief Scientific Officer for Defra), for example, has >highlighted frequently that we desperately need to be part of the winning >bid and has emphasised the broader and significant reputational benefits >for Tyndall and UEA of getting it and, incidentally, the implied >reputational costs if we don't! > >I think all who are in the bid would probably all like to just do the work >and not have to deal with a rubbish system that is, frankly, not fit for >purpose as this is showing quite nicely. I think a few folks in RBS are >aware that the system doesn't work and similarly get sore heads about >it.....note that if we lose this on the basis of cost (it's happened on >previous bids Tyndall have put in, admittedly not because of UEA because >we went via consultancy) then I wouldn't like to be the one responsible >for it. > >We will be discussing this issue tomorrow at our Tyndall brown bag lunch >but, frankly, I can't see that this is going to resolve whether it's >research or consultancy......what a palava > >Anthony > > 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 4531. 2009-06-26 15:16:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:16:16 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short.. best regards Peter W At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1320. 2009-06-26 15:53:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:53:04 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil [et al], The fact that information is within an email that you consider 'personal' does not render the information itself personal. In order to not disclose information under EIR, we need to have a valid exception, and then also pass a public interest test that shows that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than disclosure. I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here. The other issue is passing the public interest test - we would, I presume be relying on some sort of public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between academic colleagues but there is no guarantee that the ICO would uphold this. I will get back to you next week on this one.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short........ best regards Peter W At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 618. 2009-06-26 16:16:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:16:37 +0900 from: mikami@tmu.ac.jp subject: Tentative schedule to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I will arrive at Norwich airport from Amsterdam in the evening of 24 August(Monday) with my wife and elder son who works in the NTT research institute for computor sciences. We plan to stay in Norwich for 2 nights (leaving for London on Wednesday). Therefore I would like to visit CRU on Tuesday (25 Aug.). I want to discuss several climatic topics concerning unusual warm periods in 1850s and 1860s just after the end of LIA. Recently in Japan, old instrumental temerature records were found during this period near Tokyo, in which several unusually hot summers were detected. I and Masumi made some analyses using these records. By the way, as you may know, Masumi got a permanent academic position as a lecturer at Seikei University in April this year. Before arriving in Norwivh, I will meet Gunther Konnen and Fons Baede maybe in Amsterdam to talk about our collaboration about Nagasaki climate reconstructions since 1700. I look forward to seeing you and Keith soon. Cheers, Takehiko P.Jones@uea.ac.ukF > Takehiko, > Our holiday of from Aug 27 to Sep 5. > So can do Aug 22-26. > > Cheers > Phil > > Phil, > > > > More than a year has passed since we contacted. I am fine, and have been > > busy for education and research activities. > > By the way, I am planning to visit Europe (Holland and UK) in this summer > > (maybe 22-29 August) with my wife. I will meet Gunther to > > discuss collaborative research on climate reconstructions in Japan for a > > couple of days, and would like to visit CRU during the > > latter part of our travel schedule if possible. Are you in Norwich in > > that period ? I also would like to discuss with you and > > Keith on the climatic variabilities since early 19th century in connection > > with recent global warming. Please give my best regards > > to Keith. > > > > With best regards, > > Takehiko > > > >> > >> Takehiko, > >> Glad to hear you're recovering. You're welcome to > >> come in August. Nearer the time suggest some dates. > >> This is the holiday time here, so need to make sure > >> we are here ! > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> At 06:20 23/01/2008, you wrote: > >> >Dear Phil, > >> > > >> >Thanks for your warm message via Masumi. > >> >I had a heart bypass operation (same as Bill Clinton did) on 10th of > >> >January, having well recovered, and got out of the hospital yesterday. > >> >I hope I (and my wife) could visit CRU in coming August. > >> > > >> >With best rgards, > >> >Takehiko > >> > > >> > >> Dear Takehiko, > >> > > We were sorry to hear of your heart problem. We hope you > >> > > get the problem looked at in the hospital soon, and make > >> > > a full recovery. > >> > > Maybe you'll be able to come to Norwich some other time, > >> > > when you are better. > >> > > > >> > > Best Regards for a speedy recovery > >> > > > >> > > Phil and Keith > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >Prof. Phil Jones > >> > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > 3412. 2009-06-27 08:17:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:17:55 -0400 (EDT) from: "Webster, Peter J" subject: Re: CRU station temperature data to: P Jones Phil, I should have known better. I was talking to Lonnie Smith a couple of weeks ago and he said that McIntyre is insisting on access to all of his ice cores. Not the raw data, mind you. BTW, the Science paper doesn't use your data. It is on El Nino changes and the influence on TCs in the NATL. We are particularly interested in the late 1930-40 bump and phase differences between land and sea. Looking at total atmospheric heating over ocean and land we had noted that the anomalies were out of phase with a time scale in the oscillation of about 8 years. Whther or not we can tease out the physics of such an oscillation or if it is a statistical artifcat remains to be seen. Regards peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "P Jones" To: "Peter J Webster" Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:02:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: CRU station temperature data Peter, Thanks! I'll look out for the Science paper. Cheers Phil > Dear Phil, > > I am sorry to have betrayed a trust. I thought that I was clearing things > up. I wil stay out of it now. But we really appreciate the data. I know > you guys go through a lot and I am sorry to make it worse. > > Peter > > PS: The data was very helpful for our little study. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Jones" > To: pjw@eas.gatech.edu > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:53:57 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: CRU station temperature data > > Peter, > If I knew you were going to go onto Climate Audit, I probably > wouldn't have > sent you the temperature data back in January. This was a private email > correspondence between CRU and Georgia Tech. > There is a lot you aren't aware of. We've had requests from some on > CA for > email correspondence about who changed what and why in AR4. This has now > gone to appeal. IPCC can't hope to work with people putting in requests > for > personal emails. On this issue they have sent numerous requests to > Universities and the Met Office in the UK. Maybe one day NCAR and the > NOAA > paleo group will release the exchanges they have had with them. > I haven't made the station data available to them, because they > should be > happy with the gridded data. They won't stop with the data, but > will then move > on to the software. They have asked on numerous occasions. They have the > GISS and GHCNv2 data. McIntyre has stated on a number of occasions that > he > is not interested in developing his own global temperature dataset. > He says it will > be quite easy for him to do. I wish he would develop such a series, > then he will > learn some science and realise how robust the series is. All he > wants to do is > knock the science and smear honest scientists. > > This is a private email between the two of us. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > _____________________________ > > Peter J. Webster > Professor > Earth and Atmospheric Sciences & Environmental Engineering > Environmental Science and Technology Building > Georgia Institute of Technology > Atlanta, GA: 30308 > -- _____________________________ Peter J. Webster Professor Earth and Atmospheric Sciences & Environmental Engineering Environmental Science and Technology Building Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA: 30308 2663. 2009-06-30 10:39:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:39:00 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, I can understand your reluctance to deal with Mr. McIntyre's request but we do need to have justifiable grounds for claiming an exception under the EIR in order to do so... To address your point Michael, I think that there might be a difference seen between personal correspondence between academics and actual data which has a life/role outside that correspondence. In regards the public interest test that we have to address, once again, I would think that whilst there is a good argument for protecting the ability of academics to communicate freely and openly, the underlying data that may comprise part of that communication might well fall into another category. One only has to look at the JISC funded projects on national scientific data repositories and exchange to see that there appears to be a perception in the academic community that the exchange & re-use of data is a good thing. We also have to remember that, much like FOIA, the exception regarding 'confidentiality' is in relation to a person providing the information to the organisation - it does not touch upon correspondence from the organisation That is covered either by 'internal communications' exception, or as in the other case with the IPCC, an 'adverse effect' on international relations (which I believe to be entirely justifiable) As you are both quite busy over the next couple of weeks, I would be happy to discuss this further w/c 13 July with you, Michael and verify our approach the following week prior to the deadline of 24 July. Cheers,. Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:52 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Michael, Dave, I'm away part of next week (July 7-9 inclusive) and also not here at all the following week (July 13-17). I'm here all the week of July 20-24, with the exception of the Friday (24th) afternoon. Cheers Phil At 17:36 26/06/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: Dave et al, As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period), with one of the valid reasons that you, Jonathan and I disucssed, and let him go through appeal. Happy to discuss further (but not for a couple of weeks since my diary is pretty full next week and the week after). 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 _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:53 PM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Phil [et al], The fact that information is within an email that you consider 'personal' does not render the information itself personal. In order to not disclose information under EIR, we need to have a valid exception, and then also pass a public interest test that shows that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than disclosure. I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here. The other issue is passing the public interest test - we would, I presume be relying on some sort of public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between academic colleagues but there is no guarantee that the ICO would uphold this. I will get back to you next week on this one.... Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short........ best regards Peter W At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [ [2]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4337. 2009-06-30 13:30:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "Renate Christ" date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:30:20 +0200 from: "IPCC-Sec" subject: Scoping meeting for the 5th Assessment Report, 13-17 July 2009, to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Geoffrey Love" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Participants of the Scoping Meeting for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Dear Participants, Attached herewith are instructions and the vision paper for the scoping meeting to be held in Venice next month. I hope you would be able to go through this paper in detail in preparation for the meeting. The scoping meeting is an extremely important step in the preparation of the AR5 and as you would visualize that if the scoping itself is not satisfactory then we would not be in a position to really produce a report that would meet the standards of the IPCC and satisfy the expectations of our audience. We would be providing further information on the selection of the special task groups and the break out groups, etc., that are proposed as part of this exercise. I look forward to welcoming you in Venice and working with you in this important endeavour. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, R.K. Pachauri Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Doc.2 - Chairman's vision paper.pdf" 1473. 2009-06-30 14:01:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:01:41 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil, Ah, now we are getting somewhere.... (and I will turn you to the 'dark side' of FOIA/EIR yet! lol) I don't' think Reg. 12(4)(c) will hold water as I think we know exactly what he is asking for but it's our ability to provide it that is at issue. However, even if we think it is too general, Regulation 9 mandates us to provide advice and assistance to the requester and indeed, subsection (2) specifically notes that if we do feel that 12(4)(a) applies, we must ask the applicant to provide more particulars & to assist the applicant in providing those particulars. I would think it likely that the applicant in this case would simply ask for the entire base file....? As to point 1 below, if we don't have the original email nor any record of what was sent, then there may be a case for the application of 12(4)(a). However, being contrary (and that's part of the job description), Regulation 9 would also raise it's hoary head here and we would need to tell the applicant out problem in 'reassembling' the data. I suspect the outcome would be exactly the same as above; namely a request for the entire base data. However, point 3 has definite promise. We would have to demonstrate an adverse effect on the interests of the party providing the information/data, and then pass the public interest test, overcoming the presumption of public interest in disclosure. Clearly, if the data was given to us on terms that forbade its further disclosure to persons/instructions that would exclude the applicant (and we have evidence of that), then we can also assume some presumption of adverse effect (although once again, thinking ahead, evidence of this would be useful). We would have to overcome the obvious fact that some data was passed to a fellow academic so therefore would need to draw a distinction between that type of disclosure and that requested by the applicant. I do not disagree with your final point which is why I was drawing the potential distinction between data and private correspondence. Our case before the ICO is all about the confidentiality of information coming to us and the adverse effect its disclosure would have on the persons providing it, and the international relations we have with bodies such as the IPCC. (and I think we might have a case under EIR 'manifestly unreasonable' grounds as that definition is wider than that for 'vexatious' requests under FOIA). Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:19 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I've done something I thought I would never do - I've printed off the EIR for 2004! Here's a few thoughts. 1. I don't have the exact data that I sent in January 2009. I'd have to recreate it. The data are part of a larger database. What I'd recreate would be different from what I sent in Jan 2009 (12.4a). 2. The requester has no idea what I sent on January 2009 (12.4c). 3. If I do have to recreate it, then it will contain data where 12.5fi-iii apply. Some of the data was supplied to CRU on the grounds that we didn't pass it on. These conditions were put on it by some of the National Met Services around the World (including the UK). On a related matter and back to Michael's point. The next IPCC process will start in 2010. It is possible that UEA people will be involved in the author writing teams. The members of these teams will be available through IPCC. What is to stop people asking for emails I might write to some or all of these authors. This, in effect, is the purpose of the appeal in the other issue with Keith and Tim and IPCC correspondence. Cheers Phil At 10:39 30/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil/Michael, I can understand your reluctance to deal with Mr. McIntyre's request but we do need to have justifiable grounds for claiming an exception under the EIR in order to do so... To address your point Michael, I think that there might be a difference seen between personal correspondence between academics and actual data which has a life/role outside that correspondence. In regards the public interest test that we have to address, once again, I would think that whilst there is a good argument for protecting the ability of academics to communicate freely and openly, the underlying data that may comprise part of that communication might well fall into another category. One only has to look at the JISC funded projects on national scientific data repositories and exchange to see that there appears to be a perception in the academic community that the exchange & re-use of data is a good thing. We also have to remember that, much like FOIA, the exception regarding 'confidentiality' is in relation to a person providing the information to the organisation - it does not touch upon correspondence from the organisation That is covered either by 'internal communications' exception, or as in the other case with the IPCC, an 'adverse effect' on international relations (which I believe to be entirely justifiable) As you are both quite busy over the next couple of weeks, I would be happy to discuss this further w/c 13 July with you, Michael and verify our approach the following week prior to the deadline of 24 July. Cheers,. Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:52 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Michael, Dave, I'm away part of next week (July 7-9 inclusive) and also not here at all the following week (July 13-17). I'm here all the week of July 20-24, with the exception of the Friday (24th) afternoon. Cheers Phil At 17:36 26/06/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: Dave et al, As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period), with one of the valid reasons that you, Jonathan and I disucssed, and let him go through appeal. Happy to discuss further (but not for a couple of weeks since my diary is pretty full next week and the week after). 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 _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:53 PM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Phil [et al], The fact that information is within an email that you consider 'personal' does not render the information itself personal. In order to not disclose information under EIR, we need to have a valid exception, and then also pass a public interest test that shows that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than disclosure. I will have a think about what exceptions are available to us, but, at this moment I am having difficulty making a case for any that would apply here. The other issue is passing the public interest test - we would, I presume be relying on some sort of public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between academic colleagues but there is no guarantee that the ICO would uphold this. I will get back to you next week on this one.... Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations [FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03] Dave, I sent some of the station data to a Jun Jian at Georgia Tech on 15 Jan 2009. I see now that Peter Webster was a recipient on the email. I also see from looking at Climate Audit that this request results from Peter saying on CA that he's not had any difficulty getting data from CRU (see what he said below on June 24). I regard this as a personal email between me and this group at Georgia Tech. So, McIntyre has no right to request the data in a personal email. I only sent a small part of the dataset anyway. They asked for a specific set and said what they were going to do with the data. Cheers Phil Steve, We have asked Phil Jones for data so that we could compare the synthesized surface temperature with actual station data. Jones has provided everything that we have asked for. This is for our study of the 1930/40 climate bump that is ongoing. Alas, these things take time. But my experience has been quite different to yours. As you know, I have often complained that the right wing and the left wing (the absolutists of AGHW and those who do not have a bar of it) have forced us into corners in which we are not comfortable. If there is to be reasonable resolution of the climate GWH issues and the fidelity of data (both critical and reasonable questions?) I think that the questions and opinions can't be shouted from one corner or the other. BTW, we have a Science article coming out next week about the changes in form of El Nino (GHW or natural variability: no idea! But changes there are) and its impact on NATL hurricanes. Not sure if it will be of interest to C-A as it does not raise the question of GW. But the data set is short........ best regards Peter W At 13:57 26/06/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A request from Mr. McIntyre under EIR that arrived today. Response due by 24 July. I have acknowledged the request and confirmed that we will be handling this under EIR. Any concerns with this request? Any need for clarification? Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [ [3]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:45 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Environmental Information Regulations Dear Mr Palmer, Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009. Thank you for your attention, Stephen McIntyre Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3474. 2009-06-30 14:23:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David J. Thomson" date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:23:57 -0400 (EDT) from: "David J. Thomson" subject: Re: Congratulations to: Phil Jones Phil, Thanks for the "heads-up" on this one. I just printed Keenan's note from "Theor. Appl. Climatol" (who publishes this, Exxon?) and it doesn't appear to be much of a paper. (Mind you, I wasn't all that impressed with Chiune's analysis plus a similar one on the Kyoto cherry blossom series: they are both a bit too simple given the apparent statistics of the process. As a guess, about half-right.) But I'll be cautious about how I say things - there seem to be a lot of people out there, such as the gang Mike Mann was harassed by, who, I suspect are being funded by the oil and coal companies to attempt to cast doubt on otherwise reasonable papers. One advantage of being a "Chartered Statistician" is, so far, they haven't given me too much flak... Cheers Dave On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Phil Jones wrote: > > David, > Thanks! I couldn't make the AGU in Toronto, as I was already booked up > for a meeting in Finland the same week. > > I'd be interested in seeing the Pinot Noir paper when you have something. > You're probably aware of some controversy about another grape harvest paper > by Chiune et al that was in Nature. > > http://www.informath.org/ > > I'd be very wary about having any involvement with Douglas Keenan. I'm > involved in an issue with him related to Wei-Chyung Wang who works at SUNY > at Albany. > > Pascal Yiou has tried to discuss things with him, but given up. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 21:05 29/06/2009, you wrote: > >> Phil, >> Hoped to see you at Spring AGU but apparently you didn't >> come this year. In any event, I see that you have been made a >> fellow, so congratulations. It's always nice to see people get >> recognized for something where they have made a real contribution. >> (I expect that this is true in most cases, but I don' know >> enough about things like geodesy or plate tectonics to appreciate >> what is involved, but I've used your data and consider the >> honour well deserved.) >> >> Life here is much as normal, too much to do, too little >> time, etc. Actually, I can't complain too badly, I won a Killam >> research fellowship that buys me out of committees and teaching >> for two years starting in Sept. It's to work on space physics >> (mostly Ulysses and ACE data) and solar modes. When we first said >> that we were seeing solar modes in space (in 1995) people thought >> it was impossible, but have a paper in press at AGU by S Ghosh, >> me, etc. showing that, when does the calculations in 3 space dimensions >> instead of 1, the modes propage just fine; so slow progress. >> I'm also doing some work on climate; have a paper on the French >> Pinot Noir harvest date series in the works with a student. >> We gave a preliminary talk at AGU and also have another talk >> accepted for the RSS in September. It has a lot of interesting >> nonstationarity. >> >> Again, congratulations and well deserved. (An interesting question >> just prompted by reading a biography of Jeans - should the congratulations >> go to you, or to the committee for making a good choice?) >> >> Sincerely >> David Thomson > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 558. 2009-07-01 08:48:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:48:18 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Final Proposal and Impact Plan to: Myles Allen , Gabi Hegerl , Helen Hanlon , chg@ceh.ac.uk, Francis Zwiers , Phil Jones , Jonathan Rougier , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , "Jones, Richard" , "Collins, Matthew" , "Albert Klein Tank (KNMI)" , Steve Jewson All, attached is the final version of the case for support and the impact plan. CO-I's thanks for your help. Partners thanks for willing to be involved; In some case at rather the last minute. Simon -- Simon Tett Chair of Earth System Dynamics School of Geosciences The University of Edinburgh Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Room 351, Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW UK http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\euro_risk_impacts_plan.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\case_for_support.pdf" 2452. 2009-07-02 09:26:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:26:41 +1200 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil Thanks for the heads-up on UKCP09.As you suggest a good idea to request the CD etc.. I managed to get a third reviewer to look at the comments on your WG paper. Have pasted these below. I will rescind the decision of "reject" and change it to major revisions. Hope you are satisfied with this. ============= 3rd Reviewer's Comments I think both of these reviews are very reasonable and not overly harsh, especially the lengthy and measured remarks from Reviewer 2. My major criticisms have all been noted by one or both of the reviewers: 1. Previous literature on weather generators and their use in climate downscaling has not been mentioned or drawn upon. To the extent that a paper proposes a new method it is incumbent on the authors to compare results with prior art and demonstrate improvements. Obviously this has not been done. 2. Description of the method in Section 3 is extremely sketchy. MUCH more detail will be required in order for an interested reader to replicate the procedure, which I think is a reasonable standard. 3. I disagree with the premise that the method overall can be adequately evaluated without involving actual present-climate observations. One of the big problems in climate-change projection is dealing with biases in the climate models, and the assumption that these biases will not change too much in future climates. The relevant impacts depend on changes in weather sequences in the real world, not the RCM world, so a fair exposition of the method and its errors will include perturbations to WG parameters fit to observed sequences, not merely RCM weather sequences. The procedure used to test the method is thus incomplete. 4. I agree with Reviewer 2 that the sketchy proposal for spatially coherent generation seems not to make sense. There is a prior literature on spatially coherent weather generators based on the conventional Richardson WGEN structure. 5. Too many tables and figures. ========================================== ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 30/06/2009 23:44 To: Glenn McGregor Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript Glenn, UKCP09 was launched on June 18. [1]http://ukclimateprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk/ui/admin/login.php This is the web site. You might like to get the CD that is mentioned with the 5 reports on it. Been busy with numerous things as well as the launch, so had forgotten about the paper you'd said you'd send out for further review back in January. Is there any news on this? Major comment after launch on the whole UKCP09 package is that it hasn't been peer-reviewed. DEFRA did get it internationally reviewed (the WG by 3 people and the rest by another 8) in January. DEFRA paid for all the reviewers to come to a 2-day meeting in Reading. We had to respond to all the comments. It seemed more extensive than a normal peer-review, but some people seem to think that journal peer-review has a greater standing! Cheers Phil At 22:19 13/01/2009, Glenn McGregor wrote: >Phil > >Thanks for the useful suggestion > >Glad the UKCP09 meet went well > >Glenn > >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[2]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:29 a.m. >To: Glenn McGregor >Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > > Glenn, > Just got back from the UKCP09 meeting in Reading. > WG reasonably well received. Really helps to have some > results. > Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were > a Brit - then they's know something about the context. > > Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell. > > Rob is now at Loughboro (has left the EA - back to academia). > > Nigel is now at Reading. > > We can easily add in a review og WGs. > > Cheers > Phil > >Phil > > > > Thanks for your response and willingness for me to get a third opinion. > > > > I will get onto this straight away as soon as I am back from walking the > > dog > > > > Best for the remaining period of work on UKCIP and your travels > > > > Glenn > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk > > To: Glenn McGregor > > Sent: Tue Jan 13 08:10:25 2009 > > Subject: RE: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > > > > Glenn, > > At home now. I won't be able to do anything for a > > few weeks, as we have to get the UKCP09 stuff done > > and some travel, so it can't do any harm. So go ahead. > > > > I do realize you can't read everything. > > > > I suspect one of the reviewers may have been Semenov. > > If so he is potentially biased, as his group didn't > > win the tender for the work! > > > > I don't think either reviewer realized the context of the work - > > this may be my fault. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >> Dear Phil > >> > >> Thanks for your response to the decision on the WG paper. > >> > >> I am willing to admit that I may have got it wrong as far as the > >> decision > >> goes but you must understand my position. As I am not able to read > >> every > >> paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the > >> reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. > >> > >> Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, > >> is > >> to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 > >> weeks. > >> If you would not like me to pursue this option then please let me know. > >> > >> Needless to say I am very conscious of the fact that you personally > >> have > >> given wonderful service to IJoC and I would hope that this incident > >> does > >> not damage the long term relationship you have with the journal. > >> > >> Best > >> Glenn > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >> Sent: Tue 13/01/2009 01:25 > >> To: Glenn McGregor > >> Cc: C G Kilsby > >> Subject: Re: JOC-08-0245 - Decision on Manuscript > >> > >> > >> > >> Glenn, > >> I'm afraid these two reviews will definitely > >> discourage me from submitting more papers > >> to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized > >> the novelty of this paper. The WG > >> is fairly new and we are certainly not > >> re-inventing the wheel! We didn't do an > >> in-depth literature review because of space. If you were still > >> in the UK, you'd see this whole UKCIP08 package (now to be called > >> UKCP09) > >> including this WG coming out in the spring time (April/May). > >> To give you one example - all the papers referred to by the > >> reviewers > >> only > >> work at sites with data. The WG in the paper works anywhere in the > >> UK. > >> We've had the WG Report which will form part of the UKCP09 package > >> formally reviewed very favourably by three experts in the field. > >> You've missed a good paper for IJC here! Your reviewers have not > >> read it > >> carefully enough - nor understood what it was about. Maybe the latter > >> is > >> my > >> fault, attempting to explain too much in a > >> single paper, but I would have hoped > >> for something more constructive. > >> > >> You can ignore this email if you want. I won't be submitting this > >> paper > >> to IJC again. > >> > >> On the other paper of mine you rejected a couple of months ago, > >> I'm > >> going to re-submit that somewhere else now. These reviews were > >> constructive, > >> especially the positive one - that you chose to > >> ignore. At least the reviewers > >> understood what the paper was about. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> At 10:51 12/01/2009, you wrote: > >>>12-Jan-2009 > >>> > >>>Dear Prof. Jones > >>> > >>>Manuscript # JOC-08-0245 entitled "Perturbing a > >>>Weather Generator using factors developed from > >>>Regional Climate Model simulations" 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. > >>> > >>>In view of the comments of the referee(s) your > >>>manuscript has been denied publication in the > >>>International Journal of Climatology. > >>> > >>>Thank you for considering the International > >>>Journal of Climatology for the publication of > >>>your research. I hope the outcome of this > >>>specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future > >>> manuscripts. > >>> > >>>Sincerely, > >>> > >>>Prof. Glenn McGregor > >>>Editor, International Journal of Climatology > >>>g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz > >>> > >>>NOTE FROM EDITOR > >>>I have taken the above decision as there appears > >>>to be a number of problems with the paper > >>>including a deficient review of the literature, > >>>few innovative aspects and a lack of analysis > >>>rigour. Sorry I could not be more positive. > >>>=========================== > >>> > >>>Referee(s)' Comments to Author: > >>> > >>>Referee: 1 > >>>Comments to the Author > >>>The paper describes how to link a weather > >>>generator, which was developed and published by > >>>the authors, with predictions from the regional > >>>climate model to provide end-users with daily > >>>climate scenarios for impact assessments as a > >>>part of the UKCIP08 project. This manuscript has major flaws. > >>>1. The problem of linking WG with the output of > >>>global or regional climate models (GCM/RegCM) to > >>>generate daily climate scenarios required by > >>>process-based impact models is not new. Wilks > >>>(1992) described the method of linking the WGEN > >>>weather generator based on a Markov chain model > >>>for precipitation with climate predictions > >>>derived from GCM. In Barrow et al (1996), a > >>>methodology of linking the LARS-WG weather > >>>generator based on series approach with HadCM2 > >>>was described and used in the European project > >>>on the assessment of climate change on > >>>agriculture in Europe. From 2002, high > >>>resolution daily site-specific climate scenarios > >>>based on LARS-WG and HadRM3 (UKCIP02) > >>>predictions were available for the academic > >>>community to study impact of climate change in > >>>the UK (Semenov, 2007). A similar work has been > >>>done for the Met&Rol generator in Check Republic > >>>(Dubrovsky et al, 2004). None of this works has > >>>been cited, and their manuscript authors are trying to > >>> "rediscoverEthe > >>> wheel. > >>> > >>>2. The methodology of assessing the performance > >>>of WG is well established. Statistical tests are > >>>used to compare probability distributions of > >>>observed and simulated weather variables (e.g. > >>>the K-S test), the t-test and f-test are used to > >>>compare observed and simulated means and > >>>variances, the extreme values theory is used to > >>>assess how well WG reproduces weather extreme > >>>events (Semenov et al, 1998, Qian et al 2004, > >>>2008; Kesley et al, 2005; Semenov, 2008). In > >>>this paper, authors used a "visualEcomparison > >>>to compare observed and simulated means by > >>>plotting data points on a graph. This is > >>>unacceptable, because no objective conclusions > >>>can be derived from such comparison. Proper > >>>statistical tests must be used instead. > >>>I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is > >>>well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any > >>>other refereed journals. The manuscript did not > >>>contribute to the area of research, and the > >>>methodology used for comparison is "naiveEand > >>>unaccepted in scientific publications. > >>>============================== > >>> > >>>Referee: 2 > >>>Comments to the Author > >>>All comments to the Author are found in the attached file. > >> > >> Prof. Phil Jones > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3646. 2009-07-06 09:29:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 6 09:29:31 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Climate datasets to: i.harris@uea.ac.uk Harry, When you get back to the BADC work, you might want to look at the UDEL web site. I don't think what Cort Willmott has done will make any difference. You were only using their temperatures and not their precip. For the later you were using GPCC data. Cheers Phil From: Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate datasets To: Phil Jones Cc: Elsa Nickl , Kenji Matsuura X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.10.2-GA Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:57:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=md4.nss.udel.edu X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090206.4A4E2A51.01AE,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=128.175.1.21, so=2008-08-01 02:07:42, dmn=5.7.1/2009-06-05, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false 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: 25113288 - 1f4871c157af (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=25113288&m=1f4871c157af&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=25113288&m=1f4871c157af&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=25113288&m=1f4871c157af&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Phil, Kenji and I have now revised our land-surface monthly P dataset and placed the new version (2.01) on our research Web site. We decided not to include GSOD data observed prior to 1975 because of their many irregularities. However, since we observed fewer irregularities within the GSOD archive after the mid-1970s and the more recent GSOD data improved our spatial coverage, we elected to include many GSOD records observed since 1974. We did filter these station records and remove "unrealistic" observations, however, as described in our revised documentation. Hope you find these data useful -- Cort ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:29:09 -0400 (EDT) >From: >Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate datasets >To: Phil Jones >Cc: Elsa Nickl , Kenji Matsuura > >Dear Phil, > >Yes, I see the posting of our data on the JISAO site. There are several of our datasets on the site, including our recently gridded air temperature and precipitation datasets from 1900-2006. You are correct that we used both GHCN and GSOD station data to estimate our gridded fields, although we only used GSOD data where there was no GHCN record. Once we sort out the GSOD problems, Ill be in touch. > >We also are looking over the GPCC data and I too lament the fact that they will not release station data. > >More later -- Cort > > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:52:24 +0100 >>From: Phil Jones >>Subject: Re: Climate datasets >>To: >> >> >> Cort, >> The dataset we've been comparing with is this one. >> >> [4]http://jisao.washington.edu/data/ud/ Just >>noticed this is on the JISAO site! >> This links back to the page you sent me. >> >> I presume you've used GHCN and also GSOD data to derive the grids. >> >> Thanks for telling us you'll be updating the data soon, but I doubt that >> will make any difference at the scales we're doing the comparisons. It would >> if we were comparing at much smaller scales. We're using the large Giorgi >> regions that IPCC use. Not much use climatically but we've got numerous >> other things to say in the paper. >> >> We've not used GSOD, but am not surprised there are some problematic data. >> >> For precip we've compared with the new GPCC dataset from 1901. I'd suggest >> you get this, as it uses many more stations, so >>should be better. Sadly, no-one >> can get the station data from them. I suspect >>it is just denser where it was already >> quite dense. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>At 20:12 18/05/2009, you wrote: >>>Dear Phil, >>> >>>Kenji asked me to reply to your recent >>>e-mail. We are, of course, quite pleased that >>>there is excellent agreement between your new >>>high-resolution dataset and our data. In most >>>cases, we too have found good agreement among our and CRU datasets. >>> >>>I am not sure which of our datasets you have >>>examined in this instance but an example of how to cite one of our datasets is: >>> >>>Willmott, C. J. and K. Matsuura (2001) >>>Terrestrial Air Temperature and Precipitation: >>>Monthly and Annual Time Series (1950 - 1999), >>>[5]http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/README.ghcn_ts2.html. >>> >>>The creatorsâ namesmes, the title, and date of >>>each dataset appear in the datasetâs >>>documentation (the README filfile) on our Web site. >>> >>>Let me also mention that we have found some >>>problems with a subset of the precipitation >>>station data (the GSOD station data) that we >>>used to create our most recent (1900-2006) >>>gridded precipitation dataset. We are in the >>>process of filtering the questionable GSOD >>>station records and, as a consequence--if you >>>are using this dataset, I encourage you to wait >>>until we have created the revised version of our gridded dataset. >>> >>>Thank you for expressing an interest in our data >>>and we hope this helps to clarify. >>> >>>Regards -- Cort >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 472. 2009-07-06 17:02:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:02:48 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: Your visit to ECMWF and a question on the PREC/L dataset to: adrian.simmons@ecmwf.int I agree with Phil on that: poor or no documentation and none that is referencable does not help. Kevin > Kevin > > You'll see from later mails that it's a problem for PREC/L also, though > its apparently better analysis method (compared at least to that which > used to be used in the GPCC Monitoring Product) helps a bit. Also, Phil > Jones grumbles to me from time to time how difficult it is to get the > GPCC people to write up fully what they have done. He tells me he will > see you at the IPCC scoping meeting in a couple of weeks time, so > perhaps you'll be able to find a little time to discuss these matters > then. > > I think the real issue is to get the countries to send comprehensive > gauge records promptly to the data centres, not five or ten years after > the event. This is important in the climate-service context. > > Best regards > > Adrian > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote: >> Hi all >> My comment and concern is that when stations come and go it corrupts the >> record and this is especially an issue for GPCC. How that is dealt with >> whether by using anomalies or whatever is a big issue. In GPCC this was >> poorly done earlier (not taken into account) as I understand it >> Kevin >> >>> Aiguo >>> >>> I've just read the actual gauge numbers given with the PRECL data. For >>> North America there is a sharp drop in gauge numbers at the end of 1996 >>> (not 1997). But for Australia there is a dramatic drop at the end of >>> 1992 - from about 1400 gauges to about 90 gauges, and the number falls >>> after that so there are only 40-50 gauges being used in the latest >>> years. So it is not surprising that PREC/L appears to be the poorest of >>> all the datasets for Australia. I am inclined though to add it into the >>> paper, since it has been quoted in AR4 etc.. The Full Data GPCC v4 >>> product (and the forthcoming version of GPCC based on it) looks a much >>> better bet to me. >>> >>> PREC/L looks better in terms of coverage going back in time, with >>> ~13000 >>> gauges used globally for 1973, but the GPCC Full Data Product v4 has >>> ~28000 for this year. Globally, PREC/L is down to ~2000 gauges in 2007 >>> compared with ~8000 in GPCC v4. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> Aiguo Dai wrote: >>>> Dear Adrian, >>>> >>>> Thanks for hosting our visit to ECMWF and we enjoyed talking to you >>>> and >>>> other colleagues there. >>>> >>>> The CPC analyses rely heavily on the NCDC GHCN2 station data for >>>> precipitation, and the GHCN2 has a smaller >>>> number of gauges since 1997. I normally use GPCP (after adjustment for >>>> mean difference) for years after >>>> 1997. >>>> >>>> Aiguo >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian Simmons wrote: >>>>> Dear Aiguo >>>>> >>>>> It was good to talk with you and June when you visited ECMWF on >>>>> Friday. Thank you in particular for being willing to discuss matters >>>>> you raised in your review of our paper on near-surface humidity over >>>>> land. I'll amend it to make it clear that the GPCC full data product >>>>> version 4 is based on gridding anomalies, and add concluding >>>>> discussion of the evidence that leads us to conclude that the decline >>>>> in relative humidity in recent years is not dimply due to our picking >>>>> up shift in observational bias. >>>>> >>>>> After talking with you, I eventually found the PREC/L dataset on the >>>>> CPC website. I've produced versions of Table 5 and Fig 12 with it >>>>> included. Results are attached. To be honest, it does not look like >>>>> much of an improvement over CMAP, and it really seems to be the "odd >>>>> man out" when it comes to Australia. This is particularly the case >>>>> since about 1997, as can be seen in Fig. 12. Are you aware of any >>>>> particular problem with PREC/L after then, particularly with regard >>>>> to >>>>> Australia? I ask particularly because in your review you mentioned >>>>> that the gauge coverage for PREC/L may not be as good as for GPCC >>>>> after 1997. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> ___________________ >> Kevin Trenberth >> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >> PO Box 3000 >> Boulder CO 80307 >> ph 303 497 1318 >> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------- > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html 902. 2009-07-10 11:30:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 10 11:30:05 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Past temperatures to: "Ken Mourin" Ken, You've obviously been to the site, but the page is [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html The most relevant chapter to proving the warming is down to us is Ch 9. The current warming cannot be explained unless climate models are told about increases in greenhouse gases. Without this, with 3 large volcanic eruptions and a slight decline in solar output, we should be cooling. Only back for today. Away all next week. Here again from July 20. Best Regards Phil At 20:34 08/07/2009, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones Many thanks for your prompt reply - I'd be delighted to have references to past global temperatures and CO2 levels, for my sources are I suspect secondary, and I haven't been able to track down the originals. They suggests that only on one occasion, about 125,000 years ago, has the sea level risen above present levels - and that sea levels are now steady. Your last para says that CO2 levels are rising faster than ever before. This may be totally irrelevant IF CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature. The graphs I have available show that temperature rose 4-1200 years BEFORE the CO2, and the CO2 remained high for up to 20,000 years after the temperature returned to normal. This would suggest that temperature rises caused the increased CO2 release, probably from the sea and the wetlands. One factor I have yet to see mentioned is that the greatly increased energy usage of the last hundred years has resulted in higher heat output from simple thermodynamics - energy expended tends to end up as heat. So far I remain unconvinced by the IPCC reports - I have downloaded and partly read the one you kindly drew my attention to. I also have previously read most of the Idso and Singer report of the NIPCC at www heartlands.org. and the earlier NIPCC counterblast which exposed some of the gross errors ( the J-shaped curve, the fiddling of the figures, the political manipulation of the final report , the false attribution to many scientists who were not really involved, etc.) Sorry if I sound an unregenerate "denier", but I am genuinely perplexed, and also fearful of the enormous economic costs of political actions based on what seems to be unscientific and frankly bandwagoning politicians. I also believe that the earth has much more comprehensive corrective capabilities than we currently give it credit for. Furthermore, as a few East Coast denizens have shown recently, it only requires a few men and a bucket and spade or two (loosely speaking!) to build up coastal defences to stop maritime flooding. More attention to drainage ditches and the slowing of water drainage could help a lot of inland damage too. Rant over! I look forward to hearing from you further. Kindest regards Ken Mourin 13 Quebec Road - PLEASE NOTE THE CORRECT NUMBER - an draft template crept into use. Dereham NR19 2DR e-mail: ken.mourin@virgin.net (though I will be changing this in a couple of weeks - I'll send an update). tel: 01362-692989 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 256. 2009-07-13 15:06:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:06:02 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response requirements to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Gents, Just to confirm what I have already relayed to both Jonathan and Michael, namely that the ICO has approved our deferral of a response to 14 August. However, as noted below and previously, we still need to build our case. What I need from you is as follows (to reiterate) 1. Some indication of the time it would take to locate all the requested information, and the effect that this would have on your other work - this is required for both a section 12 argument under FOIA, and a 'manifestly unreasonable' exception (Reg. 12(4)(b)) under EIR 2. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this information would have on the relationship between UEA and the IPCC - this is required for section 27 under FOIA and Reg. 12(5)(a) under EIR to show, in the latter case, an 'adverse effect' ion international relations 3. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this information would have on them - this is required for Reg. 12(5)(f) to show an adverse effect on the interests of the person(s) providing information to UEA (the rough equivalent of the section 41 confidentiality exemption under FOIA). The more evidence we have, the stronger our case will be.... I am happy to meet on this if you wish but it's mostly a case of me just getting the draft done now, and having the evidence to back up our assertions. Given the recent correspondence from the ICO, I would consider it highly likely that they will choose to consider this under EIR but we will be making a submission under both Acts. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:32 PM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response requirements (GOOD NEWS) Importance: High Gents, I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him to enquire about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at this stage - he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would be accepted and considered by the ICO. More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned and that it might be some time prior to that happening! Ergo, I have no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at the ICO for some time in regards this request. Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days 'deadline' for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that several key figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper indicated that as nothing much would be happening with the information we sent to the ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on the response time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he suggested that we either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the requested information to them.... In short, we have a lot more time to construct a well-reasoned case on this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this conversation with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I don't want to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad process if the ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you concur?. I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do submit our case, it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil. I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible (more likely early next week?) The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the requested documents. We could simply defer what we would have said by 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas? I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as robust a case as possible. ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 3445. 2009-07-13 15:22:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 13 15:22:10 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: cruts tmp to 2008 to: Ian Harris Negative spikes fixed (see e.g. Mali on page 12 of new attachment). Mean differences slightly improved, though not much. BTW attachment shows last year's CRUTS3 in black and the latest in pink. I haven't (yet) compared the 1961-1990 mean of last year's and latest CRUTS3 with the correct normals from New et al. It might be that the latest version is the better. I'll do that next! Tim At 10:30 13/07/2009, you wrote: Hi Tim, A new cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gzis now in /cru/cruts/ It should fix the negative excessions, and I have a hunch that it might fix the means too. You see, I noticed that the mean differences were all negative.. you can probably guess the rest, given the other fixes I've just made! Cheers Harry On 10 Jul 2009, at 10:55, Ian Harris wrote: Hi Tim, A slightly more in depth reply ;) On 10 Jul 2009, at 00:19, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Harry, finally had time to take a look at the latest cruts3 run through to 2008 for tmp, picked up from /cru/cruts/ Two PDFs showing seasonal national means are attached. Look at ...2008a_vs_2008b.pdf first. Black is your previous update to 2008, pink is the latest one. Many very similar, some small differences (presumably due to outlier 3/4 SD removal... note that as these are national/seasonal means, outliers might be quite large, yet only show up small in the means if many other stations contribute). Yup, as in the Mexico/Guatemala spike: page 4. The hot spike in Guatemala SON has been removed in the new version. That looks much better. page 6 & page 9: the hot spikes in France, Italy and Austria in JJA in 2003 have been reduce slightly too. Not sure if this is right or not, could ask Phil what he thinks. Could Jul & Aug 2003 have been so hot that some observations validly did exceed the +3SD outlier check? Or do you use a +4SD check for TMP? Anyway, this is one to ask Phil about. Nope, 4SD is for precip only. There are various other erroneous hot spikes that have now been correctly removed, I won't list them all here. However, there are some cold spikes in both previous and latest 2008 updates... see e.g. Mali SON on page 12. Have you turned on only outlier checking for +3SD, and not for -3SD? Some wrong-looking cold spikes are still present. Yes, **sigh** - abs() now included, re-running. Now look at ...2005_vs_2008b.pdf. Black is last years CRUTS3 through to 2005 (I know the files went to mid 2006, but I stopped at last complete year). Note this isn't CRUTS2.1! :-) Pink is again the newest version of the update to 2008. There are some early 20th century differences that I'm not too bothered about, though it would be nice to know why they arise. One concern is that the mean level is different between the versions... see e.g. JJA for various countries on pages 7 and 8. Seems to be a constant offset. It's too big to be a simple rounding error in my calculations (I may have changed from 1 dec. place to 2 dec. place, but some differences are about 0.5 deg C), and these are absolute values so there's no dependency on any anomalisation/reference period meaning as I'm not doing any. Intriguing. Perhaps some normals have change in some regions/ seasons? It's very worrying, as they really should be ~identical! Normals are read from the original (sacrosanct) climatology files so they shouldn't have changed at all. The gridding, etc are the same, too. I will try running old and new anomaly programs to compare outputs.. So: (1) hot spikes have been corrected. (2) cold spikes still there. (3) some odd differences in mean level. Progress! Of the seemingly-endless kind. Cheers for your help with this. Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2408. 2009-07-13 15:32:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.metcalfe@uea.ac.uk, "Tovey Keith Dr" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, c.harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:32:45 +0100 (BST) from: K.Tovey@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: DEFRA Proposal to: "Clare Goodess" There is also the issue of what formulae used. i.e. the basic where one compares the mean daily/hourly temperature with the base, and the more involved where one has to correct for the cases where the base lies between the max and min. Also what base are we proposing for cooling? or are we not worryign about that? Keith N. Keith Tovey (ΰ)MA PhD CEng MICE CEnv HSBC Director of Low Carbon Innovation CRed Energy Science Director Reader in Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia NORWICH, NR4 7TJ, UK tel. +44 - (0)1603 592553 fax. +44 - (0)1603 591327 > Just to add. There will be flexibility to use > whatever baseline(s) people think is appropriate. > > Clare > > At 15:07 13/07/2009, Metcalfe Peter Mr (VCO) wrote: >>Keith, >> >> >>The competition requirements are a bit open >>ended. I'd been trying to contact you since my meeting with Clare. >> >>Essentially, as I understand it, I think we have >>the option to improve the current methodology by >>including mean degree hours (page 16 attached) >>rather than the Met office method (page 17) >>based on their reference to the comparison made by Day and >> Karayiannis(1998). >> >>I will put use of either Vesma's online regional >>data this as an option in the tender. This is >>the same as you mention - base 15.5 using the >>Met office method as referenced above. See http://www.vesma.com/ddd/ >> >>If you are not so busy right now can I come over to discuss this with >> you? >> >> >>Regards >> >> >> >>Pete >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Peter Metcalfe >> >>Projects >> >>Low Carbon Innovation Centre >> >>ZICER Building >> >>University of East Anglia >> >>Norwich >> >>UK >> >>NR4 7TJ >> >>www.uea.ac.uk/lcic >> >> >> >>p.metcalfe@uea.ac.uk >> >> >> >>T +44 (0)1603 592583 >> >>F +44 (0)1603 591549 >> >>__________________________________________________ >> >>This email may contain privileged information. >>If you are not the intended recipient please >>notify the sender and delete all copies. >> >> >> >>'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are >>trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre >>Limited, a company registered in England >>(no.06525180) with its registered office at The >>Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, >>NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated >>by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company >>registered in England (no. 05906083) with its >>registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, R4 >> 7TJ >> >> >> >>Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and >>Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned >>subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia >>-----Original Message----- >>From: K.Tovey@uea.ac.uk [mailto:K.Tovey@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: 13 July 2009 13:34 >>To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) >>Cc: "Metcalfe Peter Mr \" >>, "Jones Philip Prof \" >>, "Harpham Colin Dr \" >>, "Tovey Keith Dr \" >>Subject: RE: DEFRA Proposal >> >>Clare >> >> I am just curious on what method you will be using to compute degree >>days - the basic one as often used or the one which give corrections >>when the neutral temperature is between the maximum and minimum. >> >> i am presumign you are using a neutral temperature of 15.5, but >> there >>are some who think we should be working to other base temperatures, >>and what base temperature will you use for cooling degree days? >> >>Keith >> >> >> >>N. Keith Tovey (ΰ)MA PhD CEng MICE CEnv >>HSBC Director of Low Carbon Innovation >>CRed Energy Science Director >>Reader in Environmental Sciences >>School of Environmental Sciences >>University of East Anglia >>NORWICH, NR4 7TJ, UK >>tel. +44 - (0)1603 592553 >>fax. +44 - (0)1603 591327 >> >> > Hi Peter >> > >> > All this is a bit 'how long is a piece of string? >> > >> > To process the full set of hourly variables that >> > we require for the weather generator from BADC >> > can take half a day per station. But this would >> > be less here as only temperature is required. And >> > we already have data for a number of stations >> > (mainly up to 1995) so would largely be a matter >> > of updating to present. So as a rough estimate >> > (which Colin can correct), maybe four stations per day. >> > >> > So an absolute minimum would be 5 working days >> > for data extraction/processing and 5 working days >> > for analyses/production of degree days (including >> > work with 5 km data set). So minima would be >> > something like 10 days in first year, 5 in second >> > and third - with 1/2 extra days in final year for >> > final reporting. More time would allow more work >> > on assessing data homogeneity etc. >> > >> > If the energy data are very spatially aggregated, >> > then I think some work/thought is still needed in >> > order to derive representative spatially aggregated degree day data. >> > >> > Best wishes, Clare >> > >> > >> > At 18:47 10/07/2009, Metcalfe Peter Mr \(VCO\) wrote: >> >>Hi Clare, >> >> >> >>I've not yet finished the proposal as I'd have >> >>like to; before I send it on I have a few >> >>queries regarding the 're-baselining' requirements to put to rest. >> >> >> >>I will send it by Wednesday at the latest hopefully by close of play >> >> Tuesday. >> >> >> >>Before then could you confirm an indication of >> >>the person-days it would take to put in place >> >>the programme needed to validate and process >> >>BADC temperature data and generate 'custom' degree days data? >> >> >> >>I recall you mentioned that is would require >> >>more person days initially but once the >> >>programme has been written this could batch >> >>process future data (with exceptions making some >> >>allowances for unhelpful formatting changes in BADC data). >> >> >> >>The 3 month lead time could be a problem for the >> >>re-base lining process however, (it is not very >> >>clear whether the weather correction of >> >>baselines would be the year immediately >> >>preceding) but this shouldn't be a problem for >> >>the bulk of the data analyses which will start >> >>in earnest after July 31st each year. This is >> >>one of the issues I need to get clarification on. >> >> >> >>Though the number of different geographical >> >>locations reported under the government >> >>departments are not indicated by DECC, It will >> >>be helpful if you could provide an indication of >> >>the person-days needed for generating degree >> >>days for each location, after the initial >> >>programme has been written, to allow for the data format issues you >> >> mentioned. >> >> >> >>It's likely that the level of the reported >> >>energy data is the limiting factor for this >> >>task. From the scant information given by DECC >> >>it seems the data is likely to be reported to us >> >>in varied levels of detail within each >> >>government department; individual building >> >>energy use may be reported, but the Q & A >> >>documents suggest that more commonly these data >> >>will be aggregated (both temporally and >> >>spatially) for reporting under each government department. >> >> >> >>My concern, as I pointed out when we met, is >> >>that this particular proposal's requirement for >> >>weather correction, as it stands, is very much >> >>beneath the sophistication of what you (CRU) can >> >>offer. We may propose a sophisticated degree day >> >>generator only to find that the much of the >> >>energy data reported from buildings in different >> >>geographical location has been aggregated. Also, >> >>as I showed you, standard degree days data is >> >>freely available for met stations and regional >> >>averages from a number of sources. >> >> >> >>Though, as you suggested, there would be great >> >>scope for improving the mechanism for energy >> >>data reporting and subsequently improving the >> >>weather correction process for building >> >>performance reports. I hope that this is >> >>something that DECC will welcome and allow >> >>resources for in the bid. The 5km grid data Phil >> >>mentioned sounds really rather useful in this respect. >> >> >> >>Either way with CRU as an advisory or active >> >>role in the bid I feel this will greatly improve >> >>our chances of winning the tender. >> >> >> >> >> >>Thank you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Pete >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >>Peter Metcalfe >> >> >> >>Projects >> >> >> >>Low Carbon Innovation Centre >> >> >> >>ZICER Building >> >> >> >>University of East Anglia >> >> >> >>Norwich >> >> >> >>UK >> >> >> >>NR4 7TJ >> >> >> >>www.uea.ac.uk/lcic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>p.metcalfe@uea.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>T +44 (0)1603 592583 >> >> >> >>F +44 (0)1603 591549 >> >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >> >> >> >>This email may contain privileged information. >> >>If you are not the intended recipient please >> >>notify the sender and delete all copies. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are >> >>trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre >> >>Limited, a company registered in England >> >>(no.06525180) with its registered office at The >> >>Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, >> >>NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated >> >>by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company >> >>registered in England (no. 05906083) with its >> >>registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, >> R4 >> >> 7TJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and >> >>Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned >> >>subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >> >>Sent: 10 July 2009 17:10 >> >>To: Metcalfe Peter Mr (VCO) >> >>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Harpham Colin Dr (ENV) >> >>Subject: RE: DEFRA Proposal >> >> >> >>Hi Pete >> >> >> >>I have spoken with Phil and Colin - and the >> >>Defra project looks pretty straightforward. >> >> >> >>Colin reckons that data gets to BADC with a 2/3 >> >>month delay. And confirms that availability of >> >>temperature data is better than other variables. >> >>Also, Phil has suggested that there is a gridded >> >>5 km observed data set that we can use to >> >>extrapolate to other locations (as we have done >> >>with weather generator parameters in UKCP09). >> >> >> >>And we would certainly be interested in >> >>suggesting improvements to the current methodology. >> >> >> >>So, please could you send draft tender to Phil >> >>and myself. If before, Wednesday, I can look at >> >>it. And Phil will also have a quick look if >> >>possible with email access and meeting schedule in Venice. >> >> >> >>With respect to the TSB competition, we think >> >>the 23 July deadline is impossible. But we would >> >>be interested in exploring future possibilities >> >>with you and others with respect to these various buildings and energy >> >> issues. >> >> >> >>On the TSB website, I noticed the Design for >> >>Future Climate competition with a workshop on 13 >> >>October. This is definitely something we would >> >>like to be involved with as it builds on UKCP09. >> >> >> >>Best wishes, Clare >> >> >> >>At 10:57 09/07/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> >>Sorry Clare, I had to get to Bedfordshire for a >> >>meeting yesterday afternoon so didn't get a chance to e-mail you this. >> >> >> >>The Q and A document was produced after a >> >>barrage of questions due to the lack of detail in the initial call. >> >> >> >>I have started filling in the SID3 tender >> >>document so haven't included this. Hopefully I >> >>will complete this draft by tomorrow. >> >> >> >>I hope this is OK. >> >> >> >> >> >>Regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Pete >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>Peter Metcalfe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>School of Environmental Science >> >> >> >>University of East Anglia >> >> >> >>Norwich >> >> >> >>UK >> >> >> >>NR4 7TJ >> >> >> >>T +44 (0)1603 592583 >> >> >> >>F +44 (0)1603 591549 >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>From: Clare Goodess [ mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >> >>Sent: 08 July 2009 19:37 >> >>To: Metcalfe Peter Mr (VCO) >> >>Subject: Re: DEFRA Proposal >> >> >> >>Dear Pete >> >> >> >>I'll talk to Colin about data tomorrow, and to >> >>Phil about the tender on Friday. Please could you email the call text. >> >> >> >>Attached and below is some CV material/blurb for >> >>myself, Phil and CRU. All stuff that is readily >> >>to hand. So please edit as necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >>Best wishes, Clare >> >> >> >> >> >>The Climatic Research Unit (CRU), is a research >> >>centre in the School of Environmental Sciences >> >>at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in >> >>Norwich. The school was graded 5* during the >> >>last national Research Assessment Exercise. At >> >>present, CRU is composed of around 15 research >> >>staff, and 12 postgraduate students. Over the >> >>last 35 years, CRU has gained a worldwide >> >>reputation for the study of climate, climatic >> >>change, the impacts of climate change and >> >>applied climatology. It has provided >> >>Co-ordinating Lead Authors for all four of the >> >>IPCC Assessment Reports (Working Groups I and >> >>II). CRU has become extensively involved in the >> >>study of anthropogenically-induced climate >> >>change and is at the forefront of work in the >> >>analysis and understanding of observed climate >> >>change and variability, climate scenario >> >>development and downscaling and in impacts on >> >>natural systems and socio-economic/technical >> >>activities. A particular and growing emphasis >> >>of CRU impacts and adaptation work relates to >> >>the built environment and infrastructure. >> >> >> >>Prof Phil Jones is currently the Director of the >> >>CRU and has wide experience in the analysis of >> >>climate data and produces the global temperature >> >>series, perhaps the most widely known series in >> >>climatology. He has written extensively since >> >>the late 1970s and has had over 120 papers (as >> >>first author) published in peer-reviewed >> >>journals and books. He is one of the Convening >> >>Lead Authors on the Atmospheric Observations >> >>Chapter for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. >> >>One of his current research projects, concerns >> >>development of a stochastic weather generator as >> >>part of the data delivery package for the next >> >>national climate change scenarios - UKCIP08. He >> >>co-ordinated the FP5 EMULATE project and is >> >>involved in the ENSEMBLES integrated project. >> >> >> >>Dr Clare Goodess is a Senior Research Associate >> >>and Research Manager with over 25 years >> >>experience of contract research in the CRU. Her >> >>main current research interest is climate >> >>scenario construction, evaluation and use, >> >>focusing on regional downscaling, extreme events >> >>and the treatment of uncertainty. She >> >>coordinated the Framework 5 European Union >> >>funded STARDEX project on scenarios of extremes. >> >>In Framework 6 she is the co-coordinator of work >> >>on the production of probabilistic regional >> >>climate projections in the ENSEMBLES integrated >> >>project ( >> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/ensembles/ScenariosPortal/ >> >>) and co-ordinator of integrating case-studies >> >>within the CIRCE project on impacts of climate >> >>change in the Mediterranean. She is a member of >> >>the UKCIP08 steering group and the CIBSE climate >> >>task force. She was also a member of the >> >>steering group for the PII project 'Climate >> >>change and the indoor environment: impacts and >> >>adaptation'. For SKCC, she organised a workshop >> >>on the use of probabilistic climate information >> >>( >> >>http://www.k4cc.org/events/workshops/probablistic-scenarios-workshop-review >> >> ). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Goodess, C.M., Hall, J., Best, M., Betts, R., >> >>Cabantous, L., Jones, P.D., Kilsby, C.G., >> >>Pearman, A. and Wallace, C.J., 2007: Climate >> >>scenarios and decision making under uncertainty. >> >>Built Environment, 33(1), 10-30. >> >>Hacker, J.N., Belcher, S.E., Goodess, C.M., >> >>Holmes, M.J. and Roaf, S., 2007: Building scale >> >>climate scenarios: inclusion of climate change >> >>and application to the design of >> >>climatically-sensitive buildings, Planning and Environment B, in >> press. >> >> >> >>Haylock, M.R., Cawley, G.C., Harpham, C., Wilby, >> >>R.L. and Goodess, C.M., 2006: Downscaling heavy >> >>precipitation over the United Kingdom: A >> >>comparison of dynamical and statistical methods >> >>and their future scenarios. International >> >>Journal of Climatology, 26, 1397-1415. >> >> >> >>Kilsby, C.G., Jones, P.D., Burton, A., Ford, >> >>A.C., Fowler, H.J., Harpham, C., James, P., >> >>Smith, A. and Wilby, R.L., 2007: A daily weather >> >>generator for use in climate change studies. >> >>Environmental Modelling and Software, 22, 1705-1719. >> >> >> >> >> >>The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the >> >>University of East Anglia (UEA) has extensive >> >>experience of provision of advanced climate >> >>scenario information, including projections of >> >>urban climate for SCORCHIO, the TCCRP and GLA, >> >>and projects in the BKCC initiative (BETWIXT and >> >>CRANIUM). UEA is now working with Newcastle >> >>University in developing the weather generator >> >>for the UKCIP08 scenarios and is partner in >> >>EPSRC research (EP/F038224) with De Montfort >> >>University focusing on the use of probabilistic >> >>climate scenarios in building environmental >> >>performance simulation (within the ARCC group of >> >>funded projects). Prof Phil Jones has been >> >>Director of CRU since 1998. He was Convening >> >>Lead Author of the Chapter on Atmospheric >> >>Observations in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. >> >>He has contributed to all the above projects in >> >>the BKCC/SKCC/ARCC group, alongside >> >>complementary research for the EA, UKWIR and >> >>Defra. Dr Clare Goodess is a Senior Researcher >> >>in the Climatic Research Unit at UEA. Her main >> >>research interest is in the development and use >> >>of regional climate change projections, with a >> >>particular focus on extremes. She has played a >> >>major role in the UEA projects focusing on the >> >>built environment listed above. She is the >> >>coordinator of work on probabilistic regional >> >>climate projections in the ENSEMBLES project and >> >>co-ordinator of integrating case-studies, >> >>including three urban case studies, in the CIRCE >> >>project on impacts of climate change in the Mediterranean. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>At 16:55 03/07/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> >>Dear Clare, >> >> >> >>We hope to bid for a 3 year contract (minimum) >> >>with DEFRA to analyse, quality check and report >> >>the estate annual energy use (and carbon >> >>emission) performance of the 21 government departments. >> >> >> >>We need to correct for temperature variability >> >>using degree days for fair interannual >> >>comparison of energy use data. Though we can >> >>most likely do the work ourselves, and it's not >> >>really climate science, writing into the bid an >> >>advisory or notional involvement with expertise >> >>from CRU would likely give us an edge in winning >> >>it. I suppose our other option would be Weather >> >>Quest, but I'm not sure they would add the academic credentials that >> CRU >> >> has. >> >> >> >>Would you be happy to have a quick chat about >> >>involvement of someone from CRU in a paid >> >>advisory capacity at some point next week? >> >> >> >>I can pop over to see you if you'd be happy to give me a time that >> suits. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Thank you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Pete >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >>Peter Metcalfe >> >> >> >>Projects >> >> >> >>Low Carbon Innovation Centre >> >> >> >>ZICER Building >> >> >> >>University of East Anglia >> >> >> >>Norwich >> >> >> >>UK >> >> >> >>NR4 7TJ >> >> >> >>www.uea.ac.uk/lcic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>p.metcalfe@uea.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>T +44 (0)1603 592583 >> >> >> >>F +44 (0)1603 591549 >> >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >> >> >> >>This email may contain privileged information. >> >>If you are not the intended recipient please >> >>notify the sender and delete all copies. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are >> >>trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre >> >>Limited, a company registered in England >> >>(no.06525180) with its registered office at The >> >>Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, >> >>NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated >> >>by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company >> >>registered in England (no. 05906083) with its >> >>registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, >> R4 >> >> 7TJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and >> >>Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned >> >>subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia >> >> >> >> >> >>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 >> >> >> > >> > 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 > > > > 671. 2009-07-14 15:01:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof" , "Osborn Timothy Dr" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr" , "Colam Jonathan Mr" date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:01:15 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, Tim, I'm at an IPCC meeting this week. IPCC has rules and regulations, which we've sent you in the past. Tim can resend these if you don't have them. I have spoken to someone here. IPCC is only a small bureau in Geneva, and the various people who lead the Working Groups don't get to talk for IPCC. In effect no-one really does speak except Rajenda Pachauri the Chair. He is only part time as well as he runs a centre in India as well. So I don't think IPCC can really help with either item. If any of us were to become involved in IPCC, then we agree when we join not to discuss conclusions or drafts with others whilst these are being put together. The next set of authors will be chosen in April 2010 with nominations taking place between Nov09 and Jan10. IPCC possibly may not care about what happened with AR4, but they would for anything with the next report. So we don't want to set a precedent now, as this could preclude anyone fom UEA being involved with the next report (AR5). In a way, we could argue that involvement is similar to reviewing a paper. When we do this we agree not to pass on the results to anyone until the paper is accepted or rejected. I have raised this issue with IPCC, but they are not that interested. Cheers Phil > Gents, > Just to confirm what I have already relayed to both Jonathan and > Michael, namely that the ICO has approved our deferral of a response to > 14 August. > > However, as noted below and previously, we still need to build our case. > What I need from you is as follows (to reiterate) > > 1. Some indication of the time it would take to locate all the requested > information, and the effect that this would have on your other work - > this is required for both a section 12 argument under FOIA, and a > 'manifestly unreasonable' exception (Reg. 12(4)(b)) under EIR > > 2. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this > information would have on the relationship between UEA and the IPCC - > this is required for section 27 under FOIA and Reg. 12(5)(a) under EIR > to show, in the latter case, an 'adverse effect' ion international > relations > > 3. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this > information would have on them - this is required for Reg. 12(5)(f) to > show an adverse effect on the interests of the person(s) providing > information to UEA (the rough equivalent of the section 41 > confidentiality exemption under FOIA). > > The more evidence we have, the stronger our case will be.... I am happy > to meet on this if you wish but it's mostly a case of me just getting > the draft done now, and having the evidence to back up our assertions. > > Given the recent correspondence from the ICO, I would consider it highly > likely that they will choose to consider this under EIR but we will be > making a submission under both Acts. > > Cheers, Dave > >> ______________________________________________ >> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:32 PM >> To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn >> Timothy Dr (ENV); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >> Subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response >> requirements (GOOD NEWS) >> Importance: High >> >> Gents, >> >> I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the >> name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him to enquire >> about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at this stage - >> he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would >> be accepted and considered by the ICO. >> >> More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our >> matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned >> and that it might be some time prior to that happening! Ergo, I have >> no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific >> responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at >> the ICO for some time in regards this request. >> >> Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days 'deadline' >> for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no >> statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to >> 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined >> the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that several key >> figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being >> acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the >> deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper indicated that >> as nothing much would be happening with the information we sent to the >> ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on the response >> time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he suggested that we >> either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our >> 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the >> requested information to them.... >> >> In short, we have a lot more time to construct a well-reasoned case on >> this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise >> indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this conversation >> with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I don't want >> to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad process if the >> ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you >> concur?. >> >> I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to >> support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do submit our case, >> it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist >> our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has >> been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil. >> >> I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the >> case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible >> (more likely early next week?) >> >> The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the >> requested documents. We could simply defer what we would have said by >> 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out >> their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas? >> >> I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as >> robust a case as possible. >> >> ____________________________ >> David Palmer >> Information Policy & Compliance Manager >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, England >> NR4 7TJ >> >> Information Services >> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >> >> > 2927. 2009-07-14 15:36:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:36:47 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Phil, Many thanks for your input on this. I do indeed have your good work on the IPCC process and will include it and/or refer to it in my arguments to the ICO. Your comments regarding the IPCC are interested - I might have hoped that we could have had something from them, but I guess we go with what we have, Ironically, if the IPCC is nothing more than a loose affiliation of academics, then the opinions that Tim gathered oddly have more impact, particularly if it could be shown/stated that these folks would be reluctant to work with us if this correspondence was disclosed. As to the effect on the IPCC itself, it might be wise to remind them that if we lose this, similar correspondence from ALL IPCC working groups either in past, or in future, will be subject to disclosure under the Act. I presume that your colleagues might have an opinion on the effect that such disclosure would have on the quality, quantity and nature of future exchanges between co-authors. The other thing to remember is that this is not merely a UEA issue but one for any academic in the UK participating in any future scientific collaboration.... I will make sure that all of you see all the drafts when done.... (soon I hope!) Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:01 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Mcgarvie >Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >Subject: Re: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - >Response requirements (GOOD NEWS) [FOI_08-23] >Importance: High > > Dave, Tim, > I'm at an IPCC meeting this week. IPCC has rules > and regulations, which we've sent you in the past. Tim > can resend these if you don't have them. I have spoken > to someone here. IPCC is only a small bureau in Geneva, > and the various people who lead the Working Groups don't > get to talk for IPCC. In effect no-one really does speak > except Rajenda Pachauri the Chair. He is only part time as > well as he runs a centre in India as well. > So I don't think IPCC can really help with either > item. If any of us were to become involved in IPCC, then > we agree when we join not to discuss conclusions or drafts > with others whilst these are being put together. > The next set of authors will be chosen in April 2010 > with nominations taking place between Nov09 and Jan10. > IPCC possibly may not care about what happened with AR4, but > they would for anything with the next report. So we don't > want to set a precedent now, as this could preclude anyone > fom UEA being involved with the next report (AR5). > In a way, we could argue that involvement is similar to > reviewing a paper. When we do this we agree not to pass > on the results to anyone until the paper is accepted or > rejected. > I have raised this issue with IPCC, but they are not > that interested. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Gents, >> Just to confirm what I have already relayed to both Jonathan and >> Michael, namely that the ICO has approved our deferral of a >response to >> 14 August. >> >> However, as noted below and previously, we still need to >build our case. >> What I need from you is as follows (to reiterate) >> >> 1. Some indication of the time it would take to locate all >the requested >> information, and the effect that this would have on your other work - >> this is required for both a section 12 argument under FOIA, and a >> 'manifestly unreasonable' exception (Reg. 12(4)(b)) under EIR >> >> 2. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this >> information would have on the relationship between UEA and the IPCC - >> this is required for section 27 under FOIA and Reg. 12(5)(a) >under EIR >> to show, in the latter case, an 'adverse effect' ion international >> relations >> >> 3. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this >> information would have on them - this is required for Reg. >12(5)(f) to >> show an adverse effect on the interests of the person(s) providing >> information to UEA (the rough equivalent of the section 41 >> confidentiality exemption under FOIA). >> >> The more evidence we have, the stronger our case will be.... >I am happy >> to meet on this if you wish but it's mostly a case of me just getting >> the draft done now, and having the evidence to back up our >assertions. >> >> Given the recent correspondence from the ICO, I would >consider it highly >> likely that they will choose to consider this under EIR but >we will be >> making a submission under both Acts. >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:32 PM >>> To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn >>> Timothy Dr (ENV); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>> Subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response >>> requirements (GOOD NEWS) >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Gents, >>> >>> I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the >>> name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him >to enquire >>> about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at >this stage - >>> he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would >>> be accepted and considered by the ICO. >>> >>> More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our >>> matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned >>> and that it might be some time prior to that happening! >Ergo, I have >>> no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific >>> responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at >>> the ICO for some time in regards this request. >>> >>> Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days >'deadline' >>> for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no >>> statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to >>> 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined >>> the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that >several key >>> figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being >>> acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the >>> deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper >indicated that >>> as nothing much would be happening with the information we >sent to the >>> ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on >the response >>> time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he >suggested that we >>> either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our >>> 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the >>> requested information to them.... >>> >>> In short, we have a lot more time to construct a >well-reasoned case on >>> this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise >>> indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this >conversation >>> with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I >don't want >>> to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad >process if the >>> ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you >>> concur?. >>> >>> I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to >>> support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do >submit our case, >>> it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist >>> our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has >>> been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil. >>> >>> I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the >>> case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible >>> (more likely early next week?) >>> >>> The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the >>> requested documents. We could simply defer what we would >have said by >>> 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out >>> their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas? >>> >>> I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as >>> robust a case as possible. >>> >>> ____________________________ >>> David Palmer >>> Information Policy & Compliance Manager >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich, England >>> NR4 7TJ >>> >>> Information Services >>> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >>> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >>> >>> >> > > > 4752. 2009-07-14 15:45:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \" date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:45:53 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, The way you describe IPCC is a good way of putting it - a loose confederation of academics. It might not be perceived this way by govts or thr public, but the phrase you use is the reality. Govts support IPCC, but only for travel to the meetings. UEA sort of supports it as well, as we (Keith, Tim, me and others choose to get involved). UEA does get kudos, but so do we personally. So it helps with RAE, but we don't yet get credit for in the RAE replacement scheme (REF). IPCC will say they make all the comments on the various drafts and the responses at the end of the process - after the report(s) are published. IPCC won't want comments and responses made available during the process. Cheers Phil > Phil, > Many thanks for your input on this. I do indeed have your good work on > the IPCC process and will include it and/or refer to it in my arguments > to the ICO. > > Your comments regarding the IPCC are interested - I might have hoped > that we could have had something from them, but I guess we go with what > we have, Ironically, if the IPCC is nothing more than a loose > affiliation of academics, then the opinions that Tim gathered oddly have > more impact, particularly if it could be shown/stated that these folks > would be reluctant to work with us if this correspondence was disclosed. > > As to the effect on the IPCC itself, it might be wise to remind them > that if we lose this, similar correspondence from ALL IPCC working > groups either in past, or in future, will be subject to disclosure under > the Act. I presume that your colleagues might have an opinion on the > effect that such disclosure would have on the quality, quantity and > nature of future exchanges between co-authors. The other thing to > remember is that this is not merely a UEA issue but one for any academic > in the UK participating in any future scientific collaboration.... > > I will make sure that all of you see all the drafts when done.... (soon > I hope!) > > Cheers, Dave > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:01 PM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Mcgarvie >>Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>Subject: Re: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request - >>Response requirements (GOOD NEWS) [FOI_08-23] >>Importance: High >> >> Dave, Tim, >> I'm at an IPCC meeting this week. IPCC has rules >> and regulations, which we've sent you in the past. Tim >> can resend these if you don't have them. I have spoken >> to someone here. IPCC is only a small bureau in Geneva, >> and the various people who lead the Working Groups don't >> get to talk for IPCC. In effect no-one really does speak >> except Rajenda Pachauri the Chair. He is only part time as >> well as he runs a centre in India as well. >> So I don't think IPCC can really help with either >> item. If any of us were to become involved in IPCC, then >> we agree when we join not to discuss conclusions or drafts >> with others whilst these are being put together. >> The next set of authors will be chosen in April 2010 >> with nominations taking place between Nov09 and Jan10. >> IPCC possibly may not care about what happened with AR4, but >> they would for anything with the next report. So we don't >> want to set a precedent now, as this could preclude anyone >> fom UEA being involved with the next report (AR5). >> In a way, we could argue that involvement is similar to >> reviewing a paper. When we do this we agree not to pass >> on the results to anyone until the paper is accepted or >> rejected. >> I have raised this issue with IPCC, but they are not >> that interested. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >>> Gents, >>> Just to confirm what I have already relayed to both Jonathan and >>> Michael, namely that the ICO has approved our deferral of a >>response to >>> 14 August. >>> >>> However, as noted below and previously, we still need to >>build our case. >>> What I need from you is as follows (to reiterate) >>> >>> 1. Some indication of the time it would take to locate all >>the requested >>> information, and the effect that this would have on your other work - >>> this is required for both a section 12 argument under FOIA, and a >>> 'manifestly unreasonable' exception (Reg. 12(4)(b)) under EIR >>> >>> 2. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this >>> information would have on the relationship between UEA and the IPCC - >>> this is required for section 27 under FOIA and Reg. 12(5)(a) >>under EIR >>> to show, in the latter case, an 'adverse effect' ion international >>> relations >>> >>> 3. Input from the IPCC on the effect that the release of this >>> information would have on them - this is required for Reg. >>12(5)(f) to >>> show an adverse effect on the interests of the person(s) providing >>> information to UEA (the rough equivalent of the section 41 >>> confidentiality exemption under FOIA). >>> >>> The more evidence we have, the stronger our case will be.... >>I am happy >>> to meet on this if you wish but it's mostly a case of me just getting >>> the draft done now, and having the evidence to back up our >>assertions. >>> >>> Given the recent correspondence from the ICO, I would >>consider it highly >>> likely that they will choose to consider this under EIR but >>we will be >>> making a submission under both Acts. >>> >>> Cheers, Dave >>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>>> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:32 PM >>>> To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn >>>> Timothy Dr (ENV); Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>>> Subject: ICO Investigation - Holland request - Response >>>> requirements (GOOD NEWS) >>>> Importance: High >>>> >>>> Gents, >>>> >>>> I just had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman by the >>>> name of James Cooper at the ICO Helpline. I had phoned him >>to enquire >>>> about the possibility of citing section 40 under FOIA at >>this stage - >>>> he consulted with colleagues and gave me the opinion that this would >>>> be accepted and considered by the ICO. >>>> >>>> More importantly, having given him the case reference number for our >>>> matter, he informed me that a case officer had not yet been assigned >>>> and that it might be some time prior to that happening! >>Ergo, I have >>>> no-one to speak to at the ICO about this case with specific >>>> responsibility for it, and, it appears nothing will be happening at >>>> the ICO for some time in regards this request. >>>> >>>> Finally, and most crucially, I queried the 20 working days >>'deadline' >>>> for our submission to the ICO and was informed that there was no >>>> statutory force behind that time limit; it was there simply to >>>> 'encourage' institutions to respond in a timely manner. I outlined >>>> the fact that we were preparing a case under EIR and that >>several key >>>> figures and pieces of evidence were still in the process of being >>>> acquired, and, asked how firm the ICO would be on enforcing the >>>> deadline, or punishing us if we missed it. Mr. Cooper >>indicated that >>>> as nothing much would be happening with the information we >>sent to the >>>> ICO that they would be minded to allow us some 'slack' on >>the response >>>> time, as long as it was not indefinite. Indeed, he >>suggested that we >>>> either provide an alternative date, or, contact them we have our >>>> 'case' assembled and tell them that we are ready to transfer the >>>> requested information to them.... >>>> >>>> In short, we have a lot more time to construct a >>well-reasoned case on >>>> this matter than their correspondence of 2 June 2009 would otherwise >>>> indicate. I suggest that I write the ICO to confirm this >>conversation >>>> with Mr. Cooper so as to 'nail' their position in place - I >>don't want >>>> to be hammered by the ICO in a Decision Notice for bad >>process if the >>>> ICO themselves have given us the go-ahead for that process... Do you >>>> concur?. >>>> >>>> I would further suggest that we work to gather more evidence to >>>> support our case (e.g. IPCC input) so that when we do >>submit our case, >>>> it is as strong as possible. Further evidence would greatly assist >>>> our claims under EIR in particular. The outline of that evidence has >>>> been already noted in my earlier emails to Tim & Phil. >>>> >>>> I will continue with the work on the intellectual framework of the >>>> case under both FOIA and EIR and will submit on Friday if possible >>>> (more likely early next week?) >>>> >>>> The final question is how we approach the issue of providing ALL the >>>> requested documents. We could simply defer what we would >>have said by >>>> 26 June to whatever date we do respond, or we could try to flush out >>>> their position earlier than that - any comments/ideas? >>>> >>>> I consider this very good news that will assist us in preparing as >>>> robust a case as possible. >>>> >>>> ____________________________ >>>> David Palmer >>>> Information Policy & Compliance Manager >>>> University of East Anglia >>>> Norwich, England >>>> NR4 7TJ >>>> >>>> Information Services >>>> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >>>> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > 1739. 2009-07-15 08:11:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: adrian.simmons@ecmwf.int, "Willett, Kate" , "Phil Jones" , "Peter Thorne" , "Dick Dee" date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:11:35 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Response to reviewers of our humidity paper to: "Kate Willett" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk Adrian, I've been through the responses you've made to the comments. UEA is having trouble with emails and I only got the response file from Kate. I'm at the IPCC meeting in Venice. Someone presented the RH decline - as I gave him a slide. Kevin didn't object to what was said! Resposnes seem fine. I think a useful additional paper might be a comparison of mean (i.e. absolute T) between CRUTEM3 and ERA-INTERIM. It will likely throw up a whole new cans of worms, so what you say is fine. I'd like to look at absolute T at some point, but I would have to remind myself how we developed the absolute climatology from the mid-1990s. I've yet to look at the revised paper. Cheers Phil PS - if you get this Kate, can you forward to Adrian. I think UEA is on some blacklist. All UEA users will be changing their passwords over the next few days, so our email system should be better in a week or so. > Hi Adrian (and everyone else), I've just gone through the review and I am > very happy with your responses. I think you have balanced the conflicting > views of the reviewers in some places very well and its certainly been a > great learning experience for me. > > I'm happy to provide some more info about HadCRUH temporal sampling etc. > if > that's needed but it sounds like you've covered everything sufficiently > > Thanks > > Kate > 3898. 2009-07-15 15:07:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tovey Keith Dr \(ENV\)" date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:07:27 +0100 from: "Metcalfe Peter Mr \(VCO\)" subject: RE: to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Phil, Thank you for this. We need to use the degree days to 'normalise' temperature related energy demand data for the Government estates' building energy reporting. This is so the annual heating related energy use can be comparable against their efficiency targets. I was concerned that the Oxford (met) data were not so accurate. But if this difference is likely then it may be that we could risk using this data. Obviously an improved dataset for generating monthly degree days over the coverage of the UK for the last year would be very useful here. However, I am still unsure whether there is scope, or it is feasible at all, to interpolate degree days across 5km grids over the UK from BADC or Met datasets? This may be something to consider next year if we do indeed succeed in winning the bid. BRE were the previous incumbents, but I am told they were expensive. If interpolations and greater accuracy is possible we may have to pay to use regional degree days data using a less robust method instead, which probably doesn't set us apart from other tenders, except perhaps for writing CRU involvement in an advisory capacity for the initial year or so. Regards Pete ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Metcalfe School of Environmental Science University of East Anglia Norwich UK NR4 7TJ T +44 (0)1603 592583 F +44 (0)1603 591549 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 15 July 2009 14:22 To: Metcalfe Peter Mr (VCO) Cc: "Goodess Clare Dr \" , "Tovey Keith Dr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" Subject: Re: Peter, Clare has now gone to Cuba. I've had a look at the website. CRU would get data from BADC. This wouldn't likely be any more accurate than data from the Oxford site. With BADC we could calculate numbers for a longer period to be able to say how unusual recent years have been. The differences between Norwich and Wattisham relate to differences in the weather. Oxford are using a consistent method for all sites. With the fixed thresholds you will get differences because it could be that Norwich might be warmer than Wattisham and above a specific threshold. We could do this with a gridded dataset, but we'd need to get this from the Met Office. It would be available for the last 30-40 years. Cheers Phil > Clare, > > > > I'm nearly there regarding the proposal. > > > > Hopefully I will get the draft of approaches to you today whilst our > people here put the contractual and costings together. We aim to send > off on Friday, or Monday at the very latest. > > > > I have just a quick couple of questions: > > > > I was trying to understand how much variation there may be between > regional and site reported degree days for the same months. > > > > I did a quick scan of some of the Oxford University degree days data > online > (http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/degreedays.php#degreedays) > > > > Below are data derived from Norwich and Wittering Met sites > > > > base_15.5 > > base_15.5 > > 269.317 > > 243.789 > > 277.35 > > 250.755 > > 270.6 > > 220.57 > > 151.092 > > 107.064 > > 136.229 > > 93.6752 > > 53.8373 > > 33.3056 > > 38.9375 > > 11.5865 > > 39.3796 > > 13.9315 > > 70.5989 > > 41.5244 > > 146.433 > > 106.199 > > 255.083 > > -99.9 > > -99.9 > > -99.9 > > > > This is for months Jan to Dec for 2007. There are certainly some marked > differences - probably they are not so accurate data since the number of > readings per month varied in these (Norwich was av 480 and Wittering > over 700) > > > > Oxford's Russell Layberry generates new degree day updates weekly and > daily. The data is derived from 77 Met. Office weather stations (view > locations of the stations on the Met Office website > ) in the UK. > > > > Clare > > 1) Would CRU use of BADC data be more accurate than these - or can > you derive more accurate quality processed data using other techniques? > > 2) The possibility of interpolating degree days across the 5km > grids across the UK sounds really useful for improving the weather > correction process - but how much extra work is this likely to entail? > > > > Sorry for the repeat of questions I asked before. I have decided to > split the proposal into two options depending on the qulity of the > energy data we have to correct. > > > > Initially the estimate of ten days minimum included generating degree > data from hourly temperature data from 20 or so BADC sites with some > work with 5km grid data inlcuded. > > > > I want to be sure if I understood correctly that a more sophisticated > approach involving a 5km grid interpolation of degree days is possible > over a larger geographical coverage (UK?) from the weather generator > project, and if so that I have accounted for the time for you to deliver > this appropriately and realistically before I commit it to the tender. > > > > Hope that's ok. I look forward to your response. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Peter Metcalfe > > > > School of Environmental Science > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich > > UK > > NR4 7TJ > > T +44 (0)1603 592583 > > F +44 (0)1603 591549 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 1178. 2009-07-15 15:15:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:15:24 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI\)" subject: FW: Australia's Skeptic Problem to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: david macilwain [mailto:jadamacilwain@harboursat.com.au] Sent: 15 July 2009 14:38 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Cc: enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk Subject: Australia's Skeptic Problem Dear Hadley Centre --or whoever can advise on our problem. We have a serious problem in Australia at the moment, in the shape of an independent senator who holds the balance of power over the government in its efforts to pass legislation on Emissions Control. I'll leave aside the fact that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as it is known is actually a Reallocation scheme, which is not designed to reduce emissions in Australia but merely offset them in such dubious enterprises as "stopping deforestation" in Indonesia, and also plans to give away permits to all the biggest polluters. All of us who are seriously concerned about climate change ( you might think that would be most Australians) would like to see this minimalist scheme scrapped and replaced with a serious commitment, but there is a small group of "Climate Skeptics" who want neither and are having a disproportionate effect on the public view. The main drive behind this skeptic movement appears to be the Heartland Institute, and its local front group "the Australian Climate Science Coalition" ( in whose title the only significant word is COAL ) This group is strongly supported by the Murdoch owned "Australian" newspaper, which prints frequent articles by skeptic "scientists", and opinion pieces by its own resident "deniers", and has considerable punch with public opinion. Consequently there is here still "a Debate" on whether CO2 is causing Global Warming, and for that matter whether there is global warming "any longer". The ACSC has, in my opinion, identified Senator Steve Fielding as someone who can push their agenda along for them; in effect to be a sort of Trojan Horse to spread their misinformation virus through the community and government. An example of the insidious effectiveness of this Campaign is that right now we have Al Gore here, firing up his initiates, and talking to Kevin Rudd ( in such a way as to make him say things that go way beyond anything he planned to do, but he's like Tony Blair I'm afraid), but given EQUAL time in the news is Steve Fielding, who also wanted to talk to Gore to see if he could "answer his question". (Gore didn't meet him). This is where you come in, and I apologise for the rambling intro. Fielding's "question", which he says our scientists can't answer, is "why have temperatures for the last 15 years stayed the same or fallen when CO2 levels have risen?" (you don't need to answer this!) But as evidence of this he has "a graph(attached)", which according to his website is YOURS! You can find this same graph in many skeptic publications, sometimes only 2002-2009. I'm quite familiar with the Hadley Temp graph for the last 150 years and this section only has a slight resemblance to it. It does however have more resemblance if you tilt the axis ---but why would you do that? If you'll bear with me, my other attachment is some analysis I did on a curious graph published by the ACSC, and attributed to a presenter at the Heartland Institute conference on Climate Change in New York in March '09. It tries to show that the current variation in temperature is cyclical - and therefore natural, but to make the Hadley Data fit the requirements some changes had to be made. First the section pre 1880 was removed, and then the graph was apparently distorted into this wavy shape, which I have repeated in "fig 3". As a matter of interest I have given my suggested trend line in "fig 4". It is evident that one would not have much chance of persuading anyone of the lack of a warming trend by presenting the data in this fashion. What I would really like from you is a statement that the graph attributed to you seriously misrepresents the data and has evidently been re-packaged with the intention to mislead. The change is NOT a matter of "scientific interpretation". I would then forward your reply to Senator Fielding, along with your simple and adequate notes on "climate facts" -which are all the facts currently being peddled as myths around Australia. While we may only be a small country, we unfortunately punch well above our weight, both in being a CoalMine, and in sabotaging Kyoto for so many years - and now arguably trying to sabotage Copenhagen. with regards, David Macilwain. Sandy Creek, Victoria, 3695 Australia Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Distorting Data.jpg" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\The Graph.jpg" 1526. 2009-07-15 15:33:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 15 15:33:43 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: IPCC and UK Freedom of Information law to: stocker@ipcc.unibe.ch Dear Thomas, about a year ago we (UEA) had a request under UK Freedom of Information law from David Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved. Phil Jones was also involved because Holland asked for all internal CRU/UEA documents that related to the IPCC process. UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely affected if these materials were released. The latter view was based in part on an email from the previous WG1 co-chair, Susan Solomon, indicating that releasing further material was not appropriate. Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must provide evidence to support its reasons for rejecting the original request. I've been asked if we can obtain a further statement about confidentiality amongst the authors that are drafting IPCC reports, and about the impact on the IPCC and its relationship with UEA (and *all* other contributing scientists at any UK university or UK public body such as the Met Office) if we were to break this confidentiality. The reason why I'm contacting you as new co-chair of WG1, is that it is the impact on our future relationship with the IPCC WG1 that matters, rather than on the past. We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while drafting these important reports. I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog: <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46 "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it is held." If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held". All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5 correspondence *during* the drafting process. This would, in my opinion, adversely affect the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC. There are four specific items that we would ideally like to have you view on: (1) Does the IPCC WG1 expect authors to keep confidential the emails/correspondence/chapter text that they receive from fellow authors during the drafting process? (2) Would there be an adverse effect on the IPCC WG1 if we were to break this confidentiality? (Note that we might be forced to break it *during* the drafting of the next report) (3) Would there be an adverse effect on UEA's relationship with IPCC WG1? (4) In providing views on items (1)-(3), are they your personal view or can we say that they represent IPCC WG1 position? Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. Best regards Tim 2786. 2009-07-16 09:18:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:18:40 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: FW: Freedom of Information request - Climate data to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, FYI below - another request! Back to your request.. I talked to Thomas last night and am seeing Renate Christ today. I've just drafted a short note to give her with some of Dave's points. I'm asking to see if we can get an IPCC response. Thomas has spoken to her, and he has also talked to some Swiss Lawyers he knows through the University in Bern and also at WMO. Whether we will get something in time is an issue. Renate is off for the whole of August, but will be back in Geneva next week. I'll warn her to be careful what is said, and to be consistent in an future response, and that whatever is said will likely appear on some blog sites fairly quickly. I was on the boat trip last night to the dinner. David Warrilow was behind me talking to a Pauline Midgeley (who is a Brit, but she's in the TSU team in Bern). David mentioned the name David Holland. It seems that they are beginning to take the issue more seriously. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: FW: Freedom of Information request - Climate data restrictions [FOI_09-53] From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Date: Thu, July 16, 2009 8:54 am To: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gents, A request from Mr. Montford; not a surprise I would say. I am going to treat this under FOIA as I believe that the essence of the request is a request for a 'contract' and correspondence relating to the transmission/transfer of information that just happens to be environmental in nature. In the end, I'm not sure it makes that much difference to the outcome. Perhaps a matter to add to our meeting on Monday? I will make the appropriate acknowledgement of the request. Due date is 13 August. Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Montford [mailto:request-14780-02f91044@whatdotheyknow.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:32 AM To: David Keith Palmer Subject: Freedom of Information request - Climate data restrictions Dear Sir or Madam, I gather from Dr Phil Jones' correspondence with Douglas Keenan (see http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf)that restrictions have been placed on redistribution of climate data by some of the countries that have supplied this data. I would like to receive copies of all agreements or other correspondence where such restrictions have been placed. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this email address for all replies to this request: request-14780-02f91044@whatdotheyknow.com Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers Is foi@uea.ac.uk the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to University of East Anglia? If so please contact us using this form: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3541. 2009-07-16 10:45:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: <"Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" > date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:45:58 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Phil, Thanks for your efforts and engagement in this process. I can use what you have stated here I think, and, in reality, I suspect that the case will not be assessed prior to October (unless fast-tracked by the ICO), so we may be in a position to add the IPCC position as supplemental evidence later on (and indeed, if the ICO knows that the IPCC is considering their position, they may defer a judgement until in possession of the IPCC position) Thanks for acting as 'our' advocate there.... By the way, if the IPCC wants input on UK FOIA/EIR legislation at their meeting in October, I'm sure that I could fit a trip to Bali in! ;-) Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:12 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip >Prof \" >Subject: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner > > > Tim, Dave, > I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat > in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want, but we won't > get a response by our August deadline. > What will happen though is that the whole issue of National >FOIs/EIRs > will be discussed at the next full IPCC plenary meeting in > Bali in October. This is not a meeting that many scientists will > go to. IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring > UN organizations (UNEP and WMO). They have been alerted up to >the issue by > us and by others (mainly from US organizations like NOAA, DoE). They > will come to a ruling then. > I know this doesn't help us for this request, but hopefully > future IPCC-related FOIs/EIRs will be easier to deal with. > > It seems as though they are taking the issue seriously. I did tell > them that the various FOI acts probably differ slightly, but they > seem to be aware of that. > > Cheers > Phil > > > 1251. 2009-07-16 10:59:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \" , "mcgarvie michael mr \" date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:59:37 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Getting IPCC to move and do something has been the key. Being a UN-type organization we may end up with some sort of fudge, but the key players here all know that they need to do something. I'm not seeing too much of Venice! It is hot and very sticky, and quite a few mozzies in the evening. See you on Monday. Cheers Phil > Phil, > Thanks for your efforts and engagement in this process. I can use what > you have stated here I think, and, in reality, I suspect that the case > will not be assessed prior to October (unless fast-tracked by the ICO), > so we may be in a position to add the IPCC position as supplemental > evidence later on (and indeed, if the ICO knows that the IPCC is > considering their position, they may defer a judgement until in > possession of the IPCC position) > Thanks for acting as 'our' advocate there.... > By the way, if the IPCC wants input on UK FOIA/EIR legislation at their > meeting in October, I'm sure that I could fit a trip to Bali in! ;-) > > Cheers, Dave > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:12 AM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >>Cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip >>Prof \" >>Subject: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner >> >> >> Tim, Dave, >> I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat >> in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want, but we won't >> get a response by our August deadline. >> What will happen though is that the whole issue of National >>FOIs/EIRs >> will be discussed at the next full IPCC plenary meeting in >> Bali in October. This is not a meeting that many scientists will >> go to. IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring >> UN organizations (UNEP and WMO). They have been alerted up to >>the issue by >> us and by others (mainly from US organizations like NOAA, DoE). They >> will come to a ruling then. >> I know this doesn't help us for this request, but hopefully >> future IPCC-related FOIs/EIRs will be easier to deal with. >> >> It seems as though they are taking the issue seriously. I did tell >> them that the various FOI acts probably differ slightly, but they >> seem to be aware of that. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> > 443. 2009-07-16 12:24:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Lowe, Jason" , Lowe Jason , Tim Osborn , "S. Goswami" , Pamela Berry date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:24:07 +0100 from: Rachel Warren subject: Impacts modelling output for AVOID: delivering the final report to: Nigel Arnell , Simon N Gosling , "Jesse O'Hanley" , Robert Nicholls , "Ramirez, Julian (CIAT)" Dear AvoidWS1 Impact Modellers: i.e. Nigel, Simon, Robert, Jesse, and Julian (cc Jason, Tim, Sudipta, Pam) Please find attached a format for our final AVOID report from WS1. As we are now into the holiday season, we all need to make strong efforts to advance sections whilst other team members are on holiday if we are to meet the deadline. PLEASE do your runs as soon as possible and enter the results into the final report, before and/or after you go on your holidays. PLEASE write TEXT to go with it. We need (i) BRIEF text on your modeling method (ABSOLUTELY 1 PAGE MAX) (ii) text interpreting the results, commenting on the differences BETWEEN the THREE TIME PERIODS. (iii) any caveats you want to make. When writing the text please bear in mind that: - The audience is not me, it's DECC/DEFRA, and they will not understand acronymns or terms from your discipline that you are very familiar with. Normally you would simply reference detailed information and expect the reader to go away and chase up the references. We can't do that here, as DECC/DEFRA will not have time to do that. So you need to explain anything important in these paras about model assumptions, not just reference papers. - There will be an appendix where detailed descriptions of the models and data used can go. - DECC will be very interested in having us INTERPRET the results for them. They expect US to do that. I need this TEXT AND RESULTS FOR THE STANDARD SET OF RUNS to be completed by AUGUST 12th AT THE LATEST. I am on a working trip to Australia from July 20th to August 12th. I know I can count on you all not to let the project slide whilst I am away. I will be on email, but there will be periods of a few days when I won't be accessing it, so if you have any questions, please try to ask me today or tomorrow. After August 12th, we will need to all work together on a summary section, cross-disciplinary discussion, otherwise finalise the report with input from DECC, and preprare presentational materials. In your STANDARD runs, use ClimGen output with ClimGen tuned to HadCM3. You should have all the downscaled climate data now needed to do the basic set of scenarios and thus fill in the standard impact tables and maps. These are based on the 50th percentile climate outcomes of the A1B scenario, the 5 policy scenarios, and the differences between them. I need to remind you that we also agreed to do some sensitivity studies (a, b) on ONE policy scenario. If you are relying on UEA to provide the downscaled climate, data to do (a) will be made available later in the summer. Tim Osborn and/or Sudipta Gosawmi will make that available to you. IF THESE ARE SENT OUT IN JULY PLEASE ALSO COMPLETE THE SENSITIVITY STUDIES BY AUGUST 12th. (a) 10% and 90% climate outcomes This means comparing the 10% A1B outcome with the 10% policy outcome, and similarly the 90% A1B outcome with the 90% policy outcome and subtracting the two. (b) On the same scenario, we are also committed to looking at what happens if we use a different GCM for downscaling. I suggest we use ECHAM4 for comparison. Some of you are also looking at outcomes for many GCM patterns. These can also be included in the report if they are available. The set of regions for which we will produce results is attached also. This was agreed by Jolene, Nigel and myself. [This may not apply to outputs from Jesse or Julian] I am also circulating this proposed format to DECC and will forward on any response that I recieve from them. If you want to suggest any changes to my proposed format, please let me know also. Best wishes Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren NERC Advanced Research Fellow Tyndall Centre School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail [1]r.warren@uea.ac.uk Content-Type: application/msword; name="FINALREPORTAVOIDWS1.1.doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="FINALREPORTAVOIDWS1.1.doc" X-Attachment-Id: f_fx7e04cv0 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FINALREPORTAVOIDWS1.1.doc" 3347. 2009-07-16 19:56:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:56:32 +0200 from: "IPCC-Sec" subject: Scoping of the AR5 - Draft documents STGs-BOGs to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Annie Courtin" , "Carolin Arndt" , "Carola Saibante" , "Francis Hayes" , "Geoffrey Love" , "Gilles Sommeria" , "Joelle Fernandez" , "Laura Biagioni" , "Masaya Aiba" , "Mary Jean Burer" , "Renate Christ" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear Participants, As discussed at the Plenary today, please find attached the draft documents received so far from STGs/BOGs. Best regards, Joelle on behalf of Renate Christ 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\HYDROLOG.doc_v1[1].doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\M&A&SD doc_final.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\paper syr final july 16 clean final.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\R&U%20doc_final[1].doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Regions reportV4Final[2].doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\STG on Costing and Economic Analysis - Final.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\stg_ccycle_oceanacidification_final_01.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WG2 draft outline 16 July harmonized.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ICE_SLR_doc_Final[1].doc" 3334. 2009-07-21 13:22:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:22:15 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, A draft response along the lines discussed yesterday. I would expect an almost immediate appeal of this decision by Mr. McIntyre. Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights...... more difficult in practice than in law or theory.... Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Response_letter_DRAFT2.doc" 780. 2009-07-21 14:02:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 21 14:02:47 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, The letter is fine. Your idea about 'copyright' of the database is an excellent one. Over the last 30 years we have reworked the database on a number of occasions - every 3-5 years, so re-extending for another 15 years is fine. I'll have retired by then anyway! Do we need to come up with a form of words elaborating on database rights? Or can we just declare this? I'm presuming we don't have to register this with anybody as would be the case with a patent? Can we go with the letter then invoke this copyright, or should the letter be modified to encompass your 'copyright' and 'database right' ? I wouldn't want to have to put this 'copyright' to the test in a Canadian court. If we send them the file and they break the copyright, can we then refuse thereafter? Apologies that nothing is ever simple. Cheers Phil At 13:22 21/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil/Michael, A draft response along the lines discussed yesterday. I would expect an almost immediate appeal of this decision by Mr. McIntyre. Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights more difficult in practice than in law or theory. Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3712. 2009-07-21 16:10:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:10:42 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Phil/Michael, The claim of database rights is really only relevant if we are releasing information and wish to restrict the subsequent use of that information. Copyright does not 'trump' our obligations under FOIA and we cannot use any copyright in material to prevent it's disclosure. What we CAN do however, is attempt to limit the uses made of released material (assuming of course that we have rights in the material released). The remedy for breach of copyright are the remedies provided for by law but actually getting damages, for example, can be a tricky thing - it's one thing to claim copyright, and another to enforce it - helps if you have lots of lawyers and money! Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:03 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Re: McIntyre EIR request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Draft response Dave, The letter is fine. Your idea about 'copyright' of the database is an excellent one. Over the last 30 years we have reworked the database on a number of occasions - every 3-5 years, so re-extending for another 15 years is fine. I'll have retired by then anyway! Do we need to come up with a form of words elaborating on database rights? Or can we just declare this? I'm presuming we don't have to register this with anybody as would be the case with a patent? Can we go with the letter then invoke this copyright, or should the letter be modified to encompass your 'copyright' and 'database right' ? I wouldn't want to have to put this 'copyright' to the test in a Canadian court. If we send them the file and they break the copyright, can we then refuse thereafter? Apologies that nothing is ever simple. Cheers Phil At 13:22 21/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Phil/Michael, A draft response along the lines discussed yesterday. I would expect an almost immediate appeal of this decision by Mr. McIntyre. Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights...... more difficult in practice than in law or theory.... Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 989. 2009-07-23 16:29:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jul 23 16:29:55 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: McIntyre- FOI to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, Thanks. We've had a request from Montford as well. What we're sending him is the original letters we have from Met Services. I gave you and Marion some of these when I was down in June. I've since found a couple more. Also pointing to this page [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html which means I can't pass on any UK data ! What we're looking into as a possibility is summarised below by our FOI person. I'm still thinking about this. We're likely to send a response to McIntyre tomorrow about a request for data I sent to a post doc working for Peter Webster. Peter said he'd had no difficulty getting data from CRU. It was only some tropical station. McIntyre has no idea what data it was. He is just asking for a copy of the email and attachment that I sent between Jan 1 and June 30, 2009! What we've signed with you is an agreement that David may have a copy of. This was about joint work and publications. Off home now - back in Monday. Cheers Phil Phil, as your concern is the publication of the requested information, I wonder if a possible alternative is to release it but place conditions on it's use. This will ONLY work if UEA has some rights in the data itself or in the database. 'Copyright' in the contents of a database would require some personal creative input by ourselves to the data or database that would render it different from preceding external versions and 'original'. However, even if the contents aren't 'original', there is a 'database right' where the contents of the database are assembled as the result of substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting it's contents. It is the framework, not the contents, that attracts the rights. These rights exist for 15 years from the completion of the database BUT any substantial change to contents will 'renew' the database rights for another 15 years. The owner of database rights has the right to prevent the extraction or reuse of all or a substantial portion of the database. There is 'fair dealing' in database rights to the extent that anyone has a right to extract & reuse an insubstantial portion of the database (not really defined in law but it's very small) for any purpose, or where the portion is substantial, extract and use data for non-commercial research or private study. What can't be done is re-issuing this information to the public under a different guise. The upshot of all of this is that, if we have a 'database right' in this information, then we can release it BUT insist on our exclusive right to re-use the information - BUT the issue is actually 'enforcing' those rights more difficult in practice than in law or theory. Just thought I would proffer this as an option in place of the refusal and the inevitable appeal. Cheers, Dave At 15:46 23/07/2009, you wrote: FYI -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [2]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 13:13 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Cc: Stott, Peter Subject: RE: McIntyre- FOI Peter I attach a copy of the letter going out to Mr McIntyre today. Regards Marion <> Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ _____________________________________________ From: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Sent: 23 July 2009 10:16 To: Archer, Marion; Stott, Peter; Mayhew, Stuart Subject: RE: Montford - FOI Marion, we have nothing officially in writing. Simon Tett was the lead and although he had emails we believe at the time he has since left and his account has been scrubbed. Most of the arrangement was done orally so there is very little written correspondence on the matter even if we could retrieve previous emails (which I doubt). Best I have is the following from Simon: "I've got some of my old met office email -- back to early 2004. We are talking about error models then so I think discussions about station level records would have taken place in 2003. My recall is that we agreed with Phil that the gridded product was jointly owned and that he owned the station level records. The web site ([5]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/) seems to reflect this view. I think when I left the met office I deleted all my email prior to 2004 so can't find a record of the email. It may well be associated with the sub-contract to CRU to work on CRUTEM3 which I think was done in 2002/2003." There may be something in the contract for the HadCRUT3 work that we set up with UEA back in 2001/2. Stuart can probably dig that out and let me have a look. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [6]http://www.hadobs.org _____________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 09:02 To: Stott, Peter Cc: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: Montford - FOI Sorry I didn't clarify the point with either of you. If Peter T could come up with something, liaising with Peter S that would be good. Peter T if you want to meet just let me know. Regards Marion Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk [7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ _____________________________________________ From: Stott, Peter Sent: 23 July 2009 08:54 To: Archer, Marion; Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: Montford - FOI I assume Peter Thorne is the lead on this, 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 [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk _____________________________________________ From: Archer, Marion Sent: 23 July 2009 08:50 To: Stott, Peter; Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Montford - FOI Importance: High Peter I have received the following FOI. It is the second request about CRUTEM from Mr Montford. He originall asked for the names of persons who restricted the release of the data. I attach a copy of our response. I understand there is nothing in writing about confirming that we cannot release this data and and I would appreciate if you could put a short response together for me, that I can send to Mr Montford. (Request below) << File: 0003840 Montford 1.pdf >> Dear Sir or Madam, Further to my recent enquiry regarding CRUTEM station data, firstly thank-you for your prompt reply. Could you please send me a copy of the agreement/letter with Dr Jones in which he makes these restrictions on redistribution of the data. Yours faithfully, Andrew Montford Marion Archer FOI/Data Protection Manager Met Office Alexandria 1 Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Direct Tel: +44(0)1392 884036 Fax 0870 900 5050 email: marion.archer@metoffice.gov.uk [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk See our guide to climate change at [11]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3028. 2009-07-23 20:04:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , Phil Jones , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz, b.mullan@niwa.co.nz date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:04:37 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Jim Salinger first email: ________ hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the cracks in recent years, and this is another one of them. first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series of three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears et al, Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply flawed and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers whose findings render that conclusions of the current article completely invalid! The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric temperature estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic error--that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend. Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other independent assessment, and their estimates are largely disregarded by serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric temperatures that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown, quite unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the interannual variability). the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all for the role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent decades. other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU, Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago) used proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that it detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s) that had never before been discovered in the global surface temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too. and the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and even this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of global mean surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO influences. the dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic influences (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling due to sulphate aerosols). this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in doubt. it uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left over (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it! m On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Precisely. Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local fallout this will cause...oh dear...... Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans according tro NOAA Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[2]trenbert@ucar.edu>: Exactly They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and then they use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so they show what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high frequency variability. It should not have been published Kevin kia orana from Rarotonga How the h... did this get accepted!! Jim Dominion today {24/7/09] Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including comment by J Salinger "little new" McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. paper at [3]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml -- Associate Professor Jim Salinger School of Geography and Environmental Science University of Auckland Private Bag 92 019 Auckland, New Zealand Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [4]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [5]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 3439. 2009-07-24 13:45:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:45:13 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: Holland request (FOI_08-23) - Additional information to: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Gents, I noticed, somewhat to my horror, in drafting our justification for the use of section 12 of the FOIA that Mr. Holland does not limit the request to the named persons but requests all correspondence relation to work of the two (2) named individuals in relation to their work as IPCC lead authors. Would we have correspondence relating to your work as lead authors that is with someone NOT named within the request? Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 442. 2009-07-24 13:52:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:52:08 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Gents, I promised this to Jonathan by the end of this week and here it is! This is a multi-part document due to the nature of the request for information by the ICO. The covering letter sets out what we are providing the following documents follow (I hope) the pattern/index set within that letter. There are some personal comments and questions within some of the documents that I would ask for input on, and there are 'missing' bits where I have not included a .pdf document for example but I have added them to this email. I have also added the original request to remind us of what we are responding to! Phil - Could you please vet in particular my references to the IPCC process within the EIR exception document for accuracy? Tim - I need electronic copies of the emails from Jean Jouzel of 12/05/08, Olga Salomina of 13/05/08 and Caspar Ammann of 30/05/08 - I think we can add this to cumulative .pdf document you prepared at that time. I expect that there will be changes of content and emphasis on this but would hope that this is a successful first draft of our submission. The Schedule, in particular, needs some work but I thought it best to get the 'meat' of the submission to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Dave <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Investigation_response_cover_draft.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOIA vs EIR_explanation.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOIA_s12_explanation.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOIA_exemptions_explanation.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EIR_exceptions_explanation.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Doc A_Info_Schedule.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOI David Holland colleagues responses2.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Initial_reqeust_0805051.pdf" 2970. 2009-07-24 17:05:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:05:42 +0100 from: "Darch Janice Dr \(SCI\)" subject: RE: RE: New Proposal to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Hi Phil Year 1 staff + o/h $143433 Non staff $29515 Year 2 staff + O/h $151155 Non staff $30254 Year 3 Staff + o/h $ 157712 Non staff $ 31010 I'm interviewing Monday am and Tuesday pm. So email to make sure I'm here before you come to discuss. 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 08 June 2009 15:40 To: Darch Janice Dr (SCI) Subject: Fwd: RE: New Proposal Janice, Here is the USDoE solicitation notice and code. At a meeting tomorrow and Wednesday. Cheers Phil X-WSS-ID: 0KKXBQK-01-01W-02 X-M-MSG: X-Server-Uuid: B5584FCD-A7BF-4202-A57B-2ACF132A789D Subject: RE: New Proposal Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:13:02 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Proposal Thread-Index: AcnoQl3nlctrgyfNRT255MRQQ4dZYAAAEBdA From: "Bamzai, Anjuli" To: "Phil Jones" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2009 14:13:03.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CBAAE90:01C9E843] X-WSS-ID: 6633C3E525O1391766-01-01 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: 23489012 - 8c20ea7e3c64 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23489012&m=8c20ea7e3c64&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23489012&m=8c20ea7e3c64&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=23489012&m=8c20ea7e3c64&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Hi Phil, Since you intend to submit before Sept 2009, it'd be in response to the general solicitation [4]http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/FAPN09-01.html The number is DE-PS02-09ER09-01 I'm feverishly working towards completing decisions on the Regional Modeling solicitation. I hope I can complete so I attend part of the CCSM and Tom Wigley Symposium. Best Anjuli ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[5] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:07 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: New Proposal Anjuli, I'm nearing completion on a new proposal submission for mid July 2009. When I go onto grants.gov it seems as though I need a specific call? Do you have ay idea how I can get a revised submission pack? Finally - has much changed since 2006? I gather from Ben that you might be in Boulder on June 19. If so, I will see you then! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 353. 2009-07-27 11:39:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:39:03 +0100 from: Mike Salmon subject: Re: Lund station line to: Phil Jones http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/newcrustnsall.hdr lists it, and the corresponding compressed file newcrustnsall.dat.Z contains 26180 557 -132 73 LUND SWEDEN 17531773 101753 1753 -18 -13 37 76 115 146 167 159 134 99 32 -30 1754 -10 -14 -12 56 129 152 151 155 119 101 47 19 1755 -38 -53 8 79 120 178 182 154 121 84 37 20 1756 19 23 25 42 99 176 194 156 141 92 18 -1 1757 -28 7 14 82 107 182 214 176 136 52 60 13 1758 -39 -20 7 33 139 167 160 168 118 67 45 10 1759 24 23 34 62 102 174 201 181 131 91 21 -20 1760 -40 -10 7 61 118 192 182 171 153 85 40 25 1761 6 12 50 68 129 180 173 183 152 63 51 -6 1762 11 -7 -18 81 115 170 174 142 124 48 41 5 1763 -39 5 5 46 112 149 178 169 115 77 28 30 1764 -1 30 14 56 125 136 205 163 118 76 24 1 1765 -3 -23 29 69 102 153 159 169 119 90 45 -2 1766 -18 -27 21 81 119 173 188 172 138 87 58 -9 1767 -61 -6 21 27 98 139 164 173 150 89 64 4 1768 -55 -31 -24 51 107 163 179 171 125 82 49 21 1769 6 -5 23 57 113 156 176 159 136 52 26 32 1770 -23 0 -29 45 115 151 181 181 154 105 25 15 1771 -38 -38 -39 22 124 180 172 151 125 101 28 25 1772 -16 -21 -11 47 100 162 178 171 136 110 72 29 1773 10 -9 16 73 141 159 181 180 145 112 50 26 That file's been there since 2003. Mike 4182. 2009-07-27 17:26:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: Carolin Richter date: Mon Jul 27 17:26:46 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Report of IPCC Scoping Meeting to: Kevin Trenberth , Adrian.Simmons@ecmwf.int Adrian, Agree with Kevin about Thomas being somewhat fixed in his ways. I think a few things will come back to haunt Thomas later in the process. I got the impression that there would be more interaction with WG2, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When the authors are selected there needs to be some interaction between Ch 2 and 3 and also between 2 and 14 to decide where various bits come. Thomas wanted very short bullets that wouldn't allow issues of overlap to be addressed adequately. As for surface, I made sure SST is in the surface and atmosphere. Waves and swell will likely end up in Ch 2, as I got the impression the oceans don't want to do it. Depends what the oceans think of as a surface process, circulation and fluxes There are longer summaries that will be given to the Ch leads once known. As Kevin says I tried hard to get rid of the word archives. It is proxy records (natural and documentary). Traditional dusty archives will be in Ch 2 as the vast majority are instrumental of some sort. Ch 2 and 5 will need to determine a time threshold as we did last time (1850 was the date last time). Cloud obs and all the problems should be in Ch 2. With extremes there is an issue of what will be in Ch 2 and 14. Tropical and extra-tropical storms (and drought) will be in 2, but 14 may get extremes of precip and temperature. Kevin made the point that extremes are part of the whole distribution. This comes of having a regional chapter and trying to put extremes in it! 14 also has a few things like patterns of variability and monsoons that will be discussed in 2. Extremes also has a special report starting soon - crossing WG 1-3. The authors for that get chosen in September. Ch 14 was supposed to have lots of tables in supplementary material, which seems to have fallen off. I did mention gaps in knowledge and what we need to know, but this got missed out. I'd raise all of these - as they are within GCOS. Cheers Phil At 16:06 27/07/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Adrian Several comments on the scoping meeting. I found Thomas very intransigent wrt any suggestions made in the meeting. I was called out to co-chair a cross cutting task group on water and that took over a day out of my being involved with WG 1. While we got a full chapter on the topic in WG 2, our report had almost no impact on WG-1 and I was thoroughly PO'd. Precipitation is not given much prominence and soil moisture, ground water, and lake storage are not mentioned. I treid to get a breif mention of "land water storage" to embrace these aspects and actually the total is a big issue for sea level as well. There should also have been a bullet in the last chapter on the synthesis of the water cycle aspects. I can send you our TG report if you don't have it. More below Adrian Simmons wrote: Dear Carolin I have now had a look through the report of the IPCC Scoping Meeting held in Venice two weeks ago, on which GCOS has an opportunity to comment. I have only a few minor comments on the outline of the WG I report, and am not sure any of them are worth raising formally - I'm copying this to Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones, who may well be able to respond and put matters to rest. (i) I'm pleased to see the chapter on "Observations : Atmosphere and Surface" has been moved from number 3 to number 2 for AR5. It's good to see the disappearance of the historical review, which I did not find particularly balanced in AR4, and the radiative forcing discussion moved to later in the report. (ii) I'm rather confused by what is meant by "surface" in Chapter 2. It clearly includes sea-surface temperature, but apparently nothing else to do with the surface of the sea, as "Changes in ocean surface process" is a topic for Chapter 3. I can see why SST has a natural home in Chapter 3 along with atmospheric observations, but as ocean surface waves are so strongly linked with atmospheric forcing, and rather directly indicative of shifts in atmospheric circulation (albeit with swell effects to confound interpretation), I wonder whether they are not best covered in Chapter 2. Soil moisture, on the other hand, does seem to be in Chapter 2, in "Changes in hydrology ...". This was originally atmosphere and land surface and it was only after I pointed out that the global sfc T had to be done somewhere that it was broadened to surface. Anything atmospheric dominated (incl waves) surely has to be there. (iii) I have a problem with the title of Chapter 5 - "Information from Climate Archives". Vast amounts of the WG1 report will be based on information from Climate Archives - Archives of observations made anytime from Centuries to a few hours ago, reanalyses, results of climate model runs. Archives don't only hold old data - they are updated regularly with new data. I can appreciate why the former title of "Palaeoclimate" was dropped, but don't find the replacement any better. Many of us strongly disagreed with the wording here (including Phil and me). But the French loved the word "archive". There seemed to be strong resistance to using paleoclimate and Phil and I suggested "Information from proxy records". I would encourage GCOS to comment. A few of us (including David Warillow (sp?)) thought paleo should be distributed and not a separate chapter. From the user and stakeholder viewpoint and other WGs that is clearly true. But being distributed would make it harder for the paleo guys to caucus and depend a lot more on the one expert in each chapter (as happened last time with sea level). (iv) "Observations of clouds ..." comes up in Chapter 7, but I imagine it will be hard for Chapter 2 to cover changes in the radiation fields and energy budgets and in hydrology, without discussing clouds. But as long as there is good editorial control and interaction among the lead authors this should not be much of a problem. Likewise with regard to "Changes in radiation fields" in Chapter 2 and "Radiative forcing changes" in Chapter 8. Chapter 7 should not be observations of clouds; those must be in chapter 2, except insofar as they relate to process. And so all the cloudsat and calypso obs etc are likely to end up here. The thing to remember here is that the bullets here may well determine who gets selected as LAs. So small refinements can be worthwhile. If chapter 2 does not have anyone who can handle radiation or clouds then it won't happen. I think that's more or less it from the observations side, except that in the WG I chapters I do not see anything like "Gaps in knowledge" as a sub-heading, whereas I do see this sub-heading in several chapters of the WG III report. There is also a sub-heading on "Research gaps" in the WG II outline. Worth noting. Kevin I've a few other reactions to what I've read, but they are not to do with GCOS's business. Best regards Adrian -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [1]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1577. 2009-07-28 09:19:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" date: Tue Jul 28 09:19:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FOIA requests for 'confidentiality' agreements to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Dear All, Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael. Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here. See you all later. Phil At 17:49 27/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Folks, A brief summary of where we are currently. I have 42 requests with virtually the same wording as below: "Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR/FOI request for the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in [insert country names] 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics 4. a copy of the entire agreement I am requesting this information as part of my academic research." I have a further 3 requests asking for the actual data that was sent to Georgia Tech plus one asking for station data from some islands in the Pacific These will be handled under EIR. I have another 5 requests that include more than just the 'standard' request above. I have been in touch with the ICO today twice and also have consulted my HEI colleagues and the essentials are as follows: 1. We will have to acknowledge and administer these requests individually regardless of the response or approach taken. Lots of work to be done listing requests I fear. 2. We can 'aggregate' the requests for the purposes of assessing the time/work in locating & retrieving the requested information but the aggregation only goes to our ability to claim a section 12 appropriate limit exemption. Options for handling the requests 1. Business as usual - treat each request individually and respond accordingly. Could be very time-consuming although I suspect that the answer will be the same for many of them; namely that we do not have the requested data. This will set them off as we claimed with Mr. McIntyre that agreements prevented us from disclosing information - I doubt that they will see the nuances that only some of the information was covered by such agreements & we cannot release the lot without breaching one of them. 2. Vexatious request (section 14) - the test is difficult but we clearly can show that there has been a coordinated effort here but we have to show at least one (and probably more) of the following a. is the request obsessive b. is it harassing the authority or causing distress to staff c. would compliance impose a significant burden on the authority d. is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance e. does the request lack serious purpose or value f. is the request vexatious in context, part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious I think (a), (c), (d) & (f) might apply although individually, the requests are legitimate and are not meant solely to disrupt us. 'They' are aware of this option as comment no. 115 on the climateaudt.org website notes: "Isn't there a risk that the appearance of a concerted campaign can be used as evidence that the requests are "vexatious" which is one of the UK FOI's exceptions? Especially as the wording is all but identical? I think it's possible they may try this line of defence. However, the inquiries are not really vexatious. We're just trying to find out which countries these supposed confidentiality agreements apply to. Then we could FOI the rest. OTOH, if Phil Jones really doesn't have any records of such agreements One thing is for sure. David Palmer is not going to appreciate this pile of FOI requests and he will be motivated to resolve the impasse in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on himself and his office. I expect he'll kick it upstairs. Further, if the press get interested, I doubt that the institutions are going to put up with Jones' precious behaviour much longer." I think we can all guess the reaction if we hit everyone with a section 14 ruling, regardless of the validity of it's application.this would surely go to the ICO eventually. 3. Information available (section 21) - the approach here would be to respond to Mr. Montford's request (FOI_09-53) knowing full well that everything we send electronically will be on the 'whatdotheyknow' website (and we can hope he digitises the 'agreements' and puts them up) - we then cite section 21 for everyone else and point them at his website. The alternative would be to post the agreements on the CRU website and point them there. 4. Hybrid approach - Hit everyone with a section 14 BUT tell them that we are responding to a request for ALL agreements and will be posting whatever is found and sent. General points - 1.We are going to have to monitor the press as a number of the requesters are very 'legit' academics in their own right and would not be dismissed as the 'usual suspects' 2. Regardless of how we approach this we can expect further interaction with these folks - my take would be to publish as much as we possibly can and eliminate the hassle of constantly responding to FOIA/EIR requests (although it does keep me employed!); the larger issue is how to manage our relationship with these folks so that we can avoid this request bombardment in future. 3. Interaction with Mr. McIntyre - he has appealed our decision not to send the Ga. Tech data & we will have to respond in some fashion to this The initial stage is 'informal' led by moi and I wonder how 'informal' and open I should be with Mr. McIntyre in terms of communication and working with him to achieve a satisfactory result Thats it for now - see you tomorrow! Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3400. 2009-07-28 12:05:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Birgitte von Christierson" date: Tue Jul 28 12:05:07 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Sampling UKCP09?! to: "Steven Wade" Steven, We'll discuss this with Geoff next week. A few things In your 3) the way MOHC produced the probabilistic projections GCMs and RCMs (with their perturbed physics) were given greater weight if they simulated the 20th century better. This is a part validation, so better models and parameter sets get preferred. In 4) not clear what 'more homogeneity than the 11 RCMs' means? Your key bullet lower down is the third one. You do need to sample the full range - somehow. This is difficult to do in the joint probability case. In 5) totally agree that you can get very different results depending on how you sample UKCP09. This should be clear from reading the reports, but it is difficult to get across when people use UKCP09 as a tool - without complete understanding. The one thing you don't mention relates back to the work we did for the EA project in 2005/6. This is that it is still very likely that historic droughts will be more extreme than future ones. This is because the GCMs and RCMs and the WG don't do low-frequency variability very well. The WG will have reasonable extremes, but is unlikely they will bunch together into drier and wetter decades and bi-decades. This is discussed in the large report under blocking, and also in the WG report. The WG may not do 2-3 year droughts that well - but neither will the RCMs. Cheers Phil At 10:19 27/07/2009, Steven Wade wrote: Phil, I wondered whether you might have a view on how to make UKCP09 a little more practical for water companies? I attach a note on our attempt to capture the range of UKCP09 by using Optimal Latin Hypercube Sampling that makes sure we can sets of factors that cover a reasonable range of UKCP09 and maintain characteristics of the Met Office emulator outputs (combined probabilities in P and T for each season and between seasons) We are suggesting that using 10-20 samples is a good first step and use of say 100 Weather Generator runs would come later for sites where there are significant risks. You must of tackled some of the same issues trying to make your WG outputs consistent with UKCP09 (?) so I would welcome your opinion on this. Regards, Steven Steven Wade - Group Manager Water Management HR Wallingford Ltd Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA, United Kingdom e: s.wade@hrwallingford.co.uk t: +44 (0) 1491 822214 (direct), +44 (0) 1491 835381 (switchboard) f: +44 (0) 1491 825916 (direct), +44 (0) 1491 832233 (general) [1]www.hrwallingford.co.uk ********************************************************************** HR Wallingford uses Faxes and Emails for confidential and legally privileged business communications. They do not of themselves create legal commitments. Disclosure to parties other than addressees requires our specific consent. We are not liable for unauthorised disclosures nor reliance upon them. If you have received this message in error please advise us immediately and destroy all copies of it. HR Wallingford Limited Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8BA, UK Registered in England No. 02562099 ********************************************************************** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 490. 2009-07-28 16:10:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:10:39 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Folks, Just to summarise our approach to the various requests we have received to date that we have agreed: A. 'Country' requests 1. Respond to Montford request as normally - cite s.21, information available (see point 2) 2. Place any/all agreements (or links thereto - Met Office) on the CRU website 3. Acknowledge & respond to all 44? Country requests by citing s.21 and pointing them to the CRU website B. Data requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as per normal, cite Reg. 12(5)(f) re agreements and Reg. 12(4)(b) 'manifestly unreasonable' on the grounds that the data is already available publicly via the ClimateAudit.org website, and note that a format of the data (gridded) already is publicly available 3. Note that raw data is available from the Met Office and other national weather services (also goes to 'manifestly unreasonable') . C. McIntyre appeal 1. Maintain position regarding Reg 12(5)(f) re confidentiality agreements and point him to published versions on website 2. Add 'manifestly unreasonable' on basis that he already has the requested information in his possession & is also available elsewhere 3. Handle as per published protocols with initial 'informal' approach, followed by review by JCF D. 'Other' requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as usual, citing whatever section is appropriate above to the requested information E. General points 1. Interaction with any media to be handled by Press Office 2. Approval of transfer to Georgia Tech would be good to find 3. We are NOT citing s.14 for the 'country' requests 4. Estimated time to locate ALL agreements regarding data transfer is within the 18 hour appropriate limit 5. Any correspondence to go out will be circulated prior to transmission I hope I have captured what was agreed - please comment if your understanding is different than mine Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 2924. 2009-07-28 16:35:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:35:45 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Station data to: "Phil Jones" Sure. Dan isn't in until Thursday and there is uncertainty over whether he's on day or night shift so it may not be til Friday at the very very earliest unless you view it as sufficiently important that I get exec over-ride for message switching services to investigate in the interim ... and its just a punt taht that will be possible. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 28 July 2009 15:31 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Station data Peter, Been to my meeting with the FOI, the Deputy Librarian and a couple of others. As McIntyre now has the data, can you let me know if you're able to determine when he might have got it? I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but if he got it on Friday, we can ignore the 48 requests we got between Sunday and today. We can say that he already has the data. I have told them that it won't stop with the data. They will move onto programs next. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4878. 2009-07-28 17:21:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:21:09 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: RE: Station data to: "Press Office" See below - What now folks? In reality, we don't have any IPR in the raw data so we have no 'rights' to it, and any action on our part would be as against the Met Office for breaching the terms of the agreement under which we provided the data to them. I should have added to my prior email that part of the response to data requests would be that it would be 'manifestly unreasonable' to disaggregate the data to parse out the data that is NOT covered by the agreements noted.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data Dave, See this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don't rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end? - Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4270. 2009-07-29 09:15:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" ,"Press Office" date: Wed Jul 29 09:15:04 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Station data to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Annie, Jonathan, Mike Salmon here has looked through the log of our ftp site. It seems that at least 3 people on July 24 and 25 picked up copies of files we'd put on the CRU site in early 2003 (Feb 24). They were put there for the Hadley Centre to pick up as we couldn't email such large files at that time. I know we should have taken them down. See below for the date someone from Canada did this. This was done between 8 and 9pm UK time on July 25 (Saturday). The other two were from the US on July 24 and much early on July 25. Our entire web site is regularly trawled - every few months by people in eastern Europe (mostly Poland) and Taiwan. Apparently this is quite common. The problem I have now is that the file that was accessed contains data up to the end of 2002. This was for data that went into a publication that appeared in the Journal of Climate in 2003. Since then we've added lots more data. So they have a copy of the data from CRUTEM2. They do not have CRUTEM3. I'll read through your summary of the meeting yesterday - your email Dave from 16.10 yesterday. Cheers Phil Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:52:02 +0100 From: Mike Salmon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Station data ClimateAudit says: "July 28th, 2009 - Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole." Looking at the FTP server logs, two addresses fetched newcru* in that time period: 99.231.2.44 = CPE0050bfe94416-CM00195efb6eb0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com 209.77.230.64 = ppp-209-77-230-64.dsl.chi2ca.pacbell.net Rogers is a Canadian company, so I assume that's McIntyre [1]http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal (PacBell is part of AT&T in the US) Looking through other log entries with that address, he's also interested in this file: /projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip which, ahem, also contains the LUND data! Shall I move that too? It's been there since 1996. The earliest fetch of the full data from that address was: Sat Jul 25 21:13:01 2009 11 99.231.2.44 2051007 /data/newcruextusall.dat.Z b _ o a mozilla@example.com ftp 0 * c so he "got the data" at 2009-07-25 2013UTC 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1131. 2009-07-29 10:48:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:48:00 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FW: RE: Station data to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Phil, Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - been trying to get a few other requests out the door this am. I think the text is a good idea including a reference to future plans but I would phrase it to not mention specific Met agencies but rather something along the lines of 'Subject to obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders..." . I would NOT mention Mr. McIntyre on any of our pages - we can't really state that the CRUTEM2 data is publicly available as we have no idea what Mr. McIntyre intends to do with it and I think any mention of him personally is risky at best. I think any mention of the existence of the data sets either 'taken' from our ftp server or secured from the Met Office would be risky until we know what will be done with them and our (and the rights holders') response to the acquisition of this data. Annie - your thoughts on this? Finally - in regards your earlier email, I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the acquisition of the data from us (CRUTEM2) and the data supposedly secured from the Met Office. Are they the same data sets or different? I guess I'm trying to get a handle on what Mr. McIntyre actually has in his possession.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:49 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Cc: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: Re: FW: RE: Station data Dave, Here's what I propose to do over the next week or two. I will get the agreements scanned and write some text about them and the others that we have had. CRU had longer term plans with the Hadley Centre to release all the data they want when we do the next update in 2010. I could add this in to some text I write - saying we will do this once we've contacted various Met Services. I'm not sure about this? Is saying the least best? I could say for example that McIntyre has a version through 2002 and not the current one. I'll pass the text by a couple of people here and also by you, but if you have any thoughts let me know. Cheers Phil At 17:21 28/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: See below - What now folks? In reality, we don't have any IPR in the raw data so we have no 'rights' to it, and any action on our part would be as against the Met Office for breaching the terms of the agreement under which we provided the data to them. I should have added to my prior email that part of the response to data requests would be that it would be 'manifestly unreasonable' to disaggregate the data to parse out the data that is NOT covered by the agreements noted.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data Dave, See this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don't rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end? - Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 580. 2009-07-29 11:35:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "J. Salinger" , , , Gavin Schmidt , James Annan date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:35:25 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Grant Foster thanks Grant, the paper is starting to shape up well now. Jim and I (well, mostly Jim, w/ some input from me) are iterating on a blurb about past studies on ENSO/temperature relationships and should have something for you soon on that, As James has pointed out, its important to stick to the key points and not get sidetracked with nonsense. I would avoid any commentary on their ignorant ramblings about the Hadley Cell, etc. We want to cut straight to the deep flaws in their analysis which are, in order of importance in my view, 1. indefensible use of a differencing filter, which has the effect of selectively damping low-frequency variability and renders any conclusions about factors underlying long-term trends completely spurious. 2. ignoring the fact that the influence of ENSO on global temperature has been known for decades, and much better quantified in past studies than in the current deeply flawed analysis. 3. the selective use of a flawed temperature data and curious splicing in of inappropriate recent data (UAH TMT) to further suppress trends. A bit of overkill given that they already eliminated the trends anyway. Guess they wanted to play it extra cautious just in case some bit of warming trend tried to sneak in. The other stuff is just a distraction. mike On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Grant Foster wrote: Gentlemen, Attached is a zip file with LaTeX and pdf for a first draft. I've included everybody's name (in alphabetical order after mine), but of course it should only include in submission those who give explicit consent. There are a few other issues. One is that MFC have recently removed the pdf version of their paper from the "New Zealand Climate Coalition" website. They've replaced it with this: [1]http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1 which refers to a graph showing only part of figure 7, and suggests that there's not trend in GTTA so "nothing to worry about." Yet the plotted GTTA is from UAH TMT (*not* TLT) so of course it shows no trend, and the MT channel is contaminated by stratospheric cooling. In figure 7 of the paper itself they compare the 50-year record of SOI and GTTA, but their graph of GTTA is made of RATPAC-A data until 1980 grafted onto UAH TMT data afterward -- hence the lack of an obvious trend. I think this too should be mentioned, especially as the entire RATPAC-A record shows a very pronounced trend. One last thing: there's a lot of stuff in the paper about Hadley cells and heat transport and so forth. I suspect this is really a bunch of gobbledygook -- but I don't know. But I'll bet you guys do. Comments? Sincerely, Grant ______________________________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. [2]Check it out. -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 208. 2009-07-29 11:57:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:57:34 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Phil Jones HI Phil, re Grant, great--I agree he'll need to reduce the number of figures and focus on the key points. Jim has already drafted something on ENSO/temp relationships and I made a few comments, once we have a revised version of that can send on to you for further comment/addition/revision etc. thanks for the update re CA--caught a hint of this latest fuss in a comment that came in at RC (which we deleted from the queue). Sounds like they're moving from person to person, first harassed Ben earlier this year, now you, who knows who is next. I've been trying to no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. they need to be exposed--badly! by the way, are you going to the paleo meeting being hosted by Gabi and crew in Edinburgh next summer (July 12-13 I believe)? If not, perhaps I can schedule a short visit at CRU to see you, Keith, and the gang either before or after, once I know schedule... mike On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I replied quickly to Grant to say I'm in. All of CRU is away tomorrow - so we're due for deluge at Keith's house, where we hope to have a barbecue. I've printed if off and will get back to Grant tomorrow or first thing Friday. Looks to have too many diagrams, but we can pick and choose. I recall comments have a limit on diagrams. A bit on history of ENSO would be good to sneak in. The paper I sent earlier has many of the refs but only one of Walker's. Have had a difficult few days this week - with 50 FOIs from an orchestrated climate audit campaign. We have a path through it now. It is just a pure time wasting effort. Cheers Phil At 16:35 29/07/2009, you wrote: thanks Grant, the paper is starting to shape up well now. Jim and I (well, mostly Jim, w/ some input from me) are iterating on a blurb about past studies on ENSO/temperature relationships and should have something for you soon on that, As James has pointed out, its important to stick to the key points and not get sidetracked with nonsense. I would avoid any commentary on their ignorant ramblings about the Hadley Cell, etc. We want to cut straight to the deep flaws in their analysis which are, in order of importance in my view, 1. indefensible use of a differencing filter, which has the effect of selectively damping low-frequency variability and renders any conclusions about factors underlying long-term trends completely spurious. 2. ignoring the fact that the influence of ENSO on global temperature has been known for decades, and much better quantified in past studies than in the current deeply flawed analysis. 3. the selective use of a flawed temperature data and curious splicing in of inappropriate recent data (UAH TMT) to further suppress trends. A bit of overkill given that they already eliminated the trends anyway. Guess they wanted to play it extra cautious just in case some bit of warming trend tried to sneak in. The other stuff is just a distraction. mike On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Grant Foster wrote: Gentlemen, Attached is a zip file with LaTeX and pdf for a first draft. I've included everybody's name (in alphabetical order after mine), but of course it should only include in submission those who give explicit consent. There are a few other issues. One is that MFC have recently removed the pdf version of their paper from the "New Zealand Climate Coalition" website. They've replaced it with this: [1]http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1 which refers to a graph showing only part of figure 7, and suggests that there's not trend in GTTA so "nothing to worry about." Yet the plotted GTTA is from UAH TMT (*not* TLT) so of course it shows no trend, and the MT channel is contaminated by stratospheric cooling. In figure 7 of the paper itself they compare the 50-year record of SOI and GTTA, but their graph of GTTA is made of RATPAC-A data until 1980 grafted onto UAH TMT data afterward -- hence the lack of an obvious trend. I think this too should be mentioned, especially as the entire RATPAC-A record shows a very pronounced trend. One last thing: there's a lot of stuff in the paper about Hadley cells and heat transport and so forth. I suspect this is really a bunch of gobbledygook -- but I don't know. But I'll bet you guys do. Comments? Sincerely, Grant ___________________________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. [2]Check it out. -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (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 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 website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 3402. 2009-07-29 15:57:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 29 15:57:32 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, We're working on some web text here. It will have in more than Dave has said in the attached. So don't read this yet. I'll send it down once Tim has had a look through. The issue now is #3 in the attached - PDJ to seek retrospective permission from the Met Office for the release of the data to Georgia Tech. Now I know this is sort of my data. I don't know who you'd ask or if you should anyway. What they were sent was everything 30N to 30S (roughly), so this includes some British Islands like St Helena and some in the Pacific. I guess I could say these are OK as they covered by WMO Res 40. It would appear from looking at the NERC/MO agreement (see link) on the BADC site that this doesn't seem to be being followed in the UK. [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html When we need it Mike will set up what you suggest - a special ftp site just for the two of us (CRU and MOHC). Cheers Phil Subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:24:25 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Thread-Index: AcoPlZFPSgyLgEyLQXGmeHZi7MdsWQAwm6Dg From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Folks, Further to the memo below, Jonathan sent me his summary of our approach and asked me to comment and pass onto you. There are a couple of 'comments' that I have inserted that I'd appreciate input on, particularly from Phil. Hope this helps us to move forward Cheers, Dave <> ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:11 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy Folks, Just to summarise our approach to the various requests we have received to date that we have agreed: A. 'Country' requests 1. Respond to Montford request as normally - cite s.21, information available (see point 2) 2. Place any/all agreements (or links thereto - Met Office) on the CRU website 3. Acknowledge & respond to all 44? Country requests by citing s.21 and pointing them to the CRU website B. Data requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as per normal, cite Reg. 12(5)(f) re agreements and Reg. 12(4)(b) 'manifestly unreasonable' on the grounds that the data is already available publicly via the ClimateAudit.org website, and note that a format of the data (gridded) already is publicly available 3. Note that raw data is available from the Met Office and other national weather services (also goes to 'manifestly unreasonable') . C. McIntyre appeal 1. Maintain position regarding Reg 12(5)(f) re confidentiality agreements and point him to published versions on website 2. Add 'manifestly unreasonable' on basis that he already has the requested information in his possession & is also available elsewhere 3. Handle as per published protocols with initial 'informal' approach, followed by review by JCF D. 'Other' requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as usual, citing whatever section is appropriate above to the requested information E. General points 1. Interaction with any media to be handled by Press Office 2. Approval of transfer to Georgia Tech would be good to find 3. We are NOT citing s.14 for the 'country' requests 4. Estimated time to locate ALL agreements regarding data transfer is within the 18 hour appropriate limit 5. Any correspondence to go out will be circulated prior to transmission I hope I have captured what was agreed - please comment if your understanding is different than mine Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2836. 2009-07-29 16:56:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 29 16:56:48 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: The Dendroclimatic Divergence Phenomenon NERC project to: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI\)" Hi Sylv, there's no project website to link to. Here's a summary of the project: --------------- Palaeoclimate reconstructions extend our knowledge of how climate varied in times before expansive networks of measuring instruments became available. These reconstructions are founded on an understanding of theoretical and statistically-derived associations acquired by comparing the parallel behaviour of palaeoclimate proxies and measurements of varying climate. Inferences about variations in past climate, based on this understanding, necessarily assume that the associations we observe now hold true throughout the period for which reconstructions are made. This is the essence of the uniformitarian principle. In some northern areas of the world, recent observations of tree growth and measured temperature trends appear to have diverged in recent decades, the so called "divergence" phenomenon. There has been much speculation, and numerous theories proposed, to explain why the previous temperature sensitivity of tree growth in these areas is apparently breaking down. The existence of divergence casts doubt on the uniformitarian assumption that underpins a number of important tree-ring based (dendroclimatic) reconstructions. It suggests that the degree of warmth in certain periods in the past, particularly in medieval times, may be underestimated or at least subject to greater uncertainty than is currently accepted. The lack of a clear overview of this phenomenon and the lack of a generally accepted cause had led some to challenge the current scientific consensus, represented in the 2007 report of the IPCC on the likely unprecedented nature of late 20th century average hemispheric warmth when viewed in the context of proxy evidence (mostly from trees) for the last 1300 years. This project will seek to systematically reassess and quantify the evidence for divergence in many tree-ring data sets around the Northern Hemisphere. It will establish a much clearer understanding of the nature of the divergence phenomenon, characterising the spatial patterns and temporal evolution. Based on recent published and unpublished work by the proposers, it has become apparent that foremost amongst the possible explanations is the need to account for systematic bias potentially inherent in the methods used to build many tree-ring chronologies including many that are believed to exhibit this phenomenon. --------------- Cheers Tim At 10:52 29/07/2009, you wrote: Hi Tim, Ive received an RGN1 form for the above NERC project. Could you please send me a brief description of the project to put up on the CRU website and a web link to the project if there is one? Thanks, Sylv 1916. 2009-07-30 08:59:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:59:46 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I like what you have thus far. Enclosed however is a slew of comments. I haven't touched the text itself as I don't want the writing style to appear schizophrenic. I would urge trying to be comprehensive which means expanding the text considerably. Be very careful over use of language, use of qualified words like "some" just opens you up to yet more inane FOI requests and should be avoided at all costs. I also think you need to be extremely careful in how you describe the station data. The only version you have for almost all stations as far as I know is the value added data which has been QC'ed and where nec. adjusted. I'd urge you to be explicit in this regard and as to the underlying reasons (lack of space in 1982 computers). And to avoid the use of the term "raw" in association with the station data. Generally the more opaque this is the more work eventually will accrue for you (and us, but mainly you). If we're forced to wash our laundry we may as well use Daz brilliant white ... so be inanely pedantic in the details so that you minimise the angles for attack. It will take longer right now but I suspect in the long run be less work which means you can do science if you can still remember what that is (I vaguely do myself ...). With respect to the station data agreements I think it key you link to as many external restrictions examples as possible so you can show this is a general issue and not specific to HadCRUT. HadEX is another good one where we had great coverage but only because we use indicies and not the station values because the providers are not willing to share the station data widely. Personally I think we can't have enough such examples. I know NCDC may be able to be pinged for examples if you want me to ... Is there any documentation in GCOS reports we can point to, especially AOPC where we can show that you are championing open access? That would shut them up slightly so is VERY DEFINITELY worth looking for and linking to as it shows you in the correct light. I think some text showing taht CRU is fighting for openness in relevant forums would be a gold dust addition. I have sent on original drafts to Marion and requested a meeting with her. If we can schedule a telecon with me, you, her and Dave that would be great. Let me know when you think this would be appropriate so that I can schedule at this end ... I have pinged the relevant person to resolve the Georgia Tech UK data conundrum for you. Peter -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 29 July 2009 15:58 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Peter, We're working on some web text here. It will have in more than Dave has said in the attached. So don't read this yet. I'll send it down once Tim has had a look through. The issue now is #3 in the attached - PDJ to seek retrospective permission from the Met Office for the release of the data to Georgia Tech. Now I know this is sort of my data. I don't know who you'd ask or if you should anyway. What they were sent was everything 30N to 30S (roughly), so this includes some British Islands like St Helena and some in the Pacific. I guess I could say these are OK as they covered by WMO Res 40. It would appear from looking at the NERC/MO agreement (see link) on the BADC site that this doesn't seem to be being followed in the UK. [2] http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html When we need it Mike will set up what you suggest - a special ftp site just for the two of us (CRU and MOHC). Cheers Phil Subject: FW: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:24:25 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy - Next Steps Thread-Index: AcoPlZFPSgyLgEyLQXGmeHZi7MdsWQAwm6Dg From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Folks, Further to the memo below, Jonathan sent me his summary of our approach and asked me to comment and pass onto you. There are a couple of 'comments' that I have inserted that I'd appreciate input on, particularly from Phil. Hope this helps us to move forward... Cheers, Dave <> ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:11 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FOI/EIR requests - Strategy Folks, Just to summarise our approach to the various requests we have received to date that we have agreed: A. 'Country' requests 1. Respond to Montford request as normally - cite s.21, information available (see point 2) 2. Place any/all agreements (or links thereto - Met Office) on the CRU website 3. Acknowledge & respond to all 44? Country requests by citing s.21 and pointing them to the CRU website B. Data requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as per normal, cite Reg. 12(5)(f) re agreements and Reg. 12(4)(b) 'manifestly unreasonable' on the grounds that the data is already available publicly via the ClimateAudit.org website, and note that a format of the data (gridded) already is publicly available 3. Note that raw data is available from the Met Office and other national weather services (also goes to 'manifestly unreasonable') . C. McIntyre appeal 1. Maintain position regarding Reg 12(5)(f) re confidentiality agreements and point him to published versions on website 2. Add 'manifestly unreasonable' on basis that he already has the requested information in his possession & is also available elsewhere 3. Handle as per published protocols with initial 'informal' approach, followed by review by JCF D. 'Other' requests 1. Acknowledge requests 2. Deal with as usual, citing whatever section is appropriate above to the requested information E. General points 1. Interaction with any media to be handled by Press Office 2. Approval of transfer to Georgia Tech would be good to find 3. We are NOT citing s.14 for the 'country' requests 4. Estimated time to locate ALL agreements regarding data transfer is within the 18 hour appropriate limit 5. Any correspondence to go out will be circulated prior to transmission I hope I have captured what was agreed - please comment if your understanding is different than mine Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\cru_data_availability_pwt.doc" 4230. 2009-07-30 11:31:49 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:31:49 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: to: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Annie, One does wonder what the readership figures for these sites are however.... Of more import, the 'penetration' of the CRU server and its subsequent handling are now common knowledge ([1]http://www.climateaudit.org/) and they are claiming that we have breached s.77 of the FOIA (which applies to applications under EIR by the way) by removing the relevant files from the .FTP server. Whilst what McIntyre has quoted is entirely accurate, he hasn't told the whole story - the entire section is below: 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure (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. (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted-- (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The key point is the intent to prevent the disclosure of information to which the applicant would otherwise be entitled. One, we maintain he is not entitled to it, and two, we are not concealing it to prevent disclosure (as that has already happened). This provision is to obviously stop authorities from deleting information and then claiming they don't possess it. We are not doing that... BUT it's not good publicity on any level I would think.... I will check with the ICO to make sure we are ok on this because a momentary 'backtrack' would be much better than getting caught on a section 77 infraction.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:09 AM >To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); >Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: FW: > >Dear all, >In case you haven't seen this one - about a 'leak' etc... >[2]http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/0520216/Temperature-Dat >a-Wants-To-Be-Free?from=rss >Annie >------------------------------- >Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 >[3]www.uea.ac.uk/comm >............................................ > > > > > 1175. 2009-07-30 11:59:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:59:07 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: to: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" On phone to ICO at moment awaiting input on the section 77 question - am arguing that taking the files off was to meet with our contraction obligations under which we received it and to repair what we perceive as a lapse in security.... They have now stated they don't think the removal of the data is in contravention of section 77 in that the sole purpose of the removal was NOT to deny the requester his legitimate right of access to the information. I did tell them that that our intention was stated in our response to Mr. McIntyre; namely to deny him the information on the basis of EIR Reg. 12(5)(f) & the public interest & this did not alter their position. This still leaves us with a PR problem but eliminates the legal problem.... Cheers, Dave _____________________________________________ From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:38 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Probably best to discuss when Phil is back in the office - CRU are all out today. Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ _____________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:37 AM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Ok... At what point do we publicly engage in this debate then? Not my field of expertise but the agenda is definitely being set by Mr. McIntyre et al..... Cheers, Dave _____________________________________________ From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:34 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: However - the Guardian website is very well read. See what their technology editor says in his blog: [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jul/30/microsoft-yahoo-climate-data-l icence-tv Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [3]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ _____________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:32 AM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Annie, One does wonder what the readership figures for these sites are however.... Of more import, the 'penetration' of the CRU server and its subsequent handling are now common knowledge ([4]http://www.climateaudit.org/) and they are claiming that we have breached s.77 of the FOIA (which applies to applications under EIR by the way) by removing the relevant files from the .FTP server. Whilst what McIntyre has quoted is entirely accurate, he hasn't told the whole story - the entire section is below: 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure (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. (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted-- (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The key point is the intent to prevent the disclosure of information to which the applicant would otherwise be entitled. One, we maintain he is not entitled to it, and two, we are not concealing it to prevent disclosure (as that has already happened). This provision is to obviously stop authorities from deleting information and then claiming they don't possess it. We are not doing that... BUT it's not good publicity on any level I would think.... I will check with the ICO to make sure we are ok on this because a momentary 'backtrack' would be much better than getting caught on a section 77 infraction.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:09 AM >To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); >Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: FW: > >Dear all, >In case you haven't seen this one - about a 'leak' etc... >[5]http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/0520216/Temperature-Dat >a-Wants-To-Be-Free?from=rss >Annie >------------------------------- >Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 >[6]www.uea.ac.uk/comm >............................................ > > > > > 3707. 2009-07-30 18:41:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: Virginia Burkett , Thomas C Peterson , Michael Wehner , Karl Taylor , peter gleckler , "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , "'Philip D. Jones'" , carl mears , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:41:44 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]] to: "Thomas R. Karl" Dear Tom, Thanks for forwarding the message from John Christy. Excuse me for being so blunt, but John's message is just a load of utter garbage. I got a laugh out of John's claim that Santer et al. (2008) was "poorly done". This was kind of ironic coming from a co-author of the Douglass et al. (2007) paper, which used a fundamentally flawed statistical test to compare modeled and observed tropospheric temperature trends. To my knowledge, John has NEVER acknowledged that Douglass et al. used a flawed statistical test to reach incorrect conclusions - despite unequivocal evidence from the "synthetic data" experiments in Santer et al. (2008) that the Douglass et al. "robust consistency" test was simply wrong. Unbelievably, Christy continues to assert that the results of Douglass et al. (2007) "still stand". I can only shake my head in amazement at such intellectual dishonesty. I guess the best form of defense is a "robust" attack. So how does John support his contention that Santer et al. (2008) was "poorly done"? He begins by stating that: "Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there". Maybe you or Tom Peterson or Dick Reynolds can enlighten me on this one. How exactly have NOAA ERSST surface data changed? Recall that Santer et al. (2008) actually used two different versions of the ERSST data (version 2 and version 3). We also used HadISST sea-surface temperature data, and combined SSTs and land 2m temperature data from HadCRUT3v. In other words, we used four different observational estimates of surface temperature changes. Our bottom-line conclusion (no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed lower-tropospheric lapse-rate trends) was not sensitive to our choice of observed surface temperature dataset. John next assets that: "Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 (of the radiosonde data) are clearly spurious due to the error in ECMWF as published many places". I'll let Leo Haimberger respond to that one. And if v1.2 of Leo's data is "clearly spurious", why did John Christy agree to be a co-author on the Douglass et al. paper which uses upper-air data from v1.2? Santer et al. (2008) comprehensively examined structural uncertainties in the observed upper-air datasets. They looked at two different satellite and seven different radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change. As in the case of the surface temperature data, getting the statistical test right was much more important (in terms of the bottom-line conclusions) than the choice of observational upper-air dataset. Christy's next criticism of our IJoC paper is even more absurd. He states that: "Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different question...than we did. Our question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data (including RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference. Actually, we asked and answered BOTH of these questions. "Tests with individual model realizations" are described in Section 4.1 of Santer et al. (2008), while Section 4.2 covers "Tests with multi-model ensemble-mean trend". As should be obvious - even to John Christy - we did NOT just compare observations with results from individual models. For both types of test ("individual model" and "multi-model average"), we found that, if one applied appropriate statistical tests (which Douglass et al. failed to do), there was no longer a serious discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates or in tropical tropospheric temperatures. Again, I find myself shaking my head in amazement. How can John make such patently false claims about our paper? The kindest interpretation is that he is a complete idiot, and has not even bothered to read Santer et al. (2008) before making erroneous criticisms of it. The less kind interpretation is that he is deliberately lying. A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the errors he or she commits (such as applying an inappropriate statistical test). John Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the "gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science. I hope you don't mind, Tom, but I'm copying this email to some of the other co-authors of the Santer et al. (2008) IJoC paper. They deserve to know about the kind of disinformation Christy is spreading. With best regards, Ben Thomas R. Karl wrote: > FYI > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter] > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:22 -0500 > From: John Christy > To: Thomas C Peterson > CC: Thomas R Karl > References: <4A534CF9.9080700@noaa.gov> > > > > Tom: > > I've been on a heavy travel schedule and just now getting to emails I've > delayed. I was in Asheville briefly Thursday for a taping for the CDMP > project at the Biltmore estates (don't know why that was the backdrop) > while traveling between meetings in Chapel Hill, Atlanta and here. > > We disagree on the use of available climate information regarding the > many things related to climate/climate change as I see by your responses > below - that is not unexpected as climate is an ugly, ambiguous, and > complex system studied by a bunch of prima donnas (me included) and > which defies authoritative declarations. I base my views on hard-core, > published literature (some of it mine, but most of it not), so saying > otherwise is not helpful or true. The simple fact is that the opinions > expressed in the CCSP report do not represent the real range of > scientific literature (the IPCC fell into the same trap - so running to > the IPCC's corner doesn't move things forward). > > I think I can boil my objections to the CCSP Impacts report to this one > idea for the SE (and US): The changes in weather variables (measured in > a systematic settings) of the past 30 years are within the range of > natural variability. That's the statement that should have been front > and center of this whole document because it is > mathematically/scientifically defensible. And, it carries more weight > with planners so you can say to them, "If it happened before, it will > happen again - so get ready now." By the way, my State Climatologist > response to the CCSP was well-received by legislators and stakeholders > (including many in the federal government) and still gets hits at > http://*vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/. > > There also was a page or so on the tropical troposphere-surface issue > that I didn't talk about on my response. It was wrong because it did > not include all the latest research (i.e. since 2006) on the continuing > and significant difference between the two trends. Someone was acting > as a fierce gatekeeper on that one - citing only things that agreed with > the opinion shown even if poorly done (e.g. Santer et al. 2008 used > ERSST data which I understand has now been changed in a way that > discredits the conclusion there, and Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 are clearly > spurious due to the error in ECMWF as published many places, but > analyzed in detail in Sakamoto and Christy 2009). The results of > Douglass et al. 2007 (not cited by CCSP) still stand since Santer et al. > 2008 asked a very different question (and used bad data to boot) than we > did. Our question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best > Data (including RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC > model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference. > The fact my 2007 tropical paper (the follow-on papers in 2009 were > probably too late, but they substantiate the 2007 paper) was not cited > indicates how biased this section was. Christy et al. 2007 assessed the > accuracy of the datasets (Santer et al. did not - they assumed all > datasets were equal without looking at the published problems) and we > came up with a result that defied the "consensus" of the CCSP report - > so, it was doomed to not be mentioned since it would disrupt the > storyline. (And, as soon as RSS fixes their spurious jump in 1992, our > MSU datasets will be almost indistinguishable.) > > This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the > consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The > government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest > brokers of information. That is a real tragedy, because when someone > becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a gatekeeper - and > begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus scientists are just nuts > (... it's more comfortable that way rather than giving them credit for > being skeptical in the face of a paradigm). > > Take care. > > John C. > > p.s. a few quick notes are interspersed below. > > > Thomas C Peterson wrote: >> Hi, John, >> I didn't want this to catch you by surprise. >> Tom >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: concerns about the Southeast chapter >> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:45 -0400 >> From: Thomas C Peterson >> To: jim.obrien@coaps.fsu.edu >> CC: Tom Karl >> >> >> >> Dear Jim, >> >> >> First off and most importantly, congratulations on your recent >> marriage. Anthony said it was the most touching wedding he has ever >> been to. I wish you and your bride all the best. >> >> Thank you for your comments and for passing on John Christy's detailed >> concerns about the Southeast chapter of our report, /Global Climate >> Change Impacts in the United States/. Please let me respond to the key >> points he raised. >> >> In Dr. John Christy's June 23, 2009 document "Alabama climatologist >> responds to U.S. government report on regional impacts of global >> climate change", he primarily focused on 4 prime concerns: >> >> 1. Assessing changes since 1970. >> >> 2. Statements on hurricanes. >> >> 3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section). >> >> 4. Using models to assess the future. >> >> >> >> /1. Assessing changes since 1970./ >> >> The Southeast section has 5 figures and one table. One figure is on >> changes in precipitation patterns from 1901-2007. The next figure is >> on patterns of days per year over 90F with two maps, one 1961-1979, >> the other 2080-2099. One figure is on the change in freezing days per >> year, 1976-2007. The next figure is on changes to a barrier island >> land from 2002 to 2005. And the last figure was on Sea Surface >> Temperature from 1900 to the present. The table indicates trends in >> temperature and precipitation over two periods, 1901-2008 and >> 1970-2008. As Dr. Christy indicates in his paper, the full period and >> the period since 1970 are behaving differently. To help explain this, >> the table shows them both. Of the 5 figures, only one shows the >> changes over this shorter period. >> >> Since, as the IPCC has indicated, the human impact on climate isn't >> distinguishable from natural variability until about 1950, describing >> the changes experienced in the majority of the time since 1950 would >> be a more logical link to future anthropogenic climate change. In >> most of the report, maps have shown the changes over the last 50 >> years. Because of the distinct behavior of time series of >> precipitation and temperature in the Southeast, discussing the period >> since 1970 seemed more appropriate. Though as the figures and table >> indicate, this shorter period is not the sole or even major focus. > > See crux of the matter in email above - looking at the whole time series > is demanded by science. Any 30 or 50-year period will give changes - > blaming the most recent on humans ignores the similar (or even more > rapid) changes that occurred before industrialization (e.g. western > drought in 12th century). The period since 1970 WAS the major focus in > the SE section (mentioned 6 times in two pages). And, OF COURSE any > 30-year sub-period will have different characteristics than the 100-year > population from which it is extracted ... that doesn't prove anything. >> >> >> >> /2. Statements on hurricanes./ >> >> Dr. Christy takes issue with the report's statements about hurricanes >> and quotes a line from the report and quotes an individual hurricane >> expert who says that he disagrees with the conclusions. The line in >> the report that Dr. Christy quotes comes almost word for word out of >> CCSP SAP 3.3. While individual scientists may disagree with the >> report's conclusions, this conclusion came directly out of the >> peer-reviewed literature and assessments. Dr. Christy also complains >> that "the report did not include a plot of the actual hurricane >> landfalls". However, the section in the Southeast chapter discussing >> landfalling hurricanes states "see /National Climate Change/ section >> for a discussion of past trends and future projections" and sure >> enough on page 35 there is a figure showing land falling hurricanes >> along with a more in depth discussion of hurricanes. >> > You didn't read my State Climatologist response carefully - I mentioned > page 35 and noted again it talked about the most recent decades (and > even then, the graph still didn't go back to 1850). This hurricane > storyline was hit hard by many scientists - hence is further evidence > the report was generated by a gatekeeper mentality. >> >> >> /3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section)./ >> >> Moving out of the Southeast, Dr. Christy complains about one figure in >> the Energy Chapter. Citing a climate skeptic's blog which cites an >> individual described as the keeper of the data for the Energy >> Information Administration (EIA), John writes that the rise in weather >> related outages is largely a function of better reporting. Yet the >> insert of weather versus non-weather-related outages shows a much >> greater increase in weather-related outages than non-weather-related >> outages. If all the increases were solely due to better reporting, >> the differences between weather- and non-weather-related outages would >> indicate a dramatic decrease over this time period in non-weather >> related problems such as transmission equipment failures, earthquakes, >> faults in line, faults at substations, relaying malfunctions, and >> vandalism. >> >> Thanks to the efforts of EIA, after they took over the responsibility >> of running the Department of Energy (DOE) data-collection process >> around 1997, data collection became more effective. Efforts were made >> in subsequent years to increase the response rate and upgrade the >> reporting form. It was not until EIA's improvement of the data >> collection that the important decoupling of weather- and >> non-weather-related events (and a corresponding increase in the >> proportion of all events due to weather extremes) became visible. >> >> To adjust for potential response-rate biases, we have separated >> weather- and non-weather-related trends into indices and found an >> upward trend only in the weather-related time series. >> >> As confirmed by EIA, *if there were a systematic bias one would expect >> it to be reflected in both data series (especially since any given >> reporting site would report both types of events).* >> >> As an additional precaution, we focused on trends in the number of >> events (rather than customers affected) to avoid fortuitous >> differences caused by the population density where events occur. This, >> however, has the effect of understating the weather impacts because of >> EIA definitions (see survey methodology notes below). >> >> More details are available at: >> http://*eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/grid-disruptions.html > > The data were not systematically taken and should not have been shown > .. basic rule of climate. >> >> >> >> /4. Using models to assess the future./ >> >> Can anyone say anything about the future of the Southeast's climate? >> Evidently according to John Christy, the answer is no. The basic >> physics of the greenhouse effect and why increasing greenhouse gases >> are warming and should be expected to continue to warm the planet are >> well known and explained in the /Global Climate Change/ section of the >> report. Climate models are used around the world to both diagnose the >> observed changes in climate and to provide projections for the >> future. There is a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, including a >> large number of peer-reviewed climate change assessments, supporting >> this use. But in Dr. Christy's "view," models should not be used for >> projections of the future, especially for the Southeast. The report >> based, and indeed must base, its results on the huge body of >> peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than the view of one >> individual scientist. > > No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting. > Modelers write and review their own literature - there are millions of > dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect? > Publication volume shouldn't impress anyone. The simple fact is we > demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the actual > trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the envelop of > model predictions ... no one has disputed that finding with an > alternative analysis - even when presented before congressional hearings > where the opportunity for disagreement was openly available. >> >> I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tom Peterson >> >> >> > > > -- > ************************************************************ > John R. Christy > Director, Earth System Science Center voice: 256-961-7763 > Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: 256-961-7751 > Alabama State Climatologist > University of Alabama in Huntsville > http://*www.*nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html > > Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville AL 35899 > Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805 > > > > -- > > *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* > > Director, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center > > Lead, NOAA Climate Services > > 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1493. 2009-07-30 22:26:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Grant Foster" , "J. Salinger" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "James Annan" , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz, "Gavin Schmidt" , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:26:32 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: trenbert@ucar.edu folks, I was thinking exactly the same thing. the problems are so unusually fundamental and obvious, as we lay them out, that it does immediately call into suspicion the integrity of the review process. We probably need to take this directly to the chief editor at JGR, asking that this not be handled by the editor who presided over the original paper, as this would represent a conflict of interest. if we are told that is not possible, then we would at least want the chief editor himself to closely monitor the handling of the paper. I too am happy to sign of at this point, mike On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: You have a go from me. By all means clean up. I think you should argue that it should be expedited for the reasons of interest by the press. Key question is who was the editor who handled the original, because this is an implicit criticism of that person. May need to point this out and ensure that someone else handles it. Thanks Kevin Gentlemen, I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor changes myself. Here's the latest version. Enjoy! Sincerely, Grant _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. [1]http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009 ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 3750. 2009-07-31 03:07:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: "J. Salinger" , Gavin Schmidt , James Annan , , date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:07:20 +0000 from: Grant Foster subject: RE: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: , Mike Mann , Gentlemen, I agree that it should be brought to the attention of the chief editor, and should not be reviewed by the same editor who approved MFC09. It's best if someone else drafts the cover letter. Does anyone know the chief editor? Although I favor extremely rapid submission, I oppose either submission or circulation to other parties until we've taken at least a few days to let our thoughts "settle." I suggest that Monday is the earliest we should consider making this available. However, I don't know how critical the political situation is in the southern hemisphere, so I'm open to persuasion. At the very least, we need everyone's explicit consent to co-authorship and everybody's affiliation information, before releasing any document to anybody. As for the constants in MFC09 eqs. (1) and (2), let me check the standard errors for those estimates. If they're plus or minus so much as to make them meaningless, we might not want to raise the issue of their implication in terms of a warming trend. If I recall correctly, when I considered the properties of the MFC09 filter I determined that the average value of the filtered time series depends only on the first and last 12 data values for monthly time series (UAHTMT) and the first and last 4 data values for quarterly (RATPAC-A) -- this could imply very large uncertainty in the estimated constant from regression analysis. As eager as I am to strike while iron is hot, let's not be hasty. Sincerely, Grant ______________________________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive: Store, access, and share your photos. [1]See how. 3021. 2009-07-31 10:19:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:19:26 +0100 from: mike@tuppambr.demon.co.uk subject: A couple of questions to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dr. Jones I apologise for this intrusion! Im sure you are aware of the drivel posted on climateaudit http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6654#comments and wattsupwiththat http://wattsupwiththat.com/ I have posted there under the name of thefordprefect. For a year or so. A bit of background so you can confirm my name. About 2 years ago I was involved with some robust exchanges on a financial BB (ADVFN) and have been taken to court for defamation - the first judgement (now unfortunately appealed!) is here (my name is Tuppen) http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html&query=advfn&method=all I can post on ADVFN or climateaudit under my pseudonym of thefordprefect to prove my credentials. I find the current exchange on climateaudit to be very childish and have said so many times. In doing so I have apparently backed your actions and put my interpretation on your statements. I was therefore hoping that you could reply to these questions. I will if you agree quote your responses (you may also give an off the record response which will never leave my computer (please make it obvious which is available for publication!). 1. In this statement: I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. Is I have suggested you are refusing to give IPR info to others and have used a bit of humour with the 25 years or so part Is this an incorrect interpretation on my part? 2. Do you actually have agreements available for some of the data that prevents release to non academics? Are these paper or email. Since the CRU has been around from the late 80s when the anti AGW were not in existence and data was not being questioned I can understand that these may have been verbal or lost in moves of location. 3. I understand that upward of 200 FOI requests have been made on the CRU the attack being instigated and directed by wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. Do you know the cost to the CRU of processing such a FOI claim? Whilst I can understand your reluctance to speak on such Blogs I am very concerned that they are actually affecting the populaces belief in GW. If you repeat the same crud often enough it eventually gets copied to other blogs and so on. By the way I have pointed them to this document http://eca.knmi.nl/documents/ECAD_report_2008.pdf Which states that some data is unavailable because of IP agreements with the sources (i.e. they have the same problenm as you) it has been ignored of course! Thanks Mike Tuppen (aka thefordprefect) 5267. 2009-07-31 11:32:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 31 11:32:00 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FTP server to: CRU Computing Support Hi Mike, in looking further afield than just my files, I see some other files that are no longer needed. Please can you delete: [1]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/craigwallace/ folder and its content (an old word doc) as I know these aren't needed any more. I'd also guess that [2]ftp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/people/davidviner/ folder and its contents can go (files all dated >8 years ago). Effie's folder is also empty. mickkelly contains only holiday snaps! Cheers Tim At 10:10 31/07/2009, you wrote: Dear all, After the recent problems with ClimateAudit, Phil has asked for all unnecessary files to be purged from the FTP server. You have a directory in /cru/ftp1/people. Please could you take a look to see what files need to remain there? If you would like assistance with this, let me know. Please confirm by email when you've done it, so I can cross you off the list. thanks Mike 4232. 2009-07-31 14:18:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:18:02 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Tomorrow's EDP to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk FYI - might be worth looking at tomorrow's EDP Ian McEwan's next novel will be on climate change deniers Phil From: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:51:13 +0100 Subject: Today's EDP Thread-Topic: Today's EDP Thread-Index: AcoR1TRLi82IJwxgT0GHSJYUs5Da1g== Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2009 11:51:15.0082 (UTC) FILETIME=[35253EA0:01CA11D5] On a lighter note, nice interview with Ian McEwan in today's EDP which you might find interesting. His latest book, Solar, is about climate change. Here's the taster: [1]http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tB rand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202009%2013%3A16%3A23%3A913 Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [2]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1179. 2009-07-31 15:25:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 31 15:25:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: statement to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, Will make that mod. Yes Davis a good idea and Fiona. A comment on that bad paper will go off early next week. Have a good weekend. Cheers Phil At 15:08 31/07/2009, Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) wrote: I think this is good to go to our respective non-scientific FOI officers. I could also pass by David Parker's nose as he is always good at picking things or Fiona Carroll who has a comms to public hat on. On page 2 I think you mean "In developing gridded temperature datasets it is important to use as much station [1]data [as possible] to fully characterise ...". Otherwise no further changes to suggest right now. I will forward this on to Marion and await your guidance ref any further distribution. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [2]http://www.hadobs.org ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 31 July 2009 15:00 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: statement Peter, Think we are nearly there. Have to say third parties as that is what the agreements or our letters say. Let me know if this is OK. If so pass onto Marion. On WMO Res 40 - I could add that NMSs get around this by saying that it only applies to real-time data and not necessarily to data in an NMS digital archive. Hope you like the bit about KNMI, GPCC and the ETCCDI workshops. No one has responded to the Guardian blog piece. [4]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jul/30/microsoft-yahoo-climate-data-li cence-tv This leads to a piece by Monbiot berating skeptics. Maybe there is a reason to buy the EDP - well tomorrow anyway! [5]http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tB rand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202009%2013%3A16%3A23%3A913 Might lead to a film of the book - just like Atonement..... can't see the role for Keira Knightly. Cheers Phil At 14:06 31/07/2009, you wrote: Here's a new version. Again, I added comments rather than making direct edits. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [6]http://www.hadobs.org -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [ [7]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 31 July 2009 12:48 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: statement Peter, Have a look through this. Getting bounces on earlier emails today. I've sent you 3 earlier today - one with stuff in about Keith. FOI person away here today. Good if we can get this text agreed by Monday. Cheers Phil At 08:40 31/07/2009, you wrote: >I forgot to ask. How is Keith? > > >-- >Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, >FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [8]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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3364. 2009-08-04 10:39:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:39:03 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: EIR requests for CRUTEM data - Additional exception? to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Folks, I am working on draft responses to the array of requests and will provide copies in the near future for your review. I have noted that one of the grounds that the Met Office used to reject a request for the data provided to them by Phil was Regulation 12(5)(a), adverse effect on international relations. Their reasoning is as follows: Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a) Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided. We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed. I wonder if it would be wise for us to cite the same exception under EIR in order to both bolster the Met Office case and our own in regards requests for either all the data CRU has, or for the subset that he provided to Georgia Tech? This also provides a route to raise the argument regarding academic freedom and the need for academics to be able to conduct discussions and the need to share information in order to do so. I am not sure whether the ICO will see any merit in this argument but I doubt they would consider it if we don't raise it..... Cheers, Dave ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 5101. 2009-08-05 10:26:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Wed Aug 5 10:26:43 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: just a thought to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Jonathan, Here's the link. Also one to show you more about Christopher Booker. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records- are-a-state-secret.html [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker Making the data available involves writing to a lot more people than just the Met Office. We can start this soon, but we need to give the Met Services time to reply. We're also working on a newer version with more data in it, so would be best if this version got released and not the current one. Cheers Phil At 08:25 05/08/2009, Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) wrote: Dear Annie, I must admit I had not really appreciated the point that CRU / The Met Office plan to make the full data available next year and agree with your assessment that it would make sense to try and bring this forward if at all possible and avoid the publicity. I am not certain what this would involve, is it as simple as writing to the Met Office and requesting permission? It would be useful to know if there are any other reasons why the release of the data could not be brought forward. Incidentally, I missed the piece in the Telegraph, is there a link you could post? With regards, Jonathan _____________________________________________ From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:37 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Preece Alan Mr (MAC) Subject: just a thought Dear all, I spoke to the Met Office press office yesterday about whether to respond to a piece in the Telegraph. As I have since discussed with Phil, we were both of the same opinion - that it was better to let it lie. As previously discussed, if we are actually contacted by the press for a comment, our line would be based on the text now on the CRU website (see below). Just a thought - if we are hoping to get permission from met services so the raw data can be published in 2010, can we not just expedite this and avoid a lot of unwanted negative publicity? Best, Annie The Climatic Research Unit has made available full gridded datasets of surface temperature data and averages since 1982 (on its website since the late 1990s). These datasets have been compiled from data acquired from weather stations around the world, courtesy of Meteorological agencies such as the UK's own Met Office. Some of these organisations give us this information on the understanding that it is used solely for the compilation of our gridded datasets and may only be used with the full permission of the relevant agency. We receive numerous requests for the raw data provided to us. The data are not ours to pass on without the full permission of the relevant Met Services, but we hope in future that we may be able to provide this information, jointly with the Hadley Centre, subject to obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders. ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [3]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 626. 2009-08-05 11:39:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 5 11:39:22 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: desktop backup to: CRU Computing Support Ta At 11:35 04/08/2009, you wrote: Hi Tim, It's gone back to 16 mins today. I upgraded BackupPC last week. My guess is that they've changed the algorithm for incrementals so it effectively did a full backup and then some. Once it did a real "full backup" the new algorithm works properly so incrementals go back to a more manageable size. I'll be doing a further upgrade in a few days, so it may do it again. Fix would be to force a full backup. Mike Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike, my cruto4 (Windows) machine incremental backups seem to have gone from 15-45 minutes previously up to 281 minutes on Wednesday and been running since 10am today and still going! Any idea what's happening? 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 3069. 2009-08-05 11:52:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN)" date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:52:13 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Mee Andrew Mr (CSED)" Folks, The next 'other' request relating the the CRU agreements & data. The first part of the query will be answered in line with the answer given to other requesters for the agreements. In regards the second part, I will need some assistance as noted below 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. Steve, do we have any contracting policy on this? Phil - anything with CRU on responsibilities regarding entering agreements on behalf of CRU? I don't think we wish to state that we don't have any policies or procedures in place, but I'm not sure what to actually put here... 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. Ah, records management rears it's head....We have a general statement on our website regarding our responsibilities for RM but we do lack any overarching records retention schedule or policy - Phil, does CRU have anything in-house? 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. See question 1; same issue here although more likely to have a `nil' response here - consequences of that? 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. We have web guidance that can be referred to, and a brochure that I distribute that could go here.... and a statement regarding the training on offer Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: steven mosher [mailto:moshersteven@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI/EIR request Dear Mr. Palmer: Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics or others 4. a copy of the entire agreement In addition, I hereby request the following information: 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into co nfidentiality agreements. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. I am requesting this information as part of my academic research. Thank you for your attention, Steven M. Mosher 4888. 2009-08-05 12:53:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 5 12:53:51 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Trevor Davies to: Mike Salmon Mike, at the end of the first paragraph of Trevor's page is said he eventually became Reader in 1998. You might want to check with him whether this is a typo (e.g. for 1988)? I'm sure he was already a Prof when he was director of CRU in mid-90s. also, on the CRU PhDs list <[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/> you have Phil Jones as co-supervising McSweeney CF, but it was just me in fact (Phil was member of committee). Tim At 12:06 05/08/2009, you wrote: Dear Board, Trevor Davies office has contacted me to update his CRU webpage [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/davies/ We don't currently list Trevor as a member of CRU [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/ Do we wish to list him? If so, under which (or what) heading? thanks Mike 3500. 2009-08-05 16:14:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: "J. Salinger" , James Annan , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:34 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster Hi all, Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR. We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion. I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling. To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe. So Neville Nicholls and David Parker. All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting. Cheers Phil At 15:50 05/08/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all I went to JGR site to look for index codes, and I see that the offending article has been downloaded 128 times in past week (second). All the mnore reason to get on with it. see below Kevin Grant Foster wrote: Gentlemen, I've completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I hope you can help me with. 1) Keyword Please provide 1 unique keyword global temperatures, statistical methods, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, global warming 2) Index Terms Please provide 3 unique index terms 1600 GLOBAL CHANGE 1616 Climate variability 3309 Climatology 1694 Instruments and techniques 3) Suggested Reviewers to Include Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution). Tom Wigley [1]wigley@ucar.edu NCAR Ben Santer [2] Lawrence Livermore Mike Wallace [3] U Washington [May not be most responsive] Dave Thompson [4] Col State Univ Dave Easterling [5] NCDC Sincerely, Grant ___________________________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [6]Check it out. -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [7]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [8]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2933. 2009-08-05 16:43:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "J. Salinger" , James Annan , , Gavin Schmidt , date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:43:43 +0000 from: Grant Foster subject: RE: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Mike Mann , Gentlemen, We have been submitted. Thanks so much for the assistance. JGR requires 5 suggested reviewers but allows 6, so I went with these: Benjamin D. Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, santer1@llnl.gov Dave Thompson Col State Univ Dave Easterling NOAA's National Climate Data Center Michael Wehner, Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory, MFWehner@lbl.gov Prof David Karoly, University of Melbourne, dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Global Climate Research, KNMI, www.knmi.nl/~oldenbor Attached is the manuscript. Sincerely, Grant ______________________________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail. [1]Try it now. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\656979_0_merged_1249480646.pdf" 856. 2009-08-05 16:58:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 5 16:58:21 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: My earlier comments to: matthew.hume@uea.ac.uk Hi Matt, My comments were tongue in cheek! The agreements that we're talking about are not really confidentiality agreements that you're talking about. Lots are unwritten agreements that we make scientist to scientist. Where there are written agreements they are signed between me (or previous Director's of CRU) with other academic institutions, which were not with their central administration (but again a sub part). CRU doesn't initiate these, but if the other side wants it and it will help us do some work then we go ahead and sign. There is never any obligation on CRU or UEA. They are generally about agreeing to work together on something. The agreements Dave is talking about are ones that relate to us not making climate data available to third parties, which we have got from a National Met Service. FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI. FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:32:05 +0100 Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Thread-Topic: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Thread-Index: AcoVvf08n/gEgJXORxOdPEoiA9w3TgAFFk3wAABnriAAAPaKIAAAOeMg Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 14:32:07.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[82575B10:01CA15D9] Folks, In response to one of Phil's earlier emails regarding any policies regarding entering into confidentiality agreements etc, I sent a query to REE to determine what relevant information they might have... and received the below response to which I have responded as you can see... This does present something of a 'issue' in terms of drafting a response and dealing with any potential follow up request/query regarding our practices in this regard. I wonder if whether said policy was in force at the time the agreements were entered into would be a way around this... the request is for current policies clearly.... I will enquire further with Matt Hume.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:23 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Matt, Thanks very much for this... You have given me a bit of a conundrum on how to respond but we do at least have something to work with.... What policy are you actually quoting from and is it publicly available? As the request was for the entire policy, is there any issue with making the policy publicly available? If the policy in regards confidentiality agreements is within a larger document with unrelated material, I am happy to quote but I do think we will need to provide a proper citation... Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Hi Dave, We all just had a very good laugh at Phil's comment "We do sometime ignore the Registry advice"... If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you suggest, I would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1. The UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality agreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it upon themselves to foul things up! As you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except members of our office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the university - the problem is that funders/other parties can be sneaky by sending the agreement in the name of the academic. Our policy is:- Someone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign all Confidentiality Agreements: only our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the University all agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party requesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school) we will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that may be contentious by doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights (In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement yourself. Such authorisation must always be obtained in advance, will only be valid for a specific instance, and the standard university agreement must be used without amendment - unless we have authorised an amendment) In all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be retained in our office. FYI - we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet pages - there will be a page on CDA's with this info on it. Also, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info on our policy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of our Commercialisation Managers ([1]a.donaldson@uea.ac.uk). Thanks Matt. _________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:47 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Importance: High Matt, Please note Phil Jones' response to question 1 below - would REE have anything that would be relevant to this request? A bit of context - in response to a rejection of a request for data, we have received over 50 requests for agreements, data and a combination thereof in relation to data sets that CRU maintains/holds. This is pretty high profile and has been noted in blogs in the Guardian and Telegraph as well as in the source of all of this (see: [2]http://www.climateaudit.org). Be assure that whatever we state in response to this request is likely to be on the web, shared and very public within hours of sending.... We have a request from another individual exactly the same as below so there will be multiple recipients of the answer we give. Our deadline for a response is 21 August but as I'm on hols commencing 17 August, the 'effective' deadline is 14 August. Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:15 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mee Andrew Mr (CSED) Cc: Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN) Subject: Re: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Dave, A few responses inline Cheers Phil At 11:52 05/08/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Folks, The next 'other' request relating the the CRU agreements & data. The first part of the query will be answered in line with the answer given to other requesters for the agreements. In regards the second part, I will need some assistance as noted below 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. Steve, do we have any contracting policy on this? Phil - anything with CRU on responsibilities regarding entering agreements on behalf of CRU? I don't think we wish to state that we don't have any policies or procedures in place, but I'm not sure what to actually put here... I don't think there is anything - if there is I've never seen it. People in CRU (not just me) enter into agreements about data and/or writing papers and getting involved in projects. UEA signs research contracts for us. UEA employees do the work, but UEA administers the grant. The various agreements that UEA signs may say things about data access, but it will vary depending on the funding body. Some are more stringent than others. The Registry goes through these. They mostly help the researchers by not letting ourselves sign away any rights and IPR. We do sometime ignore the Registry advice, preferring to fall back on the verbal agreements we have with the funders (their project officer). If we ever have a problem, we probably wouldn't work with them again. This has happened with some scientists I have collaborated with in the past. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. Ah, records management rears its head.We have a general statement on our website regarding our responsibilities for RM but we do lack any overarching records retention schedule or policy Phil, does CRU have anything in-house? CRU has nothing in this regard. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. See question 1; same issue here although more likely to have a nil response here consequences of that? As said in the 2 pager we're working on, we put some of the agreements in the letters we wrote to Met Services requesting data (some of which we paid for). There has been a lot of time and effort gone into making these contacts. It seems as though this counts for nothing. Again - unlikely to be anything. People agree things with other academics at meetings. This is how science works. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. We have web guidance that can be referred to, and a brochure that I distribute that could go here. and a statement regarding the training on offer I'm not sure you want to go down this route! Cheers, Dave _________________________________________________________________________ From: steven mosher [ [4]mailto:moshersteven@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI/EIR request Dear Mr. Palmer: Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics or others 4. a copy of the entire agreement In addition, I hereby request the following information: 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. I am requesting this information as part of my academic research. Thank you for your attention, Steven M. Mosher Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5181. 2009-08-07 09:05:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Aug 7 09:05:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: geoeng to: Tom Wigley , Ben Santer Tom, Ben The best precip dataset to use is from GPCC. [1]http://gpcc.dwd.de Then find the window about GPCC products, which are all gauge-only based products. GPCC rarely write anything up, which annoys Kevin, Aiguo and others. GPCC also can't release the raw precip totals. VASClimO 51-00 is best as the gauges are mostly the same for the whole 50-year period. In a paper almost accepted in JGR where we are comparing ERA-INTERIM (for 1989-2008) we used v.4 of the Full Data Reanalysis. I've attached the paper recently resubmitted - don't pass on! Kevin and Aiguo were 2 of the 3 reviewers. They both wanted the PREC/L dataset added in. It was - in Fig 12 and a Table. Figures 10-12 are the precip ones. These are continental precip averages, so not global land and no ocean estimates. Trenberth and Dai (2007) is where the figure in this Science Perspectives piece comes from (paper attached). It seems to be after SOI subtraction! This SOI extraction is probably better done regionally than as one domain (global land). SOI will cause excess rain in some areas and deficits in others at the same time. Will read the paper over the weekend. Cheers Phil At 02:54 07/08/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Ben, Phil, I think this paper is rubbish. Please comment. Phil -- how well do we know the drop in precip after Pinatubo? What would be the best time series data to use. By the way, when one uses comined mitigation and geoeng, the effect on global precip is the opposite. (Pls ignore this when commenting on the attached.) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2016. 2009-08-07 09:34:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Virginia Burkett , Thomas C Peterson , Michael Wehner , Karl Taylor , peter gleckler , "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , "'Philip D. Jones'" , carl mears , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:34:10 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]] to: "Thomas R. Karl" Dear Tom, I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Some people are accessible to rational scientific debate. They are good Bayesians - when confronted with new scientific information, they are capable of modifying previously-held views. John Christy is not accessible to rational scientific debate. New evidence does not cause him to change his views. He simply claims that the new evidence is wrong. From John's perspective, any datasets in disagreement with UAH-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change constitute "bad data". John is incapable of recognizing and admitting that Douglass et al. used a flawed statistical test to reach incorrect conclusions. He continues to misrepresent the analyses we performed in our response to Douglass et al. I don't see what useful purpose can be served by trying to engage him in reasonable scientific debate. At the Hawaii IPCC meeting in March, John stood up in front of an audience of IPCC Working Group I Lead Authors and attempted to portray himself as a victim of scientific discrimination. He claimed that his "alternative" views on the nature and causes of climate change were being ignored by the mainstream scientific community. This claim is bogus. The "mainstream" scientific community has not ignored the "alternative" views of folks like John Christy. The sad reality is that we've wasted an inordinate amount of time responding to the flawed science and incorrect claims of John and his colleagues. I'm hopeful that I won't have to waste much more time on the "great satellite debate". In my personal opinion, we're already well past the point of diminishing returns on this debate. The point of diminishing returns was reached three years ago, when you overcame great obstacles to lead a fractious bunch of scientists to the successful completion of the first CCSP Report. With best regards, Ben Thomas R. Karl wrote: > Ben, > > Just got to this. I wonder if it would be useful to directly respond to > John, or would this be a time sink? Maybe a cleaned up version of this > is a single reponse? Just thinking out loud. > > Thanks Ben > > P.S. I have no idea what he is talking about regarding ERST. > > > Ben Santer said the following on 7/30/2009 9:41 PM: >> Dear Tom, >> >> Thanks for forwarding the message from John Christy. Excuse me for >> being so blunt, but John's message is just a load of utter garbage. >> >> I got a laugh out of John's claim that Santer et al. (2008) was >> "poorly done". This was kind of ironic coming from a co-author of the >> Douglass et al. (2007) paper, which used a fundamentally flawed >> statistical test to compare modeled and observed tropospheric >> temperature trends. To my knowledge, John has NEVER acknowledged that >> Douglass et al. used a flawed statistical test to reach incorrect >> conclusions - despite unequivocal evidence from the "synthetic data" >> experiments in Santer et al. (2008) that the Douglass et al. "robust >> consistency" test was simply wrong. Unbelievably, Christy continues to >> assert that the results of Douglass et al. (2007) "still stand". I can >> only shake my head in amazement at such intellectual dishonesty. I >> guess the best form of defense is a "robust" attack. >> >> So how does John support his contention that Santer et al. (2008) was >> "poorly done"? He begins by stating that: >> >> "Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been >> changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there". >> >> Maybe you or Tom Peterson or Dick Reynolds can enlighten me on this >> one. How exactly have NOAA ERSST surface data changed? Recall that >> Santer et al. (2008) actually used two different versions of the ERSST >> data (version 2 and version 3). We also used HadISST sea-surface >> temperature data, and combined SSTs and land 2m temperature data from >> HadCRUT3v. In other words, we used four different observational >> estimates of surface temperature changes. Our bottom-line conclusion >> (no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed >> lower-tropospheric lapse-rate trends) was not sensitive to our choice >> of observed surface temperature dataset. >> >> John next assets that: >> >> "Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 (of the radiosonde data) are clearly spurious >> due to the error in ECMWF as published many places". >> >> I'll let Leo Haimberger respond to that one. And if v1.2 of Leo's data >> is "clearly spurious", why did John Christy agree to be a co-author on >> the Douglass et al. paper which uses upper-air data from v1.2? >> >> Santer et al. (2008) comprehensively examined structural uncertainties >> in the observed upper-air datasets. They looked at two different >> satellite and seven different radiosonde-based estimates of >> tropospheric temperature change. As in the case of the surface >> temperature data, getting the statistical test right was much more >> important (in terms of the bottom-line conclusions) than the choice of >> observational upper-air dataset. >> >> Christy's next criticism of our IJoC paper is even more absurd. He >> states that: >> >> "Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different question...than we did. Our >> question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data >> (including RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC >> model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference. >> >> Actually, we asked and answered BOTH of these questions. "Tests with >> individual model realizations" are described in Section 4.1 of Santer >> et al. (2008), while Section 4.2 covers "Tests with multi-model >> ensemble-mean trend". As should be obvious - even to John Christy - we >> did NOT just compare observations with results from individual models. >> >> For both types of test ("individual model" and "multi-model average"), >> we found that, if one applied appropriate statistical tests (which >> Douglass et al. failed to do), there was no longer a serious >> discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse >> rates or in tropical tropospheric temperatures. >> >> Again, I find myself shaking my head in amazement. How can John make >> such patently false claims about our paper? The kindest interpretation >> is that he is a complete idiot, and has not even bothered to read >> Santer et al. (2008) before making erroneous criticisms of it. The >> less kind interpretation is that he is deliberately lying. >> >> A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the errors he or she >> commits (such as applying an inappropriate statistical test). John >> Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure >> willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not >> the "gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science. >> >> I hope you don't mind, Tom, but I'm copying this email to some of the >> other co-authors of the Santer et al. (2008) IJoC paper. They deserve >> to know about the kind of disinformation Christy is spreading. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> Thomas R. Karl wrote: >>> FYI >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter] >>> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:22 -0500 >>> From: John Christy >>> To: Thomas C Peterson >>> CC: Thomas R Karl >>> References: <4A534CF9.9080700@noaa.gov> >>> >>> >>> >>> Tom: >>> >>> I've been on a heavy travel schedule and just now getting to emails >>> I've delayed. I was in Asheville briefly Thursday for a taping for >>> the CDMP project at the Biltmore estates (don't know why that was the >>> backdrop) while traveling between meetings in Chapel Hill, Atlanta >>> and here. >>> >>> We disagree on the use of available climate information regarding the >>> many things related to climate/climate change as I see by your >>> responses below - that is not unexpected as climate is an ugly, >>> ambiguous, and complex system studied by a bunch of prima donnas (me >>> included) and which defies authoritative declarations. I base my >>> views on hard-core, published literature (some of it mine, but most >>> of it not), so saying otherwise is not helpful or true. The simple >>> fact is that the opinions expressed in the CCSP report do not >>> represent the real range of scientific literature (the IPCC fell into >>> the same trap - so running to the IPCC's corner doesn't move things >>> forward). >>> >>> I think I can boil my objections to the CCSP Impacts report to this >>> one idea for the SE (and US): The changes in weather variables >>> (measured in a systematic settings) of the past 30 years are within >>> the range of natural variability. That's the statement that should >>> have been front and center of this whole document because it is >>> mathematically/scientifically defensible. And, it carries more >>> weight with planners so you can say to them, "If it happened before, >>> it will happen again - so get ready now." By the way, my State >>> Climatologist response to the CCSP was well-received by legislators >>> and stakeholders (including many in the federal government) and still >>> gets hits at http://**vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/. >>> >>> There also was a page or so on the tropical troposphere-surface issue >>> that I didn't talk about on my response. It was wrong because it did >>> not include all the latest research (i.e. since 2006) on the >>> continuing and significant difference between the two trends. >>> Someone was acting as a fierce gatekeeper on that one - citing only >>> things that agreed with the opinion shown even if poorly done (e.g. >>> Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been >>> changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there, and >>> Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 are clearly spurious due to the error in ECMWF >>> as published many places, but analyzed in detail in Sakamoto and >>> Christy 2009). The results of Douglass et al. 2007 (not cited by >>> CCSP) still stand since Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different >>> question (and used bad data to boot) than we did. Our question was >>> "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data (including >>> RSS)?" Answer - No. Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC model agree >>> with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference. The fact >>> my 2007 tropical paper (the follow-on papers in 2009 were probably >>> too late, but they substantiate the 2007 paper) was not cited >>> indicates how biased this section was. Christy et al. 2007 assessed >>> the accuracy of the datasets (Santer et al. did not - they assumed >>> all datasets were equal without looking at the published problems) >>> and we came up with a result that defied the "consensus" of the CCSP >>> report - so, it was doomed to not be mentioned since it would disrupt >>> the storyline. (And, as soon as RSS fixes their spurious jump in >>> 1992, our MSU datasets will be almost indistinguishable.) >>> >>> This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the >>> consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The >>> government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than >>> honest brokers of information. That is a real tragedy, because when >>> someone becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a >>> gatekeeper - and begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus >>> scientists are just nuts (... it's more comfortable that way rather >>> than giving them credit for being skeptical in the face of a paradigm). >>> >>> Take care. >>> >>> John C. >>> >>> p.s. a few quick notes are interspersed below. >>> >>> >>> Thomas C Peterson wrote: >>>> Hi, John, >>>> I didn't want this to catch you by surprise. >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: concerns about the Southeast chapter >>>> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:45 -0400 >>>> From: Thomas C Peterson >>>> To: jim.obrien@coaps.fsu.edu >>>> CC: Tom Karl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Jim, >>>> >>>> >>>> First off and most importantly, congratulations on your recent >>>> marriage. Anthony said it was the most touching wedding he has ever >>>> been to. I wish you and your bride all the best. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your comments and for passing on John Christy's >>>> detailed concerns about the Southeast chapter of our report, /Global >>>> Climate Change Impacts in the United States/. Please let me respond >>>> to the key points he raised. >>>> >>>> In Dr. John Christy's June 23, 2009 document "Alabama climatologist >>>> responds to U.S. government report on regional impacts of global >>>> climate change", he primarily focused on 4 prime concerns: >>>> >>>> 1. Assessing changes since 1970. >>>> >>>> 2. Statements on hurricanes. >>>> >>>> 3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section). >>>> >>>> 4. Using models to assess the future. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> /1. Assessing changes since 1970./ >>>> >>>> The Southeast section has 5 figures and one table. One figure is on >>>> changes in precipitation patterns from 1901-2007. The next figure is >>>> on patterns of days per year over 90F with two maps, one 1961-1979, >>>> the other 2080-2099. One figure is on the change in freezing days >>>> per year, 1976-2007. The next figure is on changes to a barrier >>>> island land from 2002 to 2005. And the last figure was on Sea >>>> Surface Temperature from 1900 to the present. The table indicates >>>> trends in temperature and precipitation over two periods, 1901-2008 >>>> and 1970-2008. As Dr. Christy indicates in his paper, the full >>>> period and the period since 1970 are behaving differently. To help >>>> explain this, the table shows them both. Of the 5 figures, only one >>>> shows the changes over this shorter period. >>>> >>>> Since, as the IPCC has indicated, the human impact on climate isn't >>>> distinguishable from natural variability until about 1950, >>>> describing the changes experienced in the majority of the time since >>>> 1950 would be a more logical link to future anthropogenic climate >>>> change. In most of the report, maps have shown the changes over the >>>> last 50 years. Because of the distinct behavior of time series of >>>> precipitation and temperature in the Southeast, discussing the >>>> period since 1970 seemed more appropriate. Though as the figures and >>>> table indicate, this shorter period is not the sole or even major >>>> focus. >>> >>> See crux of the matter in email above - looking at the whole time >>> series is demanded by science. Any 30 or 50-year period will give >>> changes - blaming the most recent on humans ignores the similar (or >>> even more rapid) changes that occurred before industrialization (e.g. >>> western drought in 12th century). The period since 1970 WAS the >>> major focus in the SE section (mentioned 6 times in two pages). And, >>> OF COURSE any 30-year sub-period will have different characteristics >>> than the 100-year population from which it is extracted ... that >>> doesn't prove anything. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> /2. Statements on hurricanes./ >>>> >>>> Dr. Christy takes issue with the report's statements about >>>> hurricanes and quotes a line from the report and quotes an >>>> individual hurricane expert who says that he disagrees with the >>>> conclusions. The line in the report that Dr. Christy quotes comes >>>> almost word for word out of CCSP SAP 3.3. While individual >>>> scientists may disagree with the report's conclusions, this >>>> conclusion came directly out of the peer-reviewed literature and >>>> assessments. Dr. Christy also complains that "the report did not >>>> include a plot of the actual hurricane landfalls". However, the >>>> section in the Southeast chapter discussing landfalling hurricanes >>>> states "see /National Climate Change/ section for a discussion of >>>> past trends and future projections" and sure enough on page 35 there >>>> is a figure showing land falling hurricanes along with a more in >>>> depth discussion of hurricanes. >>>> >>> You didn't read my State Climatologist response carefully - I >>> mentioned page 35 and noted again it talked about the most recent >>> decades (and even then, the graph still didn't go back to 1850). >>> This hurricane storyline was hit hard by many scientists - hence is >>> further evidence the report was generated by a gatekeeper mentality. >>>> >>>> >>>> /3. Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section)./ >>>> >>>> Moving out of the Southeast, Dr. Christy complains about one figure >>>> in the Energy Chapter. Citing a climate skeptic's blog which cites >>>> an individual described as the keeper of the data for the Energy >>>> Information Administration (EIA), John writes that the rise in >>>> weather related outages is largely a function of better reporting. >>>> Yet the insert of weather versus non-weather-related outages shows a >>>> much greater increase in weather-related outages than >>>> non-weather-related outages. If all the increases were solely due >>>> to better reporting, the differences between weather- and >>>> non-weather-related outages would indicate a dramatic decrease over >>>> this time period in non-weather related problems such as >>>> transmission equipment failures, earthquakes, faults in line, faults >>>> at substations, relaying malfunctions, and vandalism. >>>> >>>> Thanks to the efforts of EIA, after they took over the >>>> responsibility of running the Department of Energy (DOE) >>>> data-collection process around 1997, data collection became more >>>> effective. Efforts were made in subsequent years to increase the >>>> response rate and upgrade the reporting form. It was not until EIA's >>>> improvement of the data collection that the important decoupling of >>>> weather- and non-weather-related events (and a corresponding >>>> increase in the proportion of all events due to weather extremes) >>>> became visible. >>>> >>>> To adjust for potential response-rate biases, we have separated >>>> weather- and non-weather-related trends into indices and found an >>>> upward trend only in the weather-related time series. >>>> >>>> As confirmed by EIA, *if there were a systematic bias one would >>>> expect it to be reflected in both data series (especially since any >>>> given reporting site would report both types of events).* >>>> >>>> As an additional precaution, we focused on trends in the number of >>>> events (rather than customers affected) to avoid fortuitous >>>> differences caused by the population density where events occur. >>>> This, however, has the effect of understating the weather impacts >>>> because of EIA definitions (see survey methodology notes below). >>>> >>>> More details are available at: >>>> http://**eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/grid-disruptions.html >>> >>> The data were not systematically taken and should not have been shown >>> .. basic rule of climate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> /4. Using models to assess the future./ >>>> >>>> Can anyone say anything about the future of the Southeast's climate? >>>> Evidently according to John Christy, the answer is no. The basic >>>> physics of the greenhouse effect and why increasing greenhouse gases >>>> are warming and should be expected to continue to warm the planet >>>> are well known and explained in the /Global Climate Change/ section >>>> of the report. Climate models are used around the world to both >>>> diagnose the observed changes in climate and to provide projections >>>> for the future. There is a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, >>>> including a large number of peer-reviewed climate change >>>> assessments, supporting this use. But in Dr. Christy's "view," >>>> models should not be used for projections of the future, especially >>>> for the Southeast. The report based, and indeed must base, its >>>> results on the huge body of peer-reviewed scientific literature >>>> rather than the view of one individual scientist. >>> >>> No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting. >>> Modelers write and review their own literature - there are millions >>> of dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect? >>> Publication volume shouldn't impress anyone. The simple fact is we >>> demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the >>> actual trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the >>> envelop of model predictions ... no one has disputed that finding >>> with an alternative analysis - even when presented before >>> congressional hearings where the opportunity for disagreement was >>> openly available. >>>> >>>> I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Tom Peterson >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ************************************************************ >>> John R. Christy >>> Director, Earth System Science Center voice: 256-961-7763 >>> Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: 256-961-7751 >>> Alabama State Climatologist >>> University of Alabama in Huntsville >>> http://**www.**nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html >>> >>> Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, >>> Huntsville AL 35899 >>> Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* >>> >>> Director, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center >>> >>> Lead, NOAA Climate Services >>> >>> Veach-Baley Federal Building >>> >>> 151 Patton Avenue >>> >>> Asheville, NC 28801-5001 >>> >>> Tel: (828) 271-4476 >>> >>> Fax: (828) 271-4246 >>> >>> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > > *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.* > > Director, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center > > Lead, NOAA Climate Services > > 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 433. 2009-08-07 10:28:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "J. Salinger" , James Annan , , Gavin Schmidt , date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:28:31 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR to: Grant Foster good news Grant, we can trust him to be professional. on a related note, a few folks have expressed concern that the galley-formatting of the article w/out any label such as "submitted to JGR" is a bit misleading. some people think the paper has already gone to press! we should add a clear label such as "sub judice" or "submitted" to any posted and/or circulating version of this, mike p.s. I've already had to correct both Andy Revkin and Joe Romm on this! On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Grant Foster wrote: Greetings, I thought I'd let you all know that Steve Gahn has been assigned as editor for the submission. Sincerely, Grant ______________________________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [1]Check it out. -- Michael E. Mann 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [4]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 2274. 2009-08-07 12:13:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:13:00 +0100 from: "Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)" subject: RE: My earlier comments to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Hi Phil, Yes, I think some kind of disclaimer should be added to all of the Universities staff emails; however, it is a hard thing to ensure that everyone is doing it, as I don't think ITCS have the capability to do something like that. As you can see from my email signature below, REE has a basic form of confidential disclaimer, which as a department we decided was the best thing for us. But I have to admit that the Atkins disclaimer is much more thorough, thanks for letting me see it. Thanks Matt. __________________________________________________________________ Matthew Hume, Patents & Commercialisation Administrator University of East Anglia Tel: 01603 591489 | Fax: 01603 591550 Email: matthew.hume@uea.ac.uk | Web: www.uea.ac.uk/business 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: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:27 AM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: My earlier comments Hi Matt, Thanks for the thoughts. These people don't have logic as their strong suit. If Dave goes down the route you suggest, I think they will come back on UEA for not supervising me properly! There is another FOI/EIR that has gone to the FOI Commissioner. This one is potentially more important as it relates to email correspondence between the authors of a chapter in the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change) Report. I think people shouldn't be able to request my emails just because I happen to work for a government funded University. Perhaps UEA needs a ruling on requests for our emails. Should we all be adding something to our email tails, like some companies do. Here is an example from an email I got earlier today. We are doing a small bit of work for Atkins. 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 and locations around the world can be found at [1]http://www.atkinsglobal.com/terms_and_conditions/index.aspx. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Cheers Phil At 09:24 06/08/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil, My apologies - no offence meant - your comment amused us. I know both you & Dave have been coming under a lot of flack from these people, and I agree the FOI rules are a pain - unfortunately they are rules we have chosen to abide by. Maybe if we charged people for the service of providing this information, which we are within our rights to do if the level of work involved to put the requested info together is such that it inhibits our normal everyday work, then I think we would probably get less people trying to gather this kind of information. Myself, and the REE office, totally support you and your right to protect your research - especially when it is questioned by people who's intentions are so antagonistic and destructive. And I surmised that these people are trying to gather information that you / the university has agreed to keep confidential. Maybe by showing these people that we remove that responsibility for this out of your control - i.e. that you were not the person who signed these agreements; but they were signed on behalf of the University; then they will have to re-think about contesting them? I passed another paragraph onto Dave last night. This is from the employment contracts that all staff agree to when working here: "Members of the ATR/ATS Staff shall not, in connection with any invention, patent, process or manufacture, have authority to make representations on behalf of the University, or to enter into any contract or to be concerned in any transactions on behalf of the University whatsoever without the express consent of the Council." It may or may not be appropriate to answer the question posed; but hopefully Dave will be able to make something with it. If I can be of any more help, please feel free to ask. Regards Matt. _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:58 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Subject: My earlier comments Hi Matt, My comments were tongue in cheek! The agreements that we're talking about are not really confidentiality agreements that you're talking about. Lots are unwritten agreements that we make scientist to scientist. Where there are written agreements they are signed between me (or previous Director's of CRU) with other academic institutions, which were not with their central administration (but again a sub part). CRU doesn't initiate these, but if the other side wants it and it will help us do some work then we go ahead and sign. There is never any obligation on CRU or UEA. They are generally about agreeing to work together on something. The agreements Dave is talking about are ones that relate to us not making climate data available to third parties, which we have got from a National Met Service. FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI. FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:32:05 +0100 Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Thread-Topic: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Thread-Index: AcoVvf08n/gEgJXORxOdPEoiA9w3TgAFFk3wAABnriAAAPaKIAAAOeMg Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 14:32:07.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[82575B10:01CA15D9] Folks, In response to one of Phil's earlier emails regarding any policies regarding entering into confidentiality agreements etc, I sent a query to REE to determine what relevant information they might have... and received the below response to which I have responded as you can see... This does present something of a 'issue' in terms of drafting a response and dealing with any potential follow up request/query regarding our practices in this regard. I wonder if whether said policy was in force at the time the agreements were entered into would be a way around this... the request is for current policies clearly.... I will enquire further with Matt Hume.... Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:23 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Matt, Thanks very much for this... You have given me a bit of a conundrum on how to respond but we do at least have something to work with.... What policy are you actually quoting from and is it publicly available? As the request was for the entire policy, is there any issue with making the policy publicly available? If the policy in regards confidentiality agreements is within a larger document with unrelated material, I am happy to quote but I do think we will need to provide a proper citation... Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Hi Dave, We all just had a very good laugh at Phil's comment "We do sometime ignore the Registry advice"... If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you suggest, I would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1. The UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality agreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it upon themselves to foul things up! As you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except members of our office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the university - the problem is that funders/other parties can be sneaky by sending the agreement in the name of the academic. Our policy is:- Someone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign all Confidentiality Agreements: only our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the University all agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party requesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school) we will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that may be contentious by doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights (In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement yourself. Such authorisation must always be obtained in advance, will only be valid for a specific instance, and the standard university agreement must be used without amendment - unless we have authorised an amendment) In all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be retained in our office. FYI - we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet pages - there will be a page on CDA's with this info on it. Also, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info on our policy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of our Commercialisation Managers ([3]a.donaldson@uea.ac.uk). Thanks Matt. _________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:47 PM To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD) Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD) Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Importance: High Matt, Please note Phil Jones' response to question 1 below - would REE have anything that would be relevant to this request? A bit of context - in response to a rejection of a request for data, we have received over 50 requests for agreements, data and a combination thereof in relation to data sets that CRU maintains/holds. This is pretty high profile and has been noted in blogs in the Guardian and Telegraph as well as in the source of all of this (see: [4]http://www.climateaudit.org ). Be assure that whatever we state in response to this request is likely to be on the web, shared and very public within hours of sending.... We have a request from another individual exactly the same as below so there will be multiple recipients of the answer we give. Our deadline for a response is 21 August but as I'm on hols commencing 17 August, the 'effective' deadline is 14 August. Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [5]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:15 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mee Andrew Mr (CSED) Cc: Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN) Subject: Re: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69] Dave, A few responses inline Cheers Phil At 11:52 05/08/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Folks, The next 'other' request relating the the CRU agreements & data. The first part of the query will be answered in line with the answer given to other requesters for the agreements. In regards the second part, I will need some assistance as noted below 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. Steve, do we have any contracting policy on this? Phil - anything with CRU on responsibilities regarding entering agreements on behalf of CRU? I don't think we wish to state that we don't have any policies or procedures in place, but I'm not sure what to actually put here... I don't think there is anything - if there is I've never seen it. People in CRU (not just me) enter into agreements about data and/or writing papers and getting involved in projects. UEA signs research contracts for us. UEA employees do the work, but UEA administers the grant. The various agreements that UEA signs may say things about data access, but it will vary depending on the funding body. Some are more stringent than others. The Registry goes through these. They mostly help the researchers by not letting ourselves sign away any rights and IPR. We do sometime ignore the Registry advice, preferring to fall back on the verbal agreements we have with the funders (their project officer). If we ever have a problem, we probably wouldn't work with them again. This has happened with some scientists I have collaborated with in the past. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. Ah, records management rears it's head....We have a general statement on our website regarding our responsibilities for RM but we do lack any overarching records retention schedule or policy - Phil, does CRU have anything in-house? CRU has nothing in this regard. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. See question 1; same issue here although more likely to have a `nil' response here - consequences of that? As said in the 2 pager we're working on, we put some of the agreements in the letters we wrote to Met Services requesting data (some of which we paid for). There has been a lot of time and effort gone into making these contacts. It seems as though this counts for nothing. Again - unlikely to be anything. People agree things with other academics at meetings. This is how science works. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. We have web guidance that can be referred to, and a brochure that I distribute that could go here.... and a statement regarding the training on offer I'm not sure you want to go down this route! Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________ From: steven mosher [ [6]mailto:moshersteven@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:16 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI/EIR request Dear Mr. Palmer: Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission of the data to non-academics or others 4. a copy of the entire agreement In addition, I hereby request the following information: 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal agreements. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests. I am requesting this information as part of my academic research. Thank you for your attention, Steven M. Mosher Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 721. 2009-08-07 17:29:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:29:37 +0100 from: Olive Heffernan subject: Re: Piece for CRU web site to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks so much for that. I have one other question: McIntyre claims that you sent data to Peter Webstre at Georgia Tech, but that you would not supply him with the same data. Is that true, and if so, what was the reasoning? Best, Olive On 07/08/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > Here it is. There will be a link to the agreements - which are attached. > Files won't go up with these names. You should recognize one of these > - the data agreement between the Met Office and NERC. > > Met Services appear want to be able to sell data commercially. > As I said some has more value than other types of data. Most > put in clauses separating academic from commercial use. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 280. 2009-08-10 09:50:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 10 09:50:21 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Proposal as it stands -- now I need your help! to: "Stott, Peter" , "claudia tebaldi" , "Myles Allen" , "Knutti Reto" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Daithi Stone" , "Richard Smith" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Doug Nychka" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Tom Knutson" , "Tim Delsole" , "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)" , "Stephen Leroy" , Dear Claudia, Here are a few thoughts as I'm off for a couple of weeks off from Thursday this week. We can go with a proposal that is more of the same - more D&A studies with more variables globally and some getting down to regional scales. My weekend thoughts were that we could structure the proposal a little differently to try and explain more why temperature seems to work well, but variables like precipitation and pressure require GCM and RCM output to be scaled. D&A work began with temperature using monthly gridded datasets at as near to global scales as obs data allows. We've gone down to the daily time scale with precipitation and temperature extremes and also gone down to regional space scales for specific events (like the 2003 European Heat Wave). It is at these regional scales that most people would like to see AGW explanations of recent changes. It is at these finer temporal and spatial scales that we need to emphasize in the proposal - something that is already there in the proposal outline. Reducing the temporal scale to daily limits us due to data availability, except for some long daily series in a few areas. My thought is that we need to try to also explain why AGW runs underestimate things for variables like precipitation and pressure. For precipitation, there are two aspects - the amounts and also the number of raindays. Monthly gridded precipitation datasets have also been developed for raindays, so it's possible to also look at amounts per event. Models probably don't do raindays that well, and there will be issues of comparing point values which are gridded to boxes, while models do these areas directly. There are also issues of what threshold for a rainday to use. It would also be possible to look at how the parameters of say the Gamma Distribution are changing and whether models reproduce these well or not. In CRU, we have gridded PDSI series available and a paper soon to be submitted. This uses a different formulation for the potential evapotranspiration (than the traditional Thornthwaite) but it doesn't seem to make much difference to first few PCs. So, I'm suggesting two work tasks, which would be at both the global land scale and also at the regional land scale. Using D&A with PDSI. There is quite a bit of number crunching here to get Penman PET from GCM and RCM output. It's a bit of a hobby horse of mine to get modellers to output PET, as it is so useful for impacts people. Using D&A with parameters from the precipitation distribution (mainly monthly, but daily would be possible where datasets are good enough). I can sketch out some text for these two, if they are considered useful, and there is a limit of how much text each sub task requires - I guess not much else the proposal would get too long. As for the tasks and sub-tasks already there, I'd like to be involved in the one numbered 1.4 and also the one with Gabi on regional variability over the last millennium (which is probably just Europe and North America). 1.4 requires these noise-reduction techniques (taking out ENSO, volcanoes and circulation influences a la Dave Thompson) to be applied to GCMs as well. Worth trying at the global and hemispheric scale first. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to go down the operational D&A route, but we do try and need to explain why temperature works well on all space and temporal scales but precip and pressure require considerable scaling. I've no ideas on what to do about pressure. Cheers Phil At 11:46 04/08/2009, Stott, Peter wrote: Dear Claudia, I'm off on vacation tomorrow and therefore somewhat stretched for a very considered response from me - sorry - but the items I have my name against look fine to me. There are a couple of items I couldn't find which we could offer something up if we think appropriate - attribution of ocean changes including temperature, salinity and sea level rise to include new datasets, model analyses and methodologies (could include Ben, Tim, Peter, ...) to answer questions such as can we close sea level budget, can we better determine planetary radiative imbalance ... - hydrological cycle changes using new techniques, datasets (eg salinity in addition to ocean analyses if we can use them), models etc to attribute greenhouse gas and aerosols on hydrological cycle changes and determine whether (as has been suggested) models generally underestimate observed hydrological cycle changes, both means and extremes (could include Myles, Peter, Francis ? ...) I liked the "Critical review of methods used for proposed operational attribution programmes." bullet. I think it would be good if IDAG could provide an assessment of proposed methodologies and what would need to be done/satisfied for output to be reliable, robust and timely. Along these lines we have planned a BAMS paper which I was in line to lead. This might takes us a bit of the way if we can get the people involved in this development actively engaged in such a paper. Right now a many-author many-viewpoint BAMS paper sounds a bit of a daunting prospect but maybe it will seem more achievable after a break. Finally I've attached the WIRE article I submitted yesterday by Stott, Gillett, Hegerl, Karoly, Stone, Zhang, Zwiers (form some reason the submission page only allowed me to enter 2 names in the relevant field, hence only the first two appear on the covering page). This is one of IDAG's paper deliverables I think (?). All the best with getting the proposal off, 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 [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com [[2]mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] On Behalf Of claudia tebaldi Sent: 31 July 2009 19:51 To: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Gabi Hegerl; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca Subject: Proposal as it stands -- now I need your help! Dear all please find attached the current version of the IDAG proposal. Please disregard the format of the reference list for now, I'm going to work on the cosmetics later (but feel free to add to that as you see fit). I wish I knew exactly when the deadline for submitting this was, but meanwhile, could I ask you for some specific input and some more general feedback at your earliest convenience, and please *****no later than August 20th?***** Here at first is a specific list : 1) Those of you in charge of the specific tasks that were highlighted at the meeting (you know who you are) could you please look at the task/subtask list and clean it up/flesh it out/make it a little more coherent? Add or take out as you see fit! 2) All of you: could you sign up for specific subtasks and give me an idea of a 3-yr timeline for these activities that you would like to follow? Please iterate with the heads of the task for this if you need to work something out... 3) All of you fully funded, please send me a brief bio-sketch -- and whatever you gave Gabi in the past in terms of financial information for the funds you need, could you please send it on to me, updated? Then a more general list: I would REALLY REALLY appreciate it if you all read the 'thing' and made comments/added/corrected as you see fit (of course with track changes on!). I rather have too much and work on shedding than have gaping holes in this narrative. Everybody that recognizes his/her work in the Scientific background section: would you please paste in a figure (and a description) to make this think less black and white? I hope this is not too much to ask on this fairly short timeline, I really need some help here at this point. And help means both addition to and refurbishing of what's in there but also checks and, by all means, corrections. Thank you very much in advance, and please let me have something within the deadline!!! Hope you are all having a good summer (and this does not spoil it!) best to all claudia -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central [3]http://www.climatecentral.org currently visiting Stanford University, Department of Statistics tel. 650 796 6974 cell 303 775 5365 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1405. 2009-08-10 12:19:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:19:50 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Agreement to: "Phil Jones" Thanks. Is the page going up linked off of the front page or buried? And is there anything associated from UEA press? Just so I know whether to alert our press office here (when they aren't having a bbq or defending bonuses). -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 10 August 2009 12:09 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Re: Agreement Peter, I cleared out more stuff on Friday, so my room looks better, but I still didn't find anything. I have found the attached looking through files in the My Documents directory. I don't have many from this time. It is probably chance that this one survived. By the way - the new web page is going up at 4pm on Tuesday (tomorrow). I saw Simon's email. So here goes: CRU and the HC had a memorandum of understanding in the 1980s and 1990s when Tom Wigley was in charge at CRU. I can't recall who signed this at the HC end, but it was invoked by Chris Folland. I can't find this one either. Later in about 2002 or early 2003 we started another agreement. This related to joint work on the gridded temperature dataset. In this we agreed that the month-to-month running of the programs would take place at the HC. This work led to the paper Brohan et al (2006) and has continued since that time. CRU merges additional temperature data that are received and sends this down at annual intervals. We've not done this for at least a couple of years though. In searching through my room, I did come across some emails (hard copies) from 2002 (8 July) Here is what the email said about Collaboration and Ownership this was an email from David Parker Phil, if we do this, will you be happy for us to send you the global and hemispheric time series as well as the gridded land and blended files (HadCRUT, HadCRUTv, CRUTEM2 and CRUTEM2v)? Then we will all have the same numbers when DEFRA and the BBC come knocking. We also nee to sort out some form of licensing agreement regarding ownership of the products. Peter has some time allocated during his visit to discuss these things with you if you need. I replied We can come up with an agreement re ownership, but do we need a licensing agreement. I would propose only releasing the four latest versions you list (HadCRUT2, HadCRUT2v, CRUTEM2 and CRUTEM2v). In the latest paper on the land datasets, I'm proposing to put them all on the CRU site. Still thinking about he raw station dataset. The paper here is Jones and Moberg (2003). The issue about the raw data at the time was that GHCN had stopped most European countries from gaining access. The email goes on about proper branding and says actions await Simon's return in 2 weeks time. Cheers Phil At 11:20 10/08/2009, you wrote: Phil, did you have any luck finding an agreement? If not then Marion has asked for your recounting by email. Several at this end have independently provided their recollections too. She will then assess with legal whether we can support a verbal contract route in response to Mr. McIntyre's request. Thanks Peter -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5250. 2009-08-10 14:18:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:18:38 +0100 from: Olive Heffernan subject: Re: Piece for CRU web site to: "P.Jones@uea.ac.uk" Hi Phil, Ok, thanks for clarifying that. When will the url to the agreements go online? Best Olive On 09/08/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Olive, > I did send some of the data to a person working > with Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. The email wasn't to > PW, but he was in the CC list. I don't know how > McIntyre found out, but I thought this was a personal > email. This was one of the first times I'd sent > some data to a fellow scientist who wasn't at the > Hadley Centre. As I said I have taken pity on African > and Asian PhD students who wanted some temperature and precipitation > data for their country. The email has only gotten me grief, > so this is another reason for being much less helpful to > people emailing CRU. This goes against my nature, but > I've been driven to it. You'd better not say this, otherwise > McIntyre will request the emails where to prove I've been > unhelpful! > > I should have just said to the GA person - use GHCN, like I do to > everyone else. > > I also don't see why I should help people, I don't want to work > with and who spend most of their time critisising me. > > Years ago I did send much paleo data to McIntyre but have also > had nothing but criticism on his blog ever since. As I said, > this criticism on blog sites is not the way to do science. > If they want to engage, they have to converse in civil tones, > and if people don't want to work with them, they have to respect > that and live with it. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Hi Phil, > > > > Thanks so much for that. I have one other question: McIntyre claims > > that you sent data to Peter Webstre at Georgia Tech, but that you > > would not supply him with the same data. Is that true, and if so, what > > was the reasoning? > > > > Best, > > Olive > > > > > > > > On 07/08/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Here it is. There will be a link to the agreements - which are > >> attached. > >> Files won't go up with these names. You should recognize one of these > >> - the data agreement between the Met Office and NERC. > >> > >> Met Services appear want to be able to sell data commercially. > >> As I said some has more value than other types of data. Most > >> put in clauses separating academic from commercial use. > >> > >> 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 > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > 2711. 2009-08-10 15:27:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Catherine Bass date: Mon Aug 10 15:27:37 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Proposed structure for Consortium Bid to: Rob Wilson , Chris Turney Chris et al, Rob's response got me thinking. I've just emailed a review paper from the Holocene. I think most of the others in the group have seen this, let me know if not? Some aspects of the consortium bid could follow up on the recommendations from the final section of this review. This was a PAGES funded meeting, so presumably has some clout in reviewer eyes? I agree it's difficult to be specific at this stage about what resources we're going to need. We need to have some idea of whether the modelling runs need to be costed somehow, and how much extra fieldwork we'll be doing. The review paper indicates that it is extra proxies in the SH and tropics that are needed. I think we have agreed on the time frame of 1600 onwards. Rob Wilson is aware of an initiative that Ed Cook is moving along with at the moment. This is to develop a set of European drought reconstructions, back as far as possible. This will be of PDSI, as we have a new version of the program (scPDSI - self-calibrating PDSI). Ed is planning to come to CRU next summer for a 6 month period. This will involve putting together all the drought responding trees we have across Europe. This is essentially almost all European trees, so would be useful for the Consortium Bid. For PDSI we'll just be using those that are responsive to drought. So for CRU/UEA the collaborators would be Ed Cook and also Gerard van der Schrier at KNMI, who has got the scPDSI program working. It should be fairly straightforward to get this program going through any GCM output. We have a good group thinking about the issues. We need to somehow emphasize this in the context of the last 400 years and the high-frequency nature of the proxies we'll be using, together with the improved instrumental data. We haven't got everyone in the UK, but I think we have most of those who've looked at model simulations for this period, and those developing high-freq proxy reconstructions. We could easily use reconstructions like that attached along with loads of others to produce spatial reconstructions for Europe - but presumably MILLENNIUM will be doing this. We could also produce spatial reconstructions for large parts of the world, but the world and his wife are trying to do this. Most modelling centres are also doing runs for the last 500 or 1000 years as well, so where does our expertise bring.......? Your analysis tasks seem fine enough. New proxies need to be very focussed and should be ones we really need, being in mind our combined knowledge of what is out there. We can probably do the mid and high lats of the NH quite well already. It is the tropics and SH where we need help and our collaborator's areas should emphasize that, which I think they will do. European instrumental temperatures in summer are going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850), so the mid-lat of the NH reconstructions should reflect this new work which is either in press or submitted. Exactly what modelling runs we're going to do need to be better defined. So, from my perspective, we need to better define the objectives. I can follow c) easily. I know I suggested b) but we're going to need a good example of where this might be possible in practice. I guess it's going to come through a) but it's not that clear in my mind how this will be achieved? I can't see how better proxy reconstructions are going to help constrain the models with the carbon cycle feedbacks. This must be related to better forcing histories, but how do we know we have these right? Can we somehow say from proxy/model comparisons that if they don't agree that well that it is down to the forcing, the model physics or the proxy data? If we could reduce the dimensionality of the problem then this might help. Volcanoes are a high-frequency response, so should be doable with shorter time slices. Solar and carbon cycle feedbacks are more low-frequency, so harder to constrain. I seem to floundering a bit. I keep coming back to the long European instrumental records and the wealth or proxy data we have for the continent. We can better test the proxy methods here and we can look at some teleconnections in detail with long records, and follow these through with similar analyses with the models. I hope this is useful - I see you're away in the Arctic till Sept 11. Cheers Phil At 12:28 08/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Chris, Greetings from Germany very brief comments attached. Just by luck I checked my e-mail today but will be out of e-mail contact over the next few days as I will be climbing in the Alps. It is difficult to be specific about what resources I would require without some discussion with others in project and Overseas Collaborators etc. However, one thing that I am currently pushing for in other proposals is funds for my Scottish work (brief mention in attached). This would make a very nice PhD and certainly will result in a TR based summer temperature reconstruction back to ~1600. I would also require funds for maximum density measurements etc etc. beyond that - i.e. taking a larger view, I would like to discuss with Rosanne, Ed and possibly even Dave Frank (Jan Esper is moving to Germany so Dave is probably the best WSL contact) and we could probably identify some significant mid-latitude gaps quite easily and those would be the target regions for new sampling = plus updating some "classic" sites to present. anyway - sorry for rushed e-mail, but like you I have a grumpy wife who thinks I should ignore work when on holiday!! regards to all Rob Chris Turney wrote: Hi everyone, We've worked up the key points that came out of the teleconference last week. Please find attached a suggested structure which we hope justifies a consortium bid. See what you think. Could you send me any comments (including request for resource) by Tuesday next week? If happy, I'll then use this as a basis for a 2 pager which I'll circulate to everyone. If you can give some thought to any resource your institution might be able to commit to the project (PhDs, inkind support etc), even if it's only an aspiration at this stage, that would be most helpful (it might help sweeten the deal when we approach NERC). Please note I'm away on holiday on Sunday but will (unpopularly!) be checking my email so although you'll get an auto reply saying I'm away, I will be in contact. All the best, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS Director of [1]Carbonscape, Fixing carbon the way nature intended Author of [2]Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: [3]www.christurney.com [4]Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Home page: [5]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: [6]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 **************************************************** -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [7]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3497. 2009-08-10 15:48:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 10 15:48:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Piece for CRU web site to: Olive Heffernan Olive, Thanks for sending this. I've added any comments inline. It would seem as though the item might be quite long! I've either said OK, or made some mods in italics. Can you send a link to the final thing - if possible late on Weds? I'm planning to be off at home on Thurs, so won't get to see Nature when it arrives in the post. Cheers Phil At 15:08 10/08/2009, Olive Heffernan wrote: Yes, sorry for the delay. Here they are. I'm not sure how many of these will stay in, but shout asap if you see any problems thanks Olive I initially tried to help him out but it soon became clear that it was a concerted action to waste my time, says Jones, who believes that McIntyre is simply interested in finding holes in the data. OK Ive become markedly less responsive to the public over the past few years as a result of this OK "Ive worked amazingly hard to get the data from people and now Im having this FOI act thrown at me. They appear to me to think its funny to waste my time maybe add .. with all these requests. Might be better to omit the second sentence altogether. Jones, who is on the Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate, which is a part of Global Climate Observing System, set up by the World Meteorological Organization, says that he has been working on trying to enable better access to data for 30 years. Although he agrees that the data should be made publicly available, he says that it needs to be done in a systematic way. And that may take several months, he says, as some nations will likely object if they are hoping to make money from the data. Even in the UK there are limits to making meteorological data available; daily wind, sunshine and precipitation data, for example, are a source of commercial revenue for the Met office. OK - except for the Panel name. It is long winded, I realise that. Part of the problem is that there are so many panels reporting to each other. Were trying to make them all available. Were consulting with all the meteorological services about 150 members of WMO and will ask them if they are happy to release the data. OK Some countries dont even have their own data available as they havent digitized all their records yet. We have done a lot of that ourselves, along with other groups. Just to emphasize that it isn't just CRU that has improved the data that has been digitized. I would like him to produce a global temperature record but he seems to have no interest. Science advances that way. He might then realize how robust the global temperature record is. I'd omit the last sentence about understanding. On 10/08/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > > Olive, > The plan at the moment is 4pm tomorrow. Our FOI person is away from > Thursday as > I am. > > Are you still planning on sending me my quotes? I'm around till 5pm > today. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 14:18 10/08/2009, you wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > > Ok, thanks for clarifying that. When will the url to the agreements go > online? > > > > Best > > Olive > > > > On 09/08/2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > > > Olive, > > > I did send some of the data to a person working > > > with Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. The email wasn't to > > > PW, but he was in the CC list. I don't know how > > > McIntyre found out, but I thought this was a personal > > > email. This was one of the first times I'd sent > > > some data to a fellow scientist who wasn't at the > > > Hadley Centre. As I said I have taken pity on African > > > and Asian PhD students who wanted some temperature and precipitation > > > data for their country. The email has only gotten me grief, > > > so this is another reason for being much less helpful to > > > people emailing CRU. This goes against my nature, but > > > I've been driven to it. You'd better not say this, otherwise > > > McIntyre will request the emails where to prove I've been > > > unhelpful! > > > > > > I should have just said to the GA person - use GHCN, like I do to > > > everyone else. > > > > > > I also don't see why I should help people, I don't want to work > > > with and who spend most of their time critisising me. > > > > > > Years ago I did send much paleo data to McIntyre but have also > > > had nothing but criticism on his blog ever since. As I said, > > > this criticism on blog sites is not the way to do science. > > > If they want to engage, they have to converse in civil tones, > > > and if people don't want to work with them, they have to respect > > > that and live with it. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for that. I have one other question: McIntyre claims > > > > that you sent data to Peter Webstre at Georgia Tech, but that you > > > > would not supply him with the same data. Is that true, and if so, what > > > > was the reasoning? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Olive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/08/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > > > >> Here it is. There will be a link to the agreements - which are > > > >> attached. > > > >> Files won't go up with these names. You should recognize one of > these > > > >> - the data agreement between the Met Office and NERC. > > > >> > > > >> Met Services appear want to be able to sell data commercially. > > > >> As I said some has more value than other types of data. Most > > > >> put in clauses separating academic from commercial use. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers > > > >> > > > >> Phil > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Prof. Phil Jones > > > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > >> University of East Anglia > > > >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > >> NR4 7TJ > > > >> UK > > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 752. 2009-08-12 09:36:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 12 09:36:50 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (FOI_09-77) - to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Dave, He has missed the point. I could have put in loads of the faxes similar to the British Territories one, as all the requests that Mike Hulme and I sent in the mid-1990s included the statement The data will not be used unauthorised for any other project and will not be passed onto any third party. I didn't include all of these as they just say the same thing. I only included those that reiterated this point when they sent us the data. This is stated on the web page we put up yesterday. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested. The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. UEA is not promoting this dataset as a suitable basis for making billion-dollar decisions on what we should do on regarding the 'global warming' supposedly shown by your dataset. This is simply NOT TRUE. I have sent a draft letter that the Met Office will send out to all NMSs to GCOS in Geneva. I have yet to get any email response. I'm not surprised by this as it is August. I don't know when the emails will go out. As I've told you in the past, things work very slowly within the WMO building in Geneva. We have said we will be doing this - isn't this enough!!! Cheers Phil At 08:59 12/08/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Gents, And so it begins again.... This appeal is not unexpected and probably will reflect what the 'public' reaction will be - see lead article in ClimateAudit.org this am. Interestingly, Eschenbach is appealing a case from 2007 that went via Kitty and was rejected. Mr. E. did not then go to the ICO which I think will probably be the only course open to him here and I will have to liaise with Jonathan about the response here (and I will provide the document chain). I think the sooner that we get agreement to release the data from the NMOs, the happier we will all be.... Cheers, Dave PS. I had a chat with the Met Office legal office yesterday and they are maintaining their position regarding confidentiality of information received from CRU - However, you can see that if our case for confidentiality disappears so does theirs - we agreed to keep in contact.... ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Willis Eschenbach [[1]mailto:willis@spo.com.sb] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:07 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); David Keith Palmer Cc: [2]www.ico.gov.uk@ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (FOI_09-77) - Response Dear Mr. Palmer: Thank you for your reply. I previously formally requested you to release the CRUTEM station data, under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04). You said at the time you could not do it because of confidentiality agreements. I formally requested copies of the relevant confidentiality agreements (see below). In response to my latest request, you point to the CRU web page which states inter alia: Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we've moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested. ... We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Call me crazy, but I don't think that "we think we might have made a confidentiality agreement sometime with somebody from somewhere, but we don't know who or where or when" is an adequate excuse to shield data from an FOI request. In addition, the statement: In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. is not true. You only show one single request for data, and that is not even for a foreign country but for British Territories. It is a long way from one request for British data, which was not made to an NMS, to "our requests for data from NMSs have always stated". You have not given one single example of a request to an NMS upon which to base your statement. Science depends on replicability. You are promoting your dataset as a suitable basis for making billion-dollar decisions on what we should do on regarding the "global warming" supposedly shown by your dataset. But under your secrecy policy, your results cannot be replicated. As such, you have two ethical scientific options, and one unethical option: 1. Release the data, or 2. Retract the dataset as being unreplicable anecdotal evidence only. or ... 3. Keep stonewalling. I hereby formally appeal your decision not to supply the CRUTEM station data as requested in my FOI_07-04. "My dog ate the confidentiality agreements" doesn't cut it in the scientific world, where billions of dollars hang on your data. If you can't show your figures, you should be ashamed to publish them under the guise of scientific data. w. PS - The agreement with Spain does not support your argument, it says nothing about confidentiality or passing the information on to third parties. In fact, the Spanish agreement specifically says that you want it for "Public" use, as opposed to "Private" use, so you are breaking the agreement by not releasing the data. on 11/8/09 8:42 AM, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) at David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mr. Eschenbach Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3868. 2009-08-12 11:14:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:14:19 +0100 from: "Cox, Peter" subject: RE: Proposed structure for Consortium Bid to: Phil Jones , Rob Wilson , "Turney, Christian" Hi Folks Sorry to have missed the telecon (...well not that sorry as I was having a lovely holiday..;-). Based-on Chris's outline and the email discussion subsequently, I think we are still lacking a proper scientific focus for the consortium. I guess the time-frame of 1600 onwards (as suggested by Phil) is favoured because proxies are likely to be more plentiful over this period (?), but an earlier period covering the little ice-age anomaly would be more useful for constraining climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. I am also unconvinced that we should commit to doing too many more GCM runs when worldwide there are so many runs unanalysed..;-). Is there any value in building on the QUEST-funded PalaeoQUMP activities led by Sandy Harrison? Sorry for the ramble, but I think we need to identify our key scientific questions first. Here are a few things that interest me: 1) What do climate proxies tell us about the response of regional climates to radiative forcing, especially impacts on modes of variability such as ENSO and NAO? 2) Can we detect non-climatic environmental impacts on tree-rings, such as CO2-fertilization and diffuse radiation effects? 3) Is there evidence of rapid loss of peat carbon in Earth's recent past (e.g. evidence of peat fires)? 4) Does the palaeoclimate record constrain 21st century climate-carbon cycle feedbacks ? You can see my bias towards the terrestrial carbon cycle here..;-)...and it may be that we can't answer many of these questions with the data we envisage pulling-together in this project. However, I think we need a few similar overarching scientific questions (which aren't too broad) to focus our ideas. Do others have clear questions in mind? All the best Peter 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 ________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:27 PM To: Rob Wilson; Turney, Christian Cc: Sandy Tudhope; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Gabi Hegerl; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine Subject: Re: Proposed structure for Consortium Bid Chris et al, Rob's response got me thinking. I've just emailed a review paper from the Holocene. I think most of the others in the group have seen this, let me know if not? Some aspects of the consortium bid could follow up on the recommendations from the final section of this review. This was a PAGES funded meeting, so presumably has some clout in reviewer eyes? I agree it's difficult to be specific at this stage about what resources we're going to need. We need to have some idea of whether the modelling runs need to be costed somehow, and how much extra fieldwork we'll be doing. The review paper indicates that it is extra proxies in the SH and tropics that are needed. I think we have agreed on the time frame of 1600 onwards. Rob Wilson is aware of an initiative that Ed Cook is moving along with at the moment. This is to develop a set of European drought reconstructions, back as far as possible. This will be of PDSI, as we have a new version of the program (scPDSI - self-calibrating PDSI). Ed is planning to come to CRU next summer for a 6 month period. This will involve putting together all the drought responding trees we have across Europe. This is essentially almost all European trees, so would be useful for the Consortium Bid. For PDSI we'll just be using those that are responsive to drought. So for CRU/UEA the collaborators would be Ed Cook and also Gerard van der Schrier at KNMI, who has got the scPDSI program working. It should be fairly straightforward to get this program going through any GCM output. We have a good group thinking about the issues. We need to somehow emphasize this in the context of the last 400 years and the high-frequency nature of the proxies we'll be using, together with the improved instrumental data. We haven't got everyone in the UK, but I think we have most of those who've looked at model simulations for this period, and those developing high-freq proxy reconstructions. We could easily use reconstructions like that attached along with loads of others to produce spatial reconstructions for Europe - but presumably MILLENNIUM will be doing this. We could also produce spatial reconstructions for large parts of the world, but the world and his wife are trying to do this. Most modelling centres are also doing runs for the last 500 or 1000 years as well, so where does our expertise bring.......? Your analysis tasks seem fine enough. New proxies need to be very focussed and should be ones we really need, being in mind our combined knowledge of what is out there. We can probably do the mid and high lats of the NH quite well already. It is the tropics and SH where we need help and our collaborator's areas should emphasize that, which I think they will do. European instrumental temperatures in summer ae going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850), so the mid-lat of the NH reconstructions should reflect this new work which is either in press or submitted. Exactly what modelling runs we're going to do need to be better defined. So, from my perspective, we need to better define the objectives. I can follow c) easily. I know I suggested b) but we're going to need a good example of where this might be possible in practice. I guess it's going to come through a) but it's not that clear in my mind how this will be achieved? I can't see how better proxy reconstructions are going to help constrain the models with the carbon cycle feedbacks. This must be related to better forcing histories, but how do we know we have these right? Can we somehow say from proxy/model comparisons that if they don't agree that well that it is down to the forcing, the model physics or the proxy data? If we could reduce the dimensionality of the problem then this might help. Volcanoes are a high-frequency response, so should be doable with shorter time slices. Solar and carbon cycle feedbacks are more low-frequency, so harder to constrain. I seem to floundering a bit. I keep coming back to the long European instrumental records and the wealth or proxy data we have for the continent. We can better test the proxy methods here and we can look at some teleconnections in detail with long records, and follow these through with similar analyses with the models. I hope this is useful - I see you're away in the Arctic till Sept 11. Cheers Phil At 12:28 08/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Chris, Greetings from Germany very brief comments attached. Just by luck I checked my e-mail today but will be out of e-mail contact over the next few days as I will be climbing in the Alps. It is difficult to be specific about what resources I would require without some discussion with others in project and Overseas Collaborators etc. However, one thing that I am currently pushing for in other proposals is funds for my Scottish work (brief mention in attached). This would make a very nice PhD and certainly will result in a TR based summer temperature reconstruction back to ~1600. I would also require funds for maximum density measurements etc etc. beyond that - i.e. taking a larger view, I would like to discuss with Rosanne, Ed and possibly even Dave Frank (Jan Esper is moving to Germany so Dave is probably the best WSL contact) and we could probably identify some significant mid-latitude gaps quite easily and those would be the target regions for new sampling = plus updating some "classic" sites to present. anyway - sorry for rushed e-mail, but like you I have a grumpy wife who thinks I should ignore work when on holiday!! regards to all Rob Chris Turney wrote: Hi everyone, We've worked up the key points that came out of the teleconference last week. Please find attached a suggested structure which we hope justifies a consortium bid. See what you think. Could you send me any comments (including request for resource) by Tuesday next week? If happy, I'll then use this as a basis for a 2 pager which I'll circulate to everyone. If you can give some thought to any resource your institution might be able to commit to the project (PhDs, inkind support etc), even if it's only an aspiration at this stage, that would be most helpful (it might help sweeten the deal when we approach NERC). Please note I'm away on holiday on Sunday but will (unpopularly!) be checking my email so although you'll get an auto reply saying I'm away, I will be in contact. All the best, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS Director of Carbonscape, Fixing carbon the way nature intended 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 The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Home page: 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 **************************************************** -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 785. 2009-08-12 14:45:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 12 14:45:01 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Data page updated to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, OK - thanks for the update from calling Stephan. I'm also away Aug 27 to Sep 5 on Jersey. So it won't be until Sept 7. I've noted your gmail address. I will only be looking at my email. I won't be looking at Climate Fraudit. Cheers Phil At 14:28 12/08/2009, you wrote: Okay. I'm then off 21st-31st so we won't interesct in office until September after tomorrow am. When I'm out of office I will irregularly check peter.w.thorne@googlemail.com . We can work something up once Stephan is in the loop or otherwise properly (he'd logged but not looked at the message thus far). Peter -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 12 August 2009 14:25 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: RE: Data page updated Peter, I'm going home at lunchtime tomorrow and won't be in again till Aug 20 (Friday week). If you do need to get in touch I will be checking email once a day. Also home phone is 01953 605463. Cheers Phil At 14:17 12/08/2009, you wrote: >He'll look later today and let us know tomorrow. Apparently press here >got asked for someone to comment by Olive from Nature but weren't given >a contact. This has been rectified so I may get a call and you may have >some sort of quote appended to the blog version at least. Hope taht is >okay? > > >-- >Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, >FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [3]http://www.hadobs.org >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 12 August 2009 12:45 >To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) >Subject: RE: Data page updated > > > Peter, > OK, can you? He probably has lots of important things to do! > O know I do. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 12:08 12/08/2009, you wrote: > >Yes, do you want me to call him up? If so will try him at 13.00 when > >he's likely back from lunch. Sorry about FOIs and general hammering > >in response to release of webpage. Just seems totally > >disproportionate blood sport now. No longer anything whatsoever to do with science. > >Sickening. > > > > > >-- > >Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, > >FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. > >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [5]http://www.hadobs.org > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 12 August 2009 12:01 > >To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) > >Subject: Fwd: Data page updated > > > > Peter, > > We have already had 2 more FOIs today. > > > > One has asked for codes used to calculate the temperature grids! > >We think > > this is covered by IPR. I presume that is the case with you as well? > > > > I hope I come out of the report in Nature later today/tomorrow OK. > > The Nature person knows the blog will be highjacked by the deniers. > > > > I've not had any response to the email to Stephan yet. Are you still > > in contact with him? > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > Peter, > > Web page went up at 4pm today. FOI/EIR responses should have > >all gone > > by about 5pm today. Page is linked from bottom of the Data page. > > > > There should be a piece in Nature this week. Been talking Olive > >Heffernan. > > She let me see my quotes, some of which I modified. She says it got > > cut down, but she's going to put a longer piece on the Nature Blog. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:56:51 +0100 > > >From: Mike Salmon > > >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) > > >To: Phil Jones > > >Subject: Data page updated > > > > > >[7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/ > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1957. 2009-08-12 14:49:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 12 14:49:53 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: AW: AW: AW: GTS Problems to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, I'd like the deniers to see this email chain. It is about sonde ascents from Dar es Salaam. Dick knows they are going up as GCOS is paying for them! They only rarely get to Nairobi and then only parts of the message. At least he's making some progress with all these RTH hubs. There is progress elsewhere, but not much for this site. Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:42:20 +0300 From: "Henry Karanja " Reply-To: To: Richter Bernd , Richard Thigpen CC: , , Fred Branski , Kelvin Wong , Carolin Richter , Adrian Simmons CC: Phil Jones , Fuchs Tobias , Howard Diamond , "Rock, Diana" , kanemba , CC: , , kanemba , technical Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: GTS Problems X-Mailer: X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.80 () [Hold at 5.00] PORN_RP_DICK,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 28058860 - cae3f6f8c614 X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28058860&m=cae3f6f8c614&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28058860&m=cae3f6f8c614&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28058860&m=cae3f6f8c614&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear All, I do confirm that we only receive Part A(USTN01) from Dar. We do not receive UKTN01 HTDA, ULTN01 HTDA, nor UETN01 HTDA. we have asked Dar why they do not send other parts with no reply so far. Henry ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Richard Thigpen Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:14:55 -0400 >Hello All, >Henry says they only receive part A so we are back to Dar es Salaam? So >Henry you do not receive UKTN01 HTDA, ULTN01 HTDA, nor UETN01 HTDA, the >addresses of the other parts? Can Dar please confirm they are sent to >Nairobi on the GTS? The four parts have showed up a few times but not >recently. Only part A yesterday. > >Should we just abandon this GTS route and move to an internet gateway. >Diana, the gateway at UKMO is logical or should we use the one in the US? >Thanks >Dick > >Richter Bernd wrote: >> >> Dear Henry, >> >> I highly appreciate the information given by you because it helps to >> solve ongoing problems of CLIMAT data availability. We (RTH Offenbach) >> will make our contribution to do so. >> >> Unfortunately this can not be done immediately due to holiday leave. >> >> As soon as possible we will check, correct if required and report as >> 'reply to all' the availability and routing of the reports listed by you. >> >> Best regards, Bernd. >> >> >> >> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Henry Karanja [[4]mailto:hkaranja@meteo.go.ke] >> Gesendet: Di 11.08.2009 16:42 >> An: Richter Bernd; Richard Thigpen >> Cc: mss.operating@dwd.de; Fred Branski; Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; >> Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs Tobias; Howard Diamond; Rock, Diana; >> hkaranja@meteo.go.ke; kanemba >> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: GTS Problems >> >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> Here is a list of the reception from Dar and swictching to Offenbach >> from 1st august (example) >> >> 01/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 011200 >> ----------- >> >> 02/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 021200 >> ------------- >> >> 03/08/2009 NOTHING RECEIVED >> >> 04/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 041200 >> ------ >> 05/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 051200 >> ---------- >> 06/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 061200 >> ---------- >> 07/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 071200 >> ------------ >> >> 08/08/2009 NOTHING RECEIVED >> 09/08/2009 NOTHING RECEIVED >> >> 10/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 101200 >> --------- >> >> 11/08/2009 >> USTNO1 HTDA 111200 >> >> It seems data from Dar is coming in to nairobi RTH on and off. >> once received the data is always relayed to Offenbach among other >> centres local and regional. >> >> Henry >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >> From: Richard Thigpen >> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:34:30 -0400 >> >> >Yes Bernd, >> >We'll get it solved some day! Still waiting to hear from Nairobi. >> >Hopefully Henry will find something. >> >I will send a separate note to your staff about the CLIMAT from >> >Nigeria. Its not getting to NCDC but is sent to GTS and to you by e >> mail. >> >Enjoy your holiday. >> >Dick >> > >> >Richter Bernd wrote: >> >> Thanks for the info, Dick, >> >> >> >> and apropos holidays and that stuff: >> >> >> >> Of course DWD has, apart from holidays or so, >> >> >> >> 24/7 operating, 365 days, contact mss.operator@dwd.de >> >> <[5]mailto:mss.operator@dwd.de> >> >> >> >> or telephone +49-69-8062-2530 >> >> >> >> Our staff is happy to give you at any time information about >> >> reports received and switched. >> >> >> >> Thanks for investigating this problem until its solution - this >> >> is the way to improvement ! >> >> >> >> Best regards, Bernd. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *Von:* Richard Thigpen [[6]mailto:thigpenr@erols.com] >> >> *Gesendet:* Mo 10.08.2009 16:36 >> >> *An:* Richter Bernd >> >> *Cc:* Fred Branski; Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil >> >> Jones; Fuchs Tobias; Howard Diamond; Rock, Diana; >> >> hkaranja@meteo.go.ke; kanemba >> >> *Betreff:* Re: AW: GTS Problems >> >> >> >> Thanks Bernd, >> >> So this points to Nairobi or to Dar es Salaam. Lets see what Henry in >> >> Nairobi finds. Todays report by e mail shows all four parts. And yes >> >> Bernd they did not report for two days. Perhaps they do not work on >> >> week ends? >> >> Hope you're having a good holiday. >> >> Dick >> >> >> >> Richter Bernd wrote: >> >> > Dear Dick, >> >> > >> >> > I just got the situation checked: >> >> > >> >> > USTN01 HTDA is received in EDZW more on a now-and-then-basis: >> >> > We received it today 12Z, the previous was received 07 Aug 12Z. >> >> > >> >> > There are however no TTBB-Part received ! >> >> > >> >> > Our routeing lists switches this bulletin, among others, to EGRR >> >> > >> >> > So from our point of view this seems at least not to be a problem of >> >> data losses at EDZW - if a switching problem ever ... >> >> > >> >> > Hope this helps, Bernd. >> >> > >> >> > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- >> >> > Von: Richard Thigpen [[7]mailto:thigpenr@erols.com] >> >> > Gesendet: Montag, 10. August 2009 15:29 >> >> > An: Fred Branski >> >> > Cc: Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs >> >> Tobias; Howard Diamond; Bernd.Richter@dwd.de; Rock, Diana; >> >> hkaranja@meteo.go.ke >> >> > Betreff: GTS Problems >> >> > >> >> > Hello Fred, >> >> > I trust all is well with you. And enjoying the weather in >> Washington! >> >> > Remember we asked for your assistance in your CBS role in >> resolving GTS >> >> > problems? I just wanted to share one with you an example of why >> we need >> >> > a systematic approach. >> >> > >> >> > Dar es Salaam was down for a long time until we sent them technical >> >> > assistance to repair the equipment and a supply of radiosondes. >> For the >> >> > past month however, we cannot receive their reports over GTS. >> >> > >> >> > Kelvin Wong got us started tracking the problem but Kelvin is now on >> >> > vacation. He helped us confirmed it was getting to Nairobi. By >> the way >> >> > I am receiving e mail copies of the report that confirm they are >> >> > actually operating. >> >> > >> >> > Then we found and corrected a switching problem at Offenbach but now >> >> > Bernd is on holiday. Then we found and corrected a switching >> problem at >> >> > UKMO but now Diana is on holiday. We are only receiving the >> first part >> >> > (the TTAA) of the report. At this point I cannot get any >> response from >> >> > any of the respective RTH as to who is getting what. I do not >> believe >> >> > that UKMO is receiving all parts, I cannot be sure what Offenbach is >> >> > receiving and I do not know what Nairobi is receiving or sending. We >> >> > have been trying to resolve this for over a month. At $120 per >> >> sounding! >> >> > >> >> > Kelvin especially cooperative and helpful as are all the others >> when we >> >> > can get responses from them. But the fact remains that after a >> >> > frustrating month we are still not getting the data. >> >> > >> >> > So this is why we asked for CBS assistance. >> >> > Thanks for your cooperation and assistance. >> >> > Dick >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2328. 2009-08-13 09:47:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:47:36 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: UHI - avoiding urban stations to: Phil Jones Hi, Phil, I'm reviewing a UHI review paper by David Parker wherein he says that you and I avoid using urban stations and Hansen adjusts urban stations. NCDC doesn't actually avoid using urban stations. But I'm assuming David is accurate about your data set. That is that you have stations from urban locations that you don't include in HadCRU. Is that accurate? Thanks. 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: +1-828-271-4876 4269. 2009-08-13 16:20:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, "tim Osborn" date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:20:44 -0400 from: alotsch@worldbank.org subject: Re: Fw: Need to draw the 1000 yr record on a World Bank cover asap to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim - thanks for these. Having the source data will make things much easier for us. I hope you enjoyed Perseid! -alex _________________________ Alexander Lotsch "Development in a Changing Climate" www.worldbank.org/wdr2010 The World Bank, MC2-631 phone +1-202-458-7801 fax +1-202-522-0056 alotsch@worldbank.org skype: alotsch Inactive hide details for "Tim Osborn" ---08/12/2009 05:52:45 PM---Dear Alex, I've made available all the data used in the IPCC "Tim Osborn" ---08/12/2009 05:52:45 PM---Dear Alex, I've made available all the data used in the IPCC AR4 paleo chapter (at From: "Tim Osborn" To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Cc: alotsch@worldbank.org, "tim Osborn" Date: 08/12/2009 05:52 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Need to draw the 1000 yr record on a World Bank cover asap ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Alex, I've made available all the data used in the IPCC AR4 paleo chapter (at least the parts I was involved with) here: <[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/ipccar4.htm> There are smoothed and unsmoothed versions of all the series. Is that the kind of thing you want? I'm now going outside to see the Perseid meteors! Regards Tim On Wed, August 12, 2009 6:57 pm, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Alex > I am forwading this message to Tim Osborn , my colleague in CRU who will > be able to supply the data - he drew the Figures in the AR4 report and you > might usefully discuss the data and figures directly with him. I am away > from work for some time yet - good luck > Keith > >> >>

Dear Keith -
>>
>> I understand from Michael Mann (see exchange below) that you may be able >> to provide us the raw data of the 12 proxy temperature reconstructions >> for >> the past 1000 years that were used for the "Dire Predictions" >> book. As you will gather from the emails below, we need to quickly >> redesign the cover of the forthcoming World Development Report on >> Development and Climate Change - the cover graphic we had chosen >> appeared >> on a different report 2 weeks ago ... We are now working on a composite >> of >> historical (1000yr), instrumental (CRU), and projected (IPCC AR4) >> temperatures. We have nice set of spinning globes (showing ocean >> chlorophyll and NDVI) that are moving up the temperature curve. However, >> in order to do this it would be best if we could have the raw 1000yr >> proxy >> record to help the graphic designers to create a compelling an faithful >> figure.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> -alex
>>
>> _________________________
>> Alexander Lotsch
>> "Development in a Changing Climate"
>> www.worldbank.org/wdr2010
>> The World Bank, MC2-631
>> phone +1-202-458-7801
>> fax +1-202-522-0056
>> alotsch@worldbank.org
>> skype: alotsch
>>
>> From: Michael Mann >> > href="mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu">mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu> face="Tahoma"> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:11 >> PM >> To: Bierbaum, Rosina> face="Tahoma"> >> Subject: Re: Need to draw the 1000 yr >> record on a World Bank cover asap >> >> Hi Rosina, >> >> Thanks for the heads up. I have to >> confess I'm a bit distracted right now, we've got a paper coming out in >> Nature tomorrow that deals with a coincidentally related theme (the >> record >> of Atlantic hurricanes over the past 1500 years). >> >> things are well here. We take a >> week >> vacation up in the Adirondacks next week (I've pre-emptively already put >> up the vacation message, which you can safely ignore), and trying to get >> as much off my plate before then as possible. >> >> I hope U. Mich is treating you >> well. >> That said, I hope Penn State crushes you guys this year ;) >> >> some responses/thoughts >> below, >> >> mike >> >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:01 PM, >> Bierbaum, Rosina wrote: >> >> >> Hi Michael, >> Hope all's well with you. I am finishing up a not particularly >> contemplative sabbatical at the World Bank, working on their World >> Development report. We are 2 weeks away from printing and the cover we >> were going to use just appeared on another book. Chaos and panic >> ensued. >> yikes >> >> >> I have gotten some lovely globe (land and sea productivity) images from >> NASA today and we want to portray the 1000 year temp record underneath >> them and then show the range of estimates of temp going forward for the >> coming 100 years. What do you suggest for the 1000 years? Redraw your >> figures? If so, are the data available? We will use the IPCC estimates >> for the next 100--would you suggest showing up to 6 degrees above >> pre-industrial as the range? >> I think it would be good to show >> the >> a representative 'envelope' of records over the past 1000 years, rather >> than any 1 record, for the reasons discussed below, i.e. to avoid the >> controversy associated with using any one single estimate. That's the >> tack >> that was taken in AR4 (i.e. in chapter 6 of WG1) and I think it was a >> wise >> one. This is also what I've done in my book ("Dire Predictions: >> Understanding Global Warming"). So what I envision would be an >> envelope, rather than a single curve, going back 1000 years, with the >> instrumental global mean temperature curve shown for the past 150 years. >> Re what to show for the projections, will this is often as much art as >> science, but I think its reasonable to represent a range consistent with >> the lower end AR4 2100 projections under B1 to the upper end 2100 >> projections under A1F1, which gives about 1.3 to 6.5C relative to late >> 20th century (i.e. about 2 to 7C relative to pre-industrial), i.e. more >> or >> less what you describe. >> >> >> For the past 1000 year record, is there a way to show the smoothed >> estimates across the various proxy reconstructions easily? Say as a kind >> of blurred line with a central estimate? We are looking at the data in >> Working Group 1, figure TS 20 p. 55 (> href="[2]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf">> size="4" color="#0000FF" face="Times New >> Roman">[3]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf> size="4" face="Times New Roman">) There are 12 reconstructions shown. We >> want to draw a slightly impressionistic but realistic temp >> record.... >> >> ah--I should have read this more >> carefully before I answered above. we're thinking along the same lines. >> I >> have to confess that I took the easy way out for the graphic we produced >> for "Dire" (page 47). We just passed off the figure in >> question >> to the DK folks, and told them we wanted them to create a shaded >> envelope >> that represents the range among the 12 reconstructions at any given >> time, >> shown along w/ the the individual curves. I don't think they actually >> downloaded the raw data, but simply imported it into their graphics >> software and did it by brute force. I'm sure you could modify this for >> your purposes (might need to clear w/ DK first). Now, we didn't quite >> do >> what you describe, which is a reasonable alternative (i.e. rather than >> showing all 12 curves along w/ the spread, just show the average of the >> 12 >> and the spread). That would certainly require getting ahold of the raw >> data however. My guess is that you either Keith Briffa or Jonathan >> Overpeck could help out here (I'm pretty sure Keith was the point man on >> this part of the chapter). >>

    >>

      >> Unfortunately, I need to supply the artists with something in the next >> few >> days. Since you are the Man, I thought I'd ask your advice and hope you >> don't mind! Thanks so much!
    >>
>> I'm hoping that one of the options >> mentioned above will work. I bet Keith could generate what you need >> pretty >> easily, I bet he's already got the raw data behind the >> graphic.
>>
>> let me know if I can be of any >> further help. If you'd like me to contact Keith directly about this, I'd >> be happy to...
>>
>>
>> Best, Rosina
>> 734-649-6629
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bierbaum, Rosina
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:47 PM
>> To: David M. Anderson
>> Cc: Thomas R. Karl; Wahl, Eugene R
>> Subject: RE: Fw: If we wanted to put the 10,000 year record of Earth's >> avg >> temp on the cover of our World Bank Report....
>>
>> Dear David,
>> Wow, that was really fast. I had expected that using the 10,000 year >> record--during which I thought temperatures remained within a 1 degree >> range--would show how present and future climate change were quite >> anomalous. Attached is the graphic I first saw in this regard, shown by >> Bob Corell who ran the Arctic assessment. I thought the 10,000 record >> would be less controversial than simply showing the last 1000 years and >> wandering into the hockey stick controversy.
>>
>> What is your professional judgment on the best long-term temp record to >> show? I don't think we want to show the 160,000-850,000 record on the >> cover. We could also revert to the CO2 record, but since CO2 is not the >> same as CO2e and the y axis needs to climb much higher to show future >> CO2, >> and temps seems much more accessible to most people, I was trying to >> revert to temp.
>>
>> Thanks so much for your help, advice and very prompt response! Best, >> Rosina
>>
>> Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean
>> School of Natural Resources and Environment
>> 2046 Dana Building
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041
>> Phone: (734) 764-2550
>> Fax: (734) 763-8965
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David M. Anderson > href="mailto:David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov">> color="#0000FF" >> face="Times New >> Roman">mailto:David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov> face="Times New Roman"> >> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:58 PM >> To: Bierbaum, Rosina >> Cc: Thomas R. Karl; Wahl, Eugene R >> Subject: Re: Fw: If we wanted to put the 10,000 year record of Earth's >> avg >> temp on the cover of our World Bank Report.... >> >> Dear Rosina, >> Tom Karl asked me to direct you towards some temperature data for the >> last >> 10,000 years. I have attached a plot and an excel file. >> >> This is a tough science question and subject to debate, which is why you >> don't see this plot often, and why you don't see this data on our >> site. >> I composited Antarctic ice core temperature data (Petit, et al. 1999) >> with >> the longest and latest southern hemisphere multiproxy reonstruction from >> Mann, et al, 2008, to produce temperature changes for the past 10000 >> years. >> >> The graph shows three things, none helpful for your purposes, I >> believe. >> 1. Temperature at a single site in Antarctica has varied alot over the >> past 10,000 years, even when smoothed. >> 2. There was a warm period about 6,000 years ago. This is well >> known. >> Whether warmer than today is still a research topic. >> 3. For the past few centuries, the increase in co2 has outpaced the >> increase in temperature. This is also a research issue, but related to >> the >> hypothesis that the climate is no longer in equilibrium. >> >> There are many different ways and data sets to address this question, >> but >> I thought it would be best to give you this quick look. >> Best, >> Dave >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> 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: > href="[4]mailto:mann@psu.edu">> color="#0000FF">mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> website: > href="[5]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html">> color="#0000FF">[6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>> > href="[7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html">> size="2" >> color="#0000FF">[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (See attached file: >> pastedGraphic.pdf)(See attached file: ATT00001.htm)
>> > > > -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Embedded Content: graycol1.gif: 00000001,03a3a189,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: ecblank1.gif: 00000001,08245ad9,00000000,00000000 3418. 2009-08-14 09:31:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "WGI TSU" , "Kristie L Ebi" date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:31:37 +0200 (CEST) from: "Pauline Midgley" subject: IPCC EM on Detection & Attribution - Request for BOG Chairs and Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to 7bit by courier 0.58 Dear colleagues, We are very pleased that you will be able to attend the IPCC WGI/WGII joint Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution in Geneva on 14-16 September 2009. Earlier in the week the WGI TSU sent all participants the final draft programme for the EM D&A that has been put together based on input from the Scientific Steering Committee and the WG TSUs and Co-Chairs as well as discussions at and since the AR5 Scoping Meeting in Venice (attached again for your convenience). As you will see, there will be four Break Out Group sessions for discussion and a final session on the last morning that concentrates on drafting bullets with key conclusions and an outline for the Good Practice Guidelines for approval in the final plenary session. Having considered various suggestions and options for the organization and structure of the BOGs, it has been decided to adopt a matrix structure with two distinct blocks. In Part A the BOGs will be organised by the kinds of detection and attribution issues addressed (extremes, global, regional) looking at the themes that need consideration for the Guidelines (methods and definitions, data and other requirements, forcing factors, etc.). In Part B the BOGs will be refocused and regrouped so that the discussions can home in on these themes. The agenda allows a fair amount of time for report-back and discussion during which the participants would hopefully reach consensus on the key points for inclusion in the guidance document. Each chair/rapporteur team will be asked to write a very brief summary of the discussions, highlighting key conclusions. These summaries can also be included as supporting material in the final meeting report. We would like to leave the meeting with the participants having agreed on the key conclusions in the final session. Thus we are proposing two sets of BOG Chairs and rapporteurs, based on suggestions from the SSC and from both WGs, and we would like to secure your agreement to act as BOG Chair or rapporteur as indicated below: Part A BOG1 Extreme Events: chair Neville Smith, rapporteur Sari Kovats BOG2 Global Scale: chair Nirivololona Raholijao, rapporteur Camille Parmesan BOG3 Regional Scale: chair Serge Planton, rapporteur Gino Cassassa Part B BOG1 Methods and Definitions: chair Francis Zwiers, rapporteur Daithi Stone BOG2 Data and other Requirements: chair Matilde Rusticucci, rapporteur Guy Midgley BOG3 Forcing Factors and Confounding Influences: chair Linda Mearns, rapporteur Phil Jones The BOGs are fundamental to the purpose of the Expert Meeting and will be a deciding factor in its success so we would very much appreciate it if you would agree to take on this role. I look forward to hearing from you soon, hopefully with a positive response. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me Best regards, Pauline & Kris on behalf of WG1 & WG2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Pauline M. Midgley Head, Working Group I Technical Support Unit Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change University of Bern Zaehringerstrasse 25 3012 Bern, Switzerland Phone: +41 31 631 5620 Fax: +41 31 631 5615 Email: midgley@ipcc.unibe.ch www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch Mobile: +41-79-378-7993 Sec: +41 31 631 5616 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EM_D&A_Programme_Draft1.pdf" 2537. 2009-08-14 10:39:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:39:39 +0100 from: "M Hulme" subject: FW: Hadley Data to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil, Any thoughts as to how/whether I should reply to this? Sounds like things have escalated. Mike From: Bernie Cullen [mailto:BCullen@cambriaconsulting.com] Sent: 11 August 2009 22:50 To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk Subject: Hadley Data Mike: Your comments on Roger Pielke's blog a few weeks ago indicated that you are reasonable guy and are interested in constructive discussions. As you are probably aware there is a new effort to try to get access to the HadCRUT data set (see [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6789#comments ) . Clearly there are some very different characters frequenting Steve McIntyre's site - some of whom I would certainly not invite for a drink. But Steve McIntyre and most of those who add substantive comments certainly appear to me to be reasonably objective, genuinely intrigued by the climate puzzles and have demonstrated some ingenuity and statistical insight in analyzing a number of significant climate papers. Given your interest in building a more constructive approach to climate research and policy, it might be helpful to see what you can do to resolve this impasse. I would bet that some direct contact with Steve might lead to a more constructive solution. The data access and code issue seems to be at a tipping point and I am afraid that many may be unfairly embarrassed if the issue is forced even further onto the front pages of the newspapers. I will not in anyway make public any parts of this conversation, should you be kind enough to respond. I have just retired, but you can check me out at the web-site below. Best wishes Bernie Cullen Cambria Consulting, Inc. One Bowdoin Square | Boston, Massachusetts 02114 | T:617.523.7500 x227 | F:617.523.7817 [2]BCullen@cambriaconsulting.com | [3]www.cambriaconsulting.com Consulting o Coaching o Survey o Interactive CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. 4930. 2009-08-14 11:14:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:14:19 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FOI appeal status to: "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" Tim, They need to see 'everything' in order to determine that we are actually exempting what we should (so, for example, folks don't exempt information that clearly isn't personal). They have the same restrictions as us and none of the names will be passed on to anyone. We also claimed confidentiality over all that we submitted so that under FOIA, there is also a section 41 ground for non-disclosure. Trying to pull it all together today for Jonathan.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:11 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: RE: FOI appeal status > >Dave, > >I've looked through about half of it now, all of it looks spot on (to >my untrained eye) and I'm now finishing off the rest. One thing that >came to mind as I'm just reading justification for "Section 40" >personal information exemption... in the sample of emails I sent >you, which will be included in the submission to ICO, will you be >redacting all the names and any other personal information? Or is it >supplied to ICO on the basis that if they will redact such personal >information if necessary? > >Thanks > >Tim > >At 14:30 13/08/2009, you wrote: >>Tim, >>Only version is that which went around earlier - I am amending it >>this week as it's 'due' tomorrow! >>However, I phoned the ICO and they are fairly relaxed about >>deadlines as long as the information is coming in.... The 'real' >>deadline is that I'm on hols as of tomorrow but I fear I will have >>to come in to finish this work off..... >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:20 AM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> >Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >> >Subject: FOI appeal status >> > >> >Dear Dave, >> > >> >sorry I've still not responded further re. the draft >> >documentation you've >> >put together for the David Holland FOI appeal. >> > >> >What is the status/timing of this? Am I too late to >> >contribute, or has it >> >not yet left your desk? If I'm not too late, then please could you >> >re-send the last version (or more recent, if it's changed) and >> >I'll look >> >today. >> > >> >Thanks and sorry again for my earlier lack of response, >> > >> >Tim >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Dr. Tim Osborn >> >RCUK Academic Fellow >> >Climatic Research Unit >> >School of Environmental Sciences >> >University of East Anglia >> >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> >www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >> > >> > >> > >> > > >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 > > > 3786. 2009-08-14 12:32:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , Keith Briffa , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:32:00 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Dave (cc others), the case you've put together seems spot on to me. Some extra input from me, if it isn't too late: (1) On 24/07/2009 you wrote "Mr. Holland does not limit the request to the named persons but requests all correspondence relation to work of the two (2) named individuals in relation to their work as IPCC lead authors. Would we have correspondence relating to your work as lead authors that is with someone NOT named within the request?" I didn't answer and I don't think anyone else did. The answer, purely from memory, is "probably yes" and thus would add to the burden of searching, collating and redacting the information. (2) You also asked for more information relating to the burden involved and hence evidence to support the "manifestly unreasonable" exemption. This is for section 4 of your document E. (a) The time period covered is around 4 years. The drafting and reviewing process ran from 2004 through to publication in 2007. Some minor tasks (e.g. relating to data archival) arose after publication in 2008. (b) During a time period of 4 years, I expect that Keith and I would each have retained several thousand emails on a range of subjects. Some would be organised into folders and others would not. Given the request pertains to correspondence with un-named as well as named individuals, it isn't as simple as searching for particular names in the email headers. Also, we would likely have printed hard copies of some correspondence prior to deleting it. The request presumably covers any such hard copies, but again I don't think that they would be filed in a single "IPCC" file, so searching amongst hundreds of other documents would be onerous. (c) The impact on us (Keith and Tim) of carrying out such a search and collation would undoubtedly fall on our research output, probably writing papers for publication. This is a key metric by which university research is assessed (via RAE and forthcoming REF) and ultimately influences university funding from HEFCE. We have certain duties (teaching, assessment, advising, supervising research students, supervising research assistants, writing contract reports and proposals to funding agencies) that have strict deadlines that cannot simply be ignored when other demands (such as this FOIA/EIR request) arise. The time that we can actually spend on doing -- and particularly writing up -- research is a relatively small fraction of our time, and the time spent dealing with this FOIA/EIR request would consequently be a relatively large fraction of that time, and hence reduce our published output. (3) Section 4 of your document E asks whether we are weakening the argument that it is manifestly unreasonable if we indicate that we've already done the search and determined that we don't hold some of the information. Two comments here: (a) In the list shown in document C1, I have listed "we don't hold any correspondence with this person" against a few people. I should point out that this is on the basis of my recollection, from talking to Keith, and the fact that those people did not contribute to the section of chapter 6 that Keith and I worked on. Sorry, I should have been clearer before that we did not actually make a search to determine this. You might, therefore, wish to add that it is "likely" that we don't hold any correspondence with those people? (b) Given that the ICO have requested all the information that is the subject of the FOIA/EIR request, and that your letter indicates that we will eventually assemble it all rather than just the sample that we're currently sending, it would seem unfair if the ICO then ruled that we should now release it simply because they've forced us to do the work anyway! Best wishes Tim At 13:52 24/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >I promised this to Jonathan by the end of this week and here it >is! This is a multi-part document due to the nature of the request >for information by the ICO. The covering letter sets out what we >are providing the following documents follow (I hope) the >pattern/index set within that letter. > >There are some personal comments and questions within some of the >documents that I would ask for input on, and there are 'missing' >bits where I have not included a .pdf document for example but I >have added them to this email. I have also added the original >request to remind us of what we are responding to! > >Phil - Could you please vet in particular my references to the IPCC >process within the EIR exception document for accuracy? > >Tim - I need electronic copies of the emails from Jean Jouzel of >12/05/08, Olga Salomina of 13/05/08 and Caspar Ammann of 30/05/08 - >I think we can add this to cumulative .pdf document you prepared at that time. > >I expect that there will be changes of content and emphasis on this >but would hope that this is a successful first draft of our >submission. The Schedule, in particular, needs some work but I >thought it best to get the 'meat' of the submission to you as soon as possible. > >Cheers, Dave > > ><> <EIR_explanation.doc>> <> ><> ><> <A_Info_Schedule.xls>> <responses.pdf>> <> ><> > >____________________________ >David Palmer >Information Policy & Compliance Manager >University of East Anglia >Norwich, England >NR4 7TJ > >Information Services >Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 > > > > > > > > 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 2708. 2009-08-14 13:34:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:34:37 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response to: "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" Tim, Many thanks for your thoughtful & useful input. A printed version of the entire submission is now with JCF for review and signature based on both my timetable and that agreed with the ICO. I might suggest that if JCF wishes to augment our Section 12 FOIA argument (Document D) or our Reg. 12(4)(b), manifestly unreasonable argument, some of what you stated below could be inserted prior to signatue and transmission. I have been in touch with Pam Clements of the ICO and can inform you that no case officer has been assigned to this matter as yet. Mr. Holland has 3 other matters with the ICO under consideration at the moment and the same fellow that is handling them will get our case (lucky fellow). He has at least 3 new cases in front of him at the moment, so I would not expect to hear further from the ICO for a few weeks at a minimum. Indeed, the IPCC may well have considered this at their Bali meeting in October by the time that this gets picked up. Thank you all for your work and patience on this - much appreciated. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:32 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); >Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Subject: Re: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response > >Dear Dave (cc others), > >the case you've put together seems spot on to me. > >Some extra input from me, if it isn't too late: > >(1) On 24/07/2009 you wrote "Mr. Holland does not limit the request >to the named persons but requests all correspondence relation to work >of the two (2) named individuals in relation to their work as IPCC >lead authors. Would we have correspondence relating to your work as >lead authors that is with someone NOT named within the request?" I >didn't answer and I don't think anyone else did. The answer, purely >from memory, is "probably yes" and thus would add to the burden of >searching, collating and redacting the information. > >(2) You also asked for more information relating to the burden >involved and hence evidence to support the "manifestly unreasonable" >exemption. This is for section 4 of your document E. > >(a) The time period covered is around 4 years. The drafting and >reviewing process ran from 2004 through to publication in 2007. Some >minor tasks (e.g. relating to data archival) arose after >publication in 2008. > >(b) During a time period of 4 years, I expect that Keith and I would >each have retained several thousand emails on a range of >subjects. Some would be organised into folders and others would >not. Given the request pertains to correspondence with un-named as >well as named individuals, it isn't as simple as searching for >particular names in the email headers. Also, we would likely have >printed hard copies of some correspondence prior to deleting it. The >request presumably covers any such hard copies, but again I don't >think that they would be filed in a single "IPCC" file, so searching >amongst hundreds of other documents would be onerous. > >(c) The impact on us (Keith and Tim) of carrying out such a search >and collation would undoubtedly fall on our research output, probably >writing papers for publication. This is a key metric by which >university research is assessed (via RAE and forthcoming REF) and >ultimately influences university funding from HEFCE. We have certain >duties (teaching, assessment, advising, supervising research >students, supervising research assistants, writing contract reports >and proposals to funding agencies) that have strict deadlines that >cannot simply be ignored when other demands (such as this FOIA/EIR >request) arise. The time that we can actually spend on doing -- and >particularly writing up -- research is a relatively small fraction of >our time, and the time spent dealing with this FOIA/EIR request would >consequently be a relatively large fraction of that time, and hence >reduce our published output. > >(3) Section 4 of your document E asks whether we are weakening the >argument that it is manifestly unreasonable if we indicate that we've >already done the search and determined that we don't hold some of the >information. Two comments here: > >(a) In the list shown in document C1, I have listed "we don't hold >any correspondence with this person" against a few people. I should >point out that this is on the basis of my recollection, from talking >to Keith, and the fact that those people did not contribute to the >section of chapter 6 that Keith and I worked on. Sorry, I should >have been clearer before that we did not actually make a search to >determine this. You might, therefore, wish to add that it is >"likely" that we don't hold any correspondence with those people? > >(b) Given that the ICO have requested all the information that is the >subject of the FOIA/EIR request, and that your letter indicates that >we will eventually assemble it all rather than just the sample that >we're currently sending, it would seem unfair if the ICO then ruled >that we should now release it simply because they've forced us to do >the work anyway! > >Best wishes > >Tim > >At 13:52 24/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, >>I promised this to Jonathan by the end of this week and here it >>is! This is a multi-part document due to the nature of the request >>for information by the ICO. The covering letter sets out what we >>are providing the following documents follow (I hope) the >>pattern/index set within that letter. >> >>There are some personal comments and questions within some of the >>documents that I would ask for input on, and there are 'missing' >>bits where I have not included a .pdf document for example but I >>have added them to this email. I have also added the original >>request to remind us of what we are responding to! >> >>Phil - Could you please vet in particular my references to the IPCC >>process within the EIR exception document for accuracy? >> >>Tim - I need electronic copies of the emails from Jean Jouzel of >>12/05/08, Olga Salomina of 13/05/08 and Caspar Ammann of 30/05/08 - >>I think we can add this to cumulative .pdf document you >prepared at that time. >> >>I expect that there will be changes of content and emphasis on this >>but would hope that this is a successful first draft of our >>submission. The Schedule, in particular, needs some work but I >>thought it best to get the 'meat' of the submission to you as >soon as possible. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >><> <>EIR_explanation.doc>> <> >><> >><> <>A_Info_Schedule.xls>> <>responses.pdf>> <> >><> >> >>____________________________ >>David Palmer >>Information Policy & Compliance Manager >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, England >>NR4 7TJ >> >>Information Services >>Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >>Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >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 > > > 1255. 2009-08-14 17:33:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 from: "Keiller, Donald" subject: Freedom of Information to: , Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU. The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void. Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry. Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I currently work in an academic institution. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General right of access to information held by public authorities" In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference to such a request which- (a) is in writing, (b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and (c) describes the information requested. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request- (a) is transmitted by electronic means, (b) is received in legible form, and (c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hereby request: 1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller. Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems 2343. 2009-08-17 10:36:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Rob Wilson , Catherine Bass date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:36:14 +0100 from: Simon Tett subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager to: Chris Turney Hi Chris, thanks for that. I've just managed a quick read. I'm pleased you are trying to pull together a bit of the community on this. It is not an easy job! However, I'm not convinced that what you are planning will do what is needed. I think the concept note still feels very general. Where is the focus and how will that focus improve scientific knowledge? How is the project a consortium? [For example the carbon cycle stuff could be de-coupled from the rest and the climate modelling from the paleo synthesis.] Some issues. Gabi has looked at constraining climate sensitivity from paleo data. I don't think it provided a very strong constraint and still admitted sensitivities greater than 7K.That might be dominated by uncertainty in paleo calibration though forcing uncertainty will be important as well. What kind of uncertainties in the paleo-reconstructions do you think there will be. They'd need to be significantly smaller than the 4th assessment report found. More tractable might be to look at changes in circulation and regional climate change. [Which I know you hint at.] Gabi (PI) and I have a "blue skies" project funded which will look at regional climate change over Europe. We plan to do a load of runs with HadCM3 for that. We could send the proposal to the list if Gabi is happy to do so. I and Gabi also have funding from NCAS-Climate for a millennium simulation with HadGEM2. NCAS like us to raise additional money though! I'm happy to send our plans to the CC list (if Gabi doesn't object). Summary thoughts. Needs more focus. Not clear it is a consortium. I don't think this will be ready for December -- though the deadline does focus everyone's mind no end. Simon Chris Turney wrote: > Hi guys, > > Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and > wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. > > Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks > great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The more > detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the detail > for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the attached > by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed, perhaps we > can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access will > probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off the edge of the > known world that would be great. > > Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in > being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. > > All the best, > > Chris > **************************************************** > *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* > > Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing carbon the > way nature intended/ > // > > 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 > The University of Exeter > Exeter > Devon > EX4 4RJ > UK > > Home page: > 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 > > **************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Simon Tett Chair of Earth System Dynamics School of Geosciences The University of Edinburgh Tel:+44-(0)131-650-5341 Fax: +44 (0)131 668 3184 email:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk Room 351, Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW UK http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1592 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 3701. 2009-08-18 09:22:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'shipl@cma.gov.cn'" , Fred Branski , Steve Foreman , "'Arimatea_J.HQONE.WMOGVA@gateway.wmo.ch'" , Richter Bernd , Carolin Richter , Adrian Simmons , Phil Jones , Fuchs Tobias , Howard Diamond , "Rock, Diana" , "hkaranja@meteo.go.ke" , kanemba , Walter Smith , LI Xiang , "'Little, Chris'" , "'bez@mecom.ru'" , "'jacques.anquetil@meteo.fr'" , "'tsunoda@met.kishou.go.jp'" date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:22:18 -0400 from: Richard Thigpen subject: Re: GTS Problems [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] to: Kelvin Wong Dear All, As of this morning's 12Z flight it appears that we have solved the Dar problem. For some reason they were no longer inserting NNNN between sections and we coached them into inserting it. So thanks to all for assisting. It took us a bit over 6 weeks to solve this so I am hopeful that you will come up with a better problem resolution procedure. Cheers Dick Kelvin Wong wrote: > Dear all, > > I am back at work today and have gone through all the discussions of the problems with TEMP reports at Dar Es Salaam. Thanks you to all who have contributed to resolving this problem thus far. I will contact individual centres with respect to the switching problems identified. Based on the latest available routeing catalogues I have found some inconsistencies in some individual centres. In this case it appears that the delivery problem is more likely to be at the source with only part A of the TEMP report USTN01 HDTA being delivered but not the other parts U(K,L,E)TN01 HDTA. > > Let me describe some procedures which should have taken place in normal operational problem: > > 1. Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania is in the zone of responsibility of RTH Nairobi and accordingly its RTH Focal Point would escalate this incident to its operational centre in the first place. Depending on the available NMC contacts at Dar Es Salaam with RTH Nairobi and the urgency of the matter a direct phone call appears to be appropriate after repeated attempts by other means of communication. > > 2. Any in-depth investigation to the source of the problem would still be handled by the responsible RTH Focal Point together with other RTH/MTN centres to which the responsible RTH is directly or indirectly connected to as the operational centres are normally data centres not manned by professional staff outside office hours. All chains of routeing tables should be examined by the RTH Focal Points. In this case it would be: > > Offenbach > Toulouse > Exeter > Washington, Melbourne > Tokyo, etc. or > Offenbach > Prague, etc. > Cairo > Moscow, etc. > > 3. Switching problems do happen but single points of failure are normally limited as each RTH are most likely connected to more than one RTH on the MTN. RTH Focal Points should ensure that essential data products are routed to all RTH centres to which they are directly connected. > > 4. Due to the difference in time zones and spoken languages in different regions the responsible RTH is always in the best position to resolve such problems. I agree with Peiliang that Focal Points for National Centres should also be made available at WMO web site. I believe most RTH/MTN centres would have some sort of informal list of contacts in their region for internal operational use. The matter now is to have a formal list of contacts nominated by the PRs and the continuous effort to update the list. > > Kind regards, > Kelvin > --------------------------------------------- > Kelvin Wong ( K.Wong@bom.gov.au ) > RTH Focal Point, WMC Melbourne > Bureau of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au > GPO Box 1289, Melbourne, Vic 3001, Australia > Phone: +61 3 96694227 Fax: +61 3 96694128 > --------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: shipl@cma.gov.cn [mailto:shipl@cma.gov.cn] > Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 16:25 > To: Fred Branski; Richard Thigpen; Steve Foreman; LI Xiang; Jose Arimatea de Sousa Brito > Cc: Richter Bernd; Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs Tobias; Howard Diamond; Rock, Diana; hkaranja@meteo.go.ke; kanemba; Walter Smith > Subject: Re: AW: GTS Problems > > Dear Fred and colleagues, > > I analysed the story and consulted with my colleague Ms. Li Xiang, who is our RTH focal point. We believe that there is something missing from our problem escalating process, and we need to fix it. > > Currently, the general data flow is > - A NMC collects data from its domestic observation stations, and distributes the data to the associated RTH. > - The RTH distributes the data which is collected from its domestic observation stations and the NMCs located in its responsibility zone to other RTHs and NMCs. > > When a problem occurs, it is suggested to report the problem to all the links (the NMC, concened RTH and MTN centers) of the distribution at the same time. So that, the concerned centers can make check at their own side, and share the progress and results. In this way, even if we have the contact point for one center on leave, it is still possible to get response from its upstream or downstream links(or centers). This would be helpful to get to the bottom of the problem and have it fixed in time. > > And, at WMO web site (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ois/RTHFocalPts/RTHzones_en.html), we now already have the contacts for RTHs. To get in touch with the concerned NMC during a problem investigation, it is also suggested to publish the contact points for NMCs on this page. So we need to re-habilitate the RTH focal-points, as we agreed at the recent MG meeting. And it seems a list of GTS operation focal-points at NC level would be necessary. If we could get feedback directly from Dar es Salaam, the whole story would be different. > > Regards, > > Peiliang > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred Branski" > To: "Richard Thigpen" ; "Steve Foreman" ; "Peiliang Shi" > Cc: "Richter Bernd" ; "Kelvin Wong" ; "Carolin Richter" ; "Adrian Simmons" ; "Phil Jones" ; "Fuchs Tobias" ; "Howard Diamond" ; "Rock, Diana" ; ; "kanemba" ; "Walter Smith" > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:36 PM > Subject: Re: AW: GTS Problems > > > Hi Peiliang, Steve, Dick and others, > > First, thanks Dick for another example of the issue of resolving > problems with exchange of information. I have some comments to add but > first, for ISS in particular this goes back to our discussions at the MG > meeting and the need for improved resolution processes. We need to > follow up on this more but for now there are some good examples here of > what may be part of the recurring issue. > > All RTHs have real time mechanisms for addressing operational problems. > The issue is how can we effectively interface these mechanisms with "all > appropriate" user identified problems. In particular, I'm talking about > the mechanisms that identify and track to resolution problems identified > in real time. I'm not fully familiar with all the details of this > particular problem occurrence, but it seems the problem may have been > reported through and "worked on" through "second level" problem > resolution activities instead of as a real time operational problem. I > believe one reason this occurs often because the impact of a problem is > not fully understood by the organization it was reported to. Also, it > may simply be an issue of the user who is requesting assistance not > fully understanding either how to engage our problem resolution > activities or not understanding how to characterize the impact so that > those working on the issue can apply an appropriate level of importance. > > I look forward to your views on this and further follow up but first > let's get this particular problem fixed. > > TIA! > > Cheers, Fred > ========================================================== > Fred Branski > WMO CBS President > U.S. National Weather Service > Office of the Chief Information Officer > Intl Data & Requirements Liaison > 1325 East-West Highway, Room 17456 > Silver Spring, MD 20910 U.S.A. > Phone: +1 301 713 3538 ext 121 Fax: +1 301 713 9450 > Cell: +1 240 355 4468 > ========================================================== > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Thigpen [mailto:thigpenr@erols.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2009 00:36 > To: Richter Bernd > Cc: Fred Branski; Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs Tobias; Howard Diamond; Rock, Diana; hkaranja@meteo.go.ke; kanemba > Subject: Re: AW: GTS Problems > > > Thanks Bernd, > So this points to Nairobi or to Dar es Salaam. Lets see what Henry in > Nairobi finds. Todays report by e mail shows all four parts. And yes > Bernd they did not report for two days. Perhaps they do not work on > week ends? > Hope you're having a good holiday. > Dick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richter Bernd [mailto:Bernd.Richter@dwd.de] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2009 00:23 > To: Richard Thigpen; Fred Branski > Cc: Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs Tobias; Howard Diamond; Bernd.Richter@dwd.de; Rock, Diana; hkaranja@meteo.go.ke > Subject: AW: GTS Problems > > > Dear Dick, > > I just got the situation checked: > > USTN01 HTDA is received in EDZW more on a now-and-then-basis: > We received it today 12Z, the previous was received 07 Aug 12Z. > > There are however no TTBB-Part received ! > > Our routeing lists switches this bulletin, among others, to EGRR > > So from our point of view this seems at least not to be a problem of > data losses at EDZW - if a switching problem ever ... > > Hope this helps, Bernd. > > > -----Ursprngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Richard Thigpen [mailto:thigpenr@erols.com] Gesendet: Montag, > 10. August 2009 15:29 > An: Fred Branski > Cc: Kelvin Wong; Carolin Richter; Adrian Simmons; Phil Jones; Fuchs > Tobias; Howard Diamond; Bernd.Richter@dwd.de; Rock, Diana; > hkaranja@meteo.go.ke > Betreff: GTS Problems > > Hello Fred, > I trust all is well with you. And enjoying the weather in Washington! > Remember we asked for your assistance in your CBS role in resolving > GTS problems? I just wanted to share one with you an example of why > we need a systematic approach. > > Dar es Salaam was down for a long time until we sent them technical > assistance to repair the equipment and a supply of radiosondes. For > the past month however, we cannot receive their reports over GTS. > Kelvin Wong got us started tracking the problem but Kelvin is now on > vacation. He helped us confirmed it was getting to Nairobi. By the > way I am receiving e mail copies of the report that confirm they are > actually operating. > > Then we found and corrected a switching problem at Offenbach but now > Bernd is on holiday. Then we found and corrected a switching problem > at UKMO but now Diana is on holiday. We are only receiving the first > part (the TTAA) of the report. At this point I cannot get any > response from any of the respective RTH as to who is getting what. I > do not believe that UKMO is receiving all parts, I cannot be sure > what Offenbach is receiving and I do not know what Nairobi is > receiving or sending. We have been trying to resolve this for over a > month. At $120 per sounding! > > Kelvin especially cooperative and helpful as are all the others when > we can get responses from them. But the fact remains that after a > frustrating month we are still not getting the data. > > So this is why we asked for CBS assistance. > Thanks for your cooperation and assistance. > Dick > > 1583. 2009-08-18 11:24:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , Phil Jones , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Catherine Bass date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:24:56 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager to: Chris Turney Hi Chris et al, minor comments and edits attached. I agree with Simon that the current version needs much more specific focus. How does/can this project stand out from other projects that are aiming to do the same thing? I think we agree that for the Northern Hemisphere, especially as we are focussing mainly on the last 400-500 years, that the only real issue is updating key proxy records to present. Much of this is already being done by many groups. What we need to emphasise is the sparse nature of available annually resolved proxy records in the Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere. Some specific strong statements are needed: 2 or 3 specifically located (Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans) coral records, going back ~300 years WILL improve markedly current large scale reconstructions for the Tropics. Although the Southern Hemisphere is restricted w.r.t. land, some of the longest TR chronologies are located in this hemisphere. I would guess, from previous work, that robust temperature reconstructions from New Zealand, Tasmania and South America for the past 400-500 years would be entirely feasible and like with the NH data could be looked at in terms of an update (to present) and an expansion to possible extend sampling (e.g. more sites from Tasmania etc). My one real worry is the use of the term "reducing uncertainty". The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years and with all the different calibration methods, data processing methods, proxy interpretations - any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think. Rob Chris Turney wrote: Hi guys, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. All the best, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS Director of [1]Carbonscape, Fixing carbon the way nature intended Author of [2]Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: [3]www.christurney.com [4]Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Home page: [5]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: [6]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 **************************************************** _______________________________________________________________________________ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [7]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RW-2009 08 17 Consortium Concept.doc" 3689. 2009-08-19 15:05:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , Phil Jones , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Rob Wilson , Catherine Bass date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:05:11 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager to: Chris Turney Hi Chris, thanks for this. I have a few smallscale comments and a larger scale comment. Like Simon, I worry a bit about focus. However, I wonder if the topic you set out 'improve predictions' wouldnt be one that would offer a very useful focus on climate sensitivity and carbon climate sensitivity. If thats interesting to the group, we'd only need to emphasize the probabilistic nature of the reconstructions: that we would aim to not only arrive at reconstructions, but at reconstructions with credible uncertainty ranges that can be stuffed into work taht tries to estimate climate sensitivity (or rather tightens estimates based on tropics and SH data for last few centuries) and the carbon cycle response to climate variability (for the latter though, a longer horizon than last 500 would be attractive, I agree with Peter - we would also want to make use of the MWP and its CO2. ). The tropics and SH would be attractive as it hasnt been used in sensitivity work yet, and is relevant for both carbon cycle and should show a good response to external forcing as you point out. THis would lead to a true collaboration, as the people using the data would need to help provide uncertainties in things relevant to estimate sensitivities; and it would allow science to really move on compared to people like me or a paper I read this week trying to estimate sensitivity/carbon sensitivity by in some ad hoc way estimating uncertainty in data.... Of course not sure if the others agree! If this is attractive, we would have to be able to run a QUMP like ensemble if possible with varying carbon cycle feedback strength, so we'd need somebody (David Sexton or Hiro Yamazaki?/another climateprediction.net guy?) who knows how to handle that machinery. And I dont know if the carbon cycle can be QUMPEd or if it would be just carbon respnse/CO2 assuming some kind of lag... smallscale comments: p 1: validate to evaluate (climate models cant really be validated...) p. 1 point 3: maybe add: For using proxy based reconstructions to estimate climate sensitivity and climate carbon cycle feedback, credible uncertainty ranges will need to be included. p. 1, end of 2nd to last paragraph: I am not sure the long reanalysis will really inform about stability of teleconnections, as that may be model sensitive, so the teleconnections may be influenced by what the model can do.... turn of page 1 to 2 doesnt seem to work out - it sounds right now as if we want to constrain sensitivity to global and regional modes of variability? top of p. 2: I would emphasize predictions through the 20th century, as the next few decades will be strongly influenced by transient climate response but the end of the century more by carbon cycle feedbacks. p. 2, point 3: the detection studies are to some extent covered by my new grant - sensitivity would not be. point 5: I wouldnt trust stability of teleconnections based on a model only...need to be nailed by data. This may benefit if Sandys proposal gets funded. and last tiny point: the Edinburgh team are now all profs. cheers and thanks for this Gabi Chris Turney wrote: > Hi guys, > > Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and > wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. > > Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks > great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The > more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the > detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the > attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed, > perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access > will probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off the edge > of the known world that would be great. > > Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in > being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. > > All the best, > > Chris > **************************************************** > *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* > > Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing carbon > the way nature intended/ > // > > 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 > The University of Exeter > Exeter > Devon > EX4 4RJ > UK > > Home page: > 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 > > **************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriele Hegerl Chair of Climate System Science School of GeoSciences, 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 http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 608. 2009-08-20 12:13:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:13:01 -0400 from: Graciano Petersen subject: Comment/Reply Review Request to: "p.jones@uea.ac.uk" Dear Dr. Jones: Would you be willing and available to review a Comment and Reply pair to a GRL article entitled "Potential Biases in Inferring Holocene Temperature Trends from Long-Term Borehole Information" that was authored by Michael Mann, et al? I have attached manuscript #2008gl036354, the article to which both the Comment and Reply refer, to this message. If you agree to review the Comment and Reply pair, please let me know ASAP so that I may send you the official invitation letter and you can start the review process. If you have any questions or need more information, feel free to reply to this email or call me at 202.777.7387. Thank you for your consideration and support of Geophysical Research Letters. Sincerely, Graciano Petersen Editor's Assistant Geophysical Research Letters Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2009gl036354.pdf" 5091. 2009-08-21 09:26:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Chris Turney , Phil Jones , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Catherine Bass date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:26:03 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager to: Sandy Tudhope Morning All, from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. some random comments w.r.t. proxy data Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and parameters. At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this record. C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature trends and variability since 1552 I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. Rob Sandy Tudhope wrote: > Hi Chris et al, > > Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was off > email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, Simon and > Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. > > I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some > more specific comments: > > a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, I > think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the current > opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make significant > progress now in an area that people have been working in for quite > some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction from proxies, we > can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: > > - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of > coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction > (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). > - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already exist > through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from ourselves, and > that with a relatively modest field effort we are now in a position to > provide a more complete and hence robust coverage for tropical SST > reconstruction. > > b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. > My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the > justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done through a > consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively > approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant advances > in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties in the proxy > data and their interpretation. As I've said before, the inclusion of > isotopes in models is going to provide some excellent opportunities to > better understand what we can and can't say from some forms of proxy > data. > > c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so everybody > knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals to provide a > reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD getting sparser > back beyond than and hardly anything prior to 1600AD (in terms of > continuous records from living corals). > d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with Mat > Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other collaborators) > currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is focussed around > ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a combination of > analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration to other climate > proxy data (to look at stability of teleconnections), and climate > model evaluation and runs (using the CMIP5 archive plus new isotope > enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of our periods of focus is, > naturally, the last millennium. Obviously, we have no idea if this > will be funded, but if it is, it would provide additional proxy data > (mostly short floating chronologies), plus modelling. > > e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, but > like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and novelty > of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would be a rush, > so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule of meetings as > currently proposed (although I can't make the September one). > However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, I > will do what I can to contribute. > > Cheers, > > Sandy > > Chris Turney wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold >> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. >> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks >> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The >> more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the >> detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the >> attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed, >> perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet >> access will probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off >> the edge of the known world that would be great. >> >> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in >> being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. >> >> All the best, >> >> Chris >> **************************************************** >> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* >> >> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing carbon >> the way nature intended/ >> // >> >> 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 >> The University of Exeter >> Exeter >> Devon >> EX4 4RJ >> UK >> >> Home page: >> 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 >> >> **************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5262. 2009-08-21 13:55:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Chris Jones , Peter Cox , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Catherine Bass date: Fri Aug 21 13:55:23 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager to: Rob Wilson , Sandy Tudhope Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we have a number of strands: - extending the instrumental records - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series are needed (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, and we also have these for instrumental data also) - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons between models and obs. Most important of all though is the justification for the consortium and what the proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all the proxy and early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders of magnitude more proxy data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could reassess all these diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good for (or not) and seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead to new larger-scale reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in a few regions). This would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), but it wouldn't be main justification. Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics for the students. A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the reconstructions. As Rob says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline has a specific set of limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we brought more things in. The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of the emails to be going to happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the consortium bid. Just putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be enough. It will be difficult to sell, but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy data center at NCDC (Boulder) does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series available. Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good scientific issues when considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which ones do the work and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are coming along - on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be addressed, enabling the robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. Groups all around the world are trying to do this at local-to-regional scales with some looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these efforts, bringing together all the contacts each of us has. Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to reductions in climate sensitivity, but it will be a long process. As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to bring all the parts together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous efforts going on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out most of the issues. One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from ERA-40 and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a paper on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to improve the input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer 20th century reanalyses. Cheers Phil At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: Morning All, from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. some random comments w.r.t. proxy data Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and parameters. At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this record. C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature trends and variability since 1552 I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. Rob Sandy Tudhope wrote: Hi Chris et al, Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some more specific comments: a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make significant progress now in an area that people have been working in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't say from some forms of proxy data. c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating chronologies), plus modelling. e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the September one). However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, I will do what I can to contribute. Cheers, Sandy Chris Turney wrote: Hi guys, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. All the best, Chris **************************************************** *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* Director of Carbonscape <[1]http://www.carbonscape.com>, /Fixing carbon the way nature intended/ // Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past <[2]http://us.macmillan.com/icemudandblood> Popular science website: [3]www.christurney.com <[4]http://www.christurney.com> Journal of Quaternary Science <[5]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs> Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Home page: [6]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml <[7]http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml> E-mail: c.turney@exeter.ac.uk <[8]mailto: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 **************************************************** -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [9]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 915. 2009-08-22 09:58:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:58:18 +0100 from: "Cox, Peter" subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager to: Rob Wilson , Gabi Hegerl Dear Folks I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss a proposal for July 2010 is really an option. The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us until December. So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year. Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going full-steam ahead for the December call. Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ? All the best Peter Prof Peter Cox Professor of Climate System Dynamics School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics University of Exeter Exeter EX4 4QF UK Tel: 01392 269220 Mob: 07827 412572 ________________________________________ From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM To: Gabi Hegerl Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager Hi All, I think I am also keener for July 2010 If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec 1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly. I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-) Rob Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious > modelling along the line of sensitivity > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds. > > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative .... > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to > get thoughts clearer. > > Gabi > > Phil Jones wrote: >> >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we >> have a number >> of strands: >> >> - extending the instrumental records >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series >> are needed >> >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, >> and we also have these for instrumental data also) >> >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons >> between models and obs. >> >> Most important of all though is the justification for the >> consortium and what the >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all >> the proxy and >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders >> of magnitude more proxy >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could >> reassess all these >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good >> for (or not) and >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead >> to new larger-scale >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in >> a few regions). This >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), >> but it wouldn't be main justification. >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics >> for the students. >> >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the >> reconstructions. As Rob >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline >> has a specific set of >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we >> brought more things in. >> >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of >> the emails to be going to >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the >> consortium bid. Just >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be >> enough. It will be difficult to sell, >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy >> data center at NCDC (Boulder) >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series >> available. >> >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good >> scientific issues when >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which >> ones do the work >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are >> coming along - >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be >> addressed, enabling the >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. >> >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at >> local-to-regional scales with some >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these >> efforts, bringing together >> all the contacts each of us has. >> >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to >> reductions in climate sensitivity, >> but it will be a long process. >> >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to >> bring all the parts >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous >> efforts going >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out >> most of the issues. >> >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from >> ERA-40 >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a >> paper >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to >> improve the >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer >> 20th century reanalyses. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: >>> Morning All, >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. >>> >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data >>> >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and >>> parameters. >>> >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this >>> record. >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature >>> trends and variability since 1552 >>> >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote: >>>> Hi Chris et al, >>>> >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. >>>> >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some >>>> more specific comments: >>>> >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: >>>> >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. >>>> >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't >>>> say from some forms of proxy data. >>>> >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating >>>> chronologies), plus modelling. >>>> >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the >>>> September one). >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, >>>> I will do what I can to contribute. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sandy >>>> >>>> Chris Turney wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> **************************************************** >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* >>>>> >>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/ >>>>> // >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> The University of Exeter >>>>> Exeter >>>>> Devon >>>>> EX4 4RJ >>>>> UK >>>>> >>>>> Home page: >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> **************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1899. 2009-08-24 08:24:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:24:47 -0500 from: Harold Ambler subject: Re: transparency to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Thank you especially for the attachment. A couple of thoughts: 1. Regarding the "scientists-only" policy. As a writer, I am puzzled by this. We in the publishing profession do not ordinarily object to scientists writing articles and books intended for a wide audience, even if it is clear that the individual is not a "born writer" or even a comfortable one. Plenty of valuable mass-market books have been written, nonetheless, by such authors, simply because the information that they were conveying probably could not have come from any other source. Some scientists write like angels, of course. 2. I do not share the view that the days when amateurs contributed meaningfully to the development of science have come to an end. If you have studied the history of science, particularly that of your own great country, then you already know that non-academic, frequently self-taught individuals have changed the scientific debate permanently in a given field because of their own (frequently scoffed-at) work. Your somewhat condescending position toward "non-scientists" is in keeping with Royal Society snobbery of the 19th century, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that, like those of the society, your efforts to keep the barbarians at the gate will be shown in the end to be a waste of time. 3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained. It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was." I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal Society fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that), he is exactly such a figure. If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best way to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data. The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to "audit" your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then the "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many. Thank you for your consideration. All the best, in all things, Harold On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Phil Jones wrote: It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was. 3188. 2009-08-24 09:34:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 24 09:34:17 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Data Loss- a couple of questions to: Daniel Youmans Dan, [1]http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/08/climate_researcher_vs_foi_part.html This alludes to another story (below) where the issues are similar. This is from a skeptic email listing. It obviously depends on what people think of as Environmental Information. It is useful to look at the EIR and see what it refers too. It doesn't refer to climate data. In this case with Queens, the tree-ring data come from ages ago, so to my mind it isn't current EIR. One issue is that FOI and EIR probably shouldn't apply to some things Universities do. Researchers should be free to determine who they want to work with. In the tree case there are numerous people in central Europe (alpine countries and Germany especially) who have chronologies for dating buildings and paintings. Many make reasonable livings out of doing this work. If their data were made available, they would be out of a job. Keenan is a nasty person. I did comply with one of his FOI requests [2]http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm Keenan documents things here, but misses out several important facts. SUNYA (State University of NY at Albany) investigated the claims, and found them to be groundless. Keenan agreed not to do anything about his claim until SUNYA investigated things, but he then published them in a journal (Energy and Environment) whilst their investigation was ongoing. There is no way of dealing with these people. A number of US Universities have been beset with claims over the last few years. The datasets CRU make available on its web site ( eg [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/) are used by countless climatologists around the world. I'd just look at the number of citations for this paper. Mitchell, T.D. and Jones, P.D., 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693-712. Also have a look at my citation record on World of Science. Because of my common surname you have to remove one from biology, but it is still very high. This is a pain to do, so have a look at this site. [4]http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/ Person obviously motivated by green politics, but it shows how high many CRU people are in the list. My position varies on his list, but he's probably worth contacting. With the way the UK govt assesses research for RAE (and the new REF) citation counts are one metric. Proposals and PhD students are other metrics. Names of people who were in CRU (Tom Wigley, previous Director, Mark New, Jean Palutikof Robert Marsh, Sarah Raper and Dick Warrick). People still in CRU are me, Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn who are in the list. Mike Hulme was in CRU, but is now in ENV. This web site has been updated with citation counts for many of the skeptics. It is sometimes difficult to classify people as easily as this though. Finally [5]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/ has a quote from Sir David King, the former govt Chief Scientist. [6]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/annrep2008 [7]http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.94246!env_ann_rep_2007.pdf Have a look at the 2007 Report and the number of ENV people involved in the IPCC Reports. ENV (including CRU) involvement is more than other University Dept anywhere in the world. Only the Met Office in the UK and NOAA (American Met Service) have more. Away Aug 27-Sept 5. Cheers Phil Peiser, Benny wrote: CCNet Xtra, 15 August 2009 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars ANOTHER UK CLIMATE DATA WITHHOLDING SCANDAL IS EMERGING -------------------------------------------------- They are my data. --Peter M. Brown, President of the Tree-Ring Society, April 2007 In other words, even if the research and the researcher's salary are fully paid for by the public - as is the case at QUB - the researcher still regards the data as his or her personal property. -- Doug Keenan, 14 August 2009 I also offered to visit QUB with the case officer, to demonstrate how quickly the data could be copied (e.g. from floppy disks), and to copy the data myself. The officer, though, declined my offer, again saying that she was satisfied with QUB's explanation. There is a mechanism to appeal an ICO decision, to a tribunal. I told the case officer that I wanted to do so. The officer replied that, in order to file an appeal, I would need a formal Decision Notice from the ICO. I requested a Decision Notice. The officer then informed me that the ICO would send a Notice, but that, because they were busy, it would take about two years to do so. -- Doug Keenan, 14 August 2009 The main problem with dendrochronolgy is one of small sample size. As a forester, who specialises in forest measurement, I can state that within any stand of trees, managed or not, there is always variation within the stand with competition between trees being the main player. Sure annual weather events will influence the stand as a whole, but often this will be masked by the within stand competition. If the dendro gets the sample wrong then any inferences that they might make about the past weather are also incorrect. I shake my head every time someone quotes from another dendro study, when will they ever learn? --Pnadanus, WUWT, 14 August 2009 I speak as a forester who has examined tree rings on zillions of stumps and cores. Weather events and conditions are not at all obvious in tree rings. Heck, even fire scars are difficult to discern and fires often leave no mark at all on individual trees. An unusually mild winter, dry spring, or a hot summer are all virtually impossible to detect, even if thousands of contemporaneous ring series are measured to a gnats eyebrow and compared. --Mike D., WUWT, 14 August 2009 -------------------- ANOTHER UK CLIMATE DATA WITHHOLDING SCANDAL IS EMERGING Watts Up With That, 14 August 2009 <[8]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/14/another-uk-climate-data-scandal-i> s-emerging/#more-9913> As many WUWT readers know, Steve McIntyre's tireless quest to get the raw data that makes up the gridded Hadley Climate Research Unit HadCRUT dataset has been fraught with delays, FOI denials, and obvious obfuscation. In some cases the "dog ate my homework" is the excuse. The UK Register has an excellent summary of the issue. A similar issue has been brewing in parallel over tree ring data in the UK. Doug Keenan tells us the story of getting the "ring around" for over 2 years trying to obtain what many would consider a simple and non controversial data request. - Anthony Guest Post by Doug Keenan Queen's University Belfast is a public body in the United Kingdom. As such, it is required to make certain information available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. The university holds some information about tree rings (which is important in climate studies and in archaeology). Following discusses my attempt to obtain that information, using the Act. Scientists study tree rings for two main purposes. One purpose is to learn something about what the climate was like many years ago. For instance, if many trees in a region had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good (e.g. warm and with lots of rain); tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago. The other purpose in studying tree rings is to date artefacts found in archaeological contexts; for an example, see here. Tree-ring data from Northern Ireland One of the world's leading centers for tree-ring work is at Queen's University Belfast (QUB), in Northern Ireland. The tree-ring data that QUB has gathered is valuable for studying the global climate during the past 7000 years: for a brief explanation of this, see here. Most of the tree-ring data held by QUB was gathered decades ago; yet it has never been published. There is a standard place on the internet to publish such data: the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), which currently holds tree-ring data from over 1500 sites around the world. QUB refuses to publish or otherwise release most of its data, though. So I have tried to obtain the data by applying under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FoI Act). I have submitted three separate requests for the data. Each request described the data in a different way, in an attempt to avoid nit-picking objections. All three requests were for the data in electronic form, e.g. placed on the internet or sent as an e-mail attachment. The first request was submitted in April 2007. QUB refused the first request in May 2007. I appealed the refusal to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of QUB, who rejected the appeal. The primary reason that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor gave for rejection was that some of the data was in paper form and had not been converted to electronic form. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor additionally claimed that after data was converted to electronic form, "It is then uploaded to the International Tree Ring Data Base". There might indeed be some small portion of the data that is not in electronic form. My request, though, was for a copy of the data that is in electronic form. So, is all data that is in electronic form available at the ITRDB, as the Pro-Vice-Chancellor claimed? QUB has in the past published the results of various analyses of its tree-ring data (most notably its claim to have sequences of overlapping tree rings extending back in time many millennia). In doing the analyses, the sequences of tree-ring data are analyzed statistically, and the statistical computations are done by computer. This is well known, and moreover has been stated by QUB's former head tree-ring researcher, Michael G.L. Baillie, in several his publications. (Indeed, Baillie and his colleague Jon R. Pilcher, also at QUB, wrote a widely-used computer program for tree-ring matching, CROS.) Obviously the data that was used for those computations is in electronic form-and it has not been uploaded to the ITRDB. Thus the claim by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is untrue. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor further claimed that to organize the data in "the very precise categories which [I] have specified" [in my request] would entail a vast amount of work. My request, though, was merely for the tree-ring data that had been obtained and used by the university; that hardly seems like precise categorization. Moreover, I later submitted a second request for "the data about tree rings that has been obtained by [QUB] and that is held in electronic form by the university". That request was also refused. And a third request that was very similar to the second was refused. All three requests were refused in whole, even though the university is required to make partial fulfillment when that is practicable. The UK Information Commissioner's Office After half a year of trying to obtain the information from QUB, I appealed to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO is charged with ensuring that the FoI Act is enforced. My appeal to the ICO was submitted on 24 October 2007. The ICO notified me that an officer had been assigned to begin investigating my case on 14 October 2008. Such a long delay is clearly incompatible with effective working of the Act. The ICO then contacted QUB, asking for further information. QUB then admitted that almost all the data was stored in electronic form. Thus QUB implicitly admitted that its prior claims were untruthful. QUB now asserted, however, that the data was on 150 separate disks and that it would take 100 hours to copy those disks. (These were floppy disks-the type that slide into computers and, prior to the internet, were commonly used to carry electronic data.) It takes only a minute or two to copy a floppy disk, however; so the claim of 100 hours to copy 150 floppy disks is an unrealistic exaggeration. QUB also said that it considered photocopying a printed version of the data, but that this would take over 1800 hours. As noted above, all my requests were for data that is in electronic form; moreover, I have repeated this point in subsequent correspondences with QUB. The statement from QUB about photocopying is thus not relevant. On 22 December 2008, the ICO sent me a letter rejecting my appeal, on the grounds that the time needed by QUB would exceed an "appropriate limit" (as stipulated in the FoI Act). The ICO had accepted QUB's explanation for refusing to release the data without question, and without discussing the explanation with me. I telephoned the ICO to raise some objections. To each objection that I raised, the ICO case officer gave the same reply: "I'm satisfied with their [QUB's] explanation". I also offered to visit QUB with the case officer, to demonstrate how quickly the data could be copied (e.g. from floppy disks), and to copy the data myself. This seemed particularly appropriate because the officer had told me when she started on the case that she would visit QUB as a standard part of investigation, yet she had not made such a visit. The officer, though, declined my offer, again saying that she was satisfied with QUB's explanation. There is a mechanism to appeal an ICO decision, to a tribunal. I told the case officer that I wanted to do so. The officer replied that, in order to file an appeal, I would need a formal Decision Notice from the ICO. I requested a Decision Notice. The officer then informed me that the ICO would send a Notice, but that, because they were busy, it would take about two years to do so. Environmental Information Regulations I discussed the above with a colleague, David Holland. Holland said that my request should not have been processed under the FoI Act. His reasoning was that the information I was requesting was about the environment: environmental information is exempt from the FoI Act and requests for such information should instead be processed under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). He pointed out that the tree-ring data clearly fits the definition of "environmental information" given in the EIR. It also clearly fits the common (dictionary) definition. I had been aware that the EIR existed, but had assumed that the EIR was essentially the same as the FoI Act. After the discussion with Holland, though, I checked and found that there is one major difference between the EIR and the FoI Act: under the EIR, there is no limit on the amount of time that a public institution requires to process a request. In other words, even if QUB's original claim that some of the data was only available on paper were true, or even if QUB's revised claim that copying data from disks would take 100 hours were true, that would still not be a valid reason for refusing to supply the information. I am not an expert in how to apply the EIR or FoI Act, though. So I telephoned the ICO headquarters to ask for guidance. There I spoke with a Customer Service Advisor, Mike Chamberlain. Chamberlain told me the following: that the information seemed obviously environmental; that there was no limit on processing time that could be used to refuse a request for environmental information; that I could freely visit a site where environmental information was held in order to examine the information; and that it was the duty of the public authority (i.e. QUB) to determine whether the EIR or the FoI Act was applicable. Chamberlain also confirmed everything that he told me with someone more senior at the ICO. It is regrettable that I had not realized the above earlier. My initial request to QUB, in April 2007, had stated the following. It might be that this request is exempt from the FOIAct, because the data being requested is environmental information. If you believe that to be so, process my request under the Environmental Information Regulations. QUB, however, had not processed my application correctly. I should have caught that. There is another issue. I had described the information to the ICO case officer by telephone and also by e-mail (on 24 November 2008). Hence the case officer must have known that the information was environmental, and thus exempt under the FoI Act and only requestable under the EIR. Why did the ICO not act on that? On 29 January 2009, I e-mailed the case officer, citing the above-quoted statement from my request to QUB and saying "I would like to know the reasoning that led to my request being processed under the Freedom of Information Act, instead of EIR". Initially, there was no reply. The EIR was enacted pursuant to the Aarhus Convention, an international treaty on environmental information that the UK promoted, signed, and ratified. Failure to implement the EIR would constitute a failure by the UK to adhere to the Convention. So, a few weeks after e-mailing my question to the ICO, and with no reply, I contacted the Aarhus Convention Secretariat (ACS), at the United Nations in Geneva. The ACS has a mechanism whereby individuals can file a complaint against a country for breaching the Convention. I had an initial discussion with the ACS about this. That turned out to be unnecessary though. The Assistant Information Commissioner for Northern Ireland contacted me, on 10 March 2009: he was now handling my case and, moreover, he had visited QUB and seen some of the data. On 22 April 2009, I received a telephone call from the Assistant Information Commissioner for Northern Ireland. The Assistant Commissioner said that he was preparing a Decision Notice for the case, and he made it clear that the Notice would hold that the data should be released under the EIR. The next I heard anything was on 13 July 2009, when it was announced that the Assistant Commissioner had been suspended. On 13 August 2009, I telephoned the ICO: I was told that a new officer would be assigned to the case within the next few days and that a draft Notice, which had been written by the Assistant Commissioner, was in the signatory process. I am presently awaiting further word. Another example-Gothenburg University I have previously been involved with obtaining tree-ring data from another institution: Gothenburg University, in Sweden. Sweden has a law that is similar to the UK's Freedom of Information Act (the Swedish law is the Principle of Public Access). In 2004, Swedish courts ruled that the law applied to research data held by universities. In a famous case known as the "Gillberg affair", a researcher at Gothenburg University refused to obey the law. As a result, both the researcher and the rector of the university were convicted of criminal malfeasance. (The researcher received a suspended sentence and a fine; the rector received a fine.) Gothenburg University does substantial tree-ring research. On 10 April 2007, I requested their tree-ring data. The university's lead tree-ring researcher repeatedly resisted, claiming that it would take weeks of his time, and that he was too busy to do it. On 22 April 2008, I sent a letter to the (new) rector of Gothenburg University, saying that if the data was not supplied, I would file complaints with both the Court and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden. The next day, all the data was submitted to the ITRDB. What transpired with Gothenburg University exemplifies the importance of laws on Freedom of Information for tree-ring data. Motivations for withholding data Some people have asked why QUB does not want to release the data. In fact, most tree-ring laboratories do not make their data available: it is not just QUB and Gothenburg that have been reluctant. The reason for this was elucidated by Peter M. Brown, in April 2007. At the time, Brown was president of the Tree-Ring Society, which is the main international organization for tree-ring researchers. Following is an excerpt (the full explanation is here). ... they ARE my data. Funding agencies pay me for my expertise, my imagination, and my insights to be able to make some advance in our understanding of how nature works, not for raw data sets. ... It is the understanding and inferences supplied by the scientist that funding agencies are interested in, not her or his raw data. In other words, even if the research and the researcher's salary are fully paid for by the public-as is the case at QUB-the researcher still regards the data as his or her personal property. There are only a few tree-ring laboratories where attitudes are different. One example is the University of St Andrews, in the UK. Almost all tree-ring data held by St Andrews is freely available in the ITRDB. It is notable that QUB continues to withhold its data even though, in 2009, the tree-ring laboratory at QUB was effectively closed. The closure was primarily due to the lab lacking funds, which presumably resulted from having almost no research publications (i.e. the lab had not been producing anything; so funding agencies declined to support it). The dearth of publications occurred even though the lab has some extremely valuable data on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic-global warming (as outlined here). This problem arises because the QUB researchers do not have expertise to analyze the data themselves and they do not want to share their data with other researchers who do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Correspondences Date Sender Summary (with link) 2007-04-10 DJK My first request for the information held by QUB (sent by e-mail). 2007-04-16 QUB Acknowledgement of request. 2007-05-11 QUB E-mail saying that there will be a delay in responding to the request (which is required to be within 20 business days of my request), but that QUB would respond by May 18th. 2007-05-21 DJK E-mail to the ICO, about the lack of response from QUB; Cc'd to QUB. 2007-05-22 QUB First refusal of the request for information. 2007-05-22 QUB E-mail with attached description of how to appeal the refusal (this was sent following a telephone call to QUB in which I noted that they are required to send me such). 2007-05-23 DJK E-mail to the ICO, noting that QUB had responded. 2007-05-24 DJK Appeal of the refusal, submitted to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of QUB. 2007-05-25 QUB Initial response to the appeal, saying that appeal to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be resorted to only if QUB's Information Compliance Officer and I are unable to resolve things ourselves. 2007-06-02 ICO Acknowledgement of my prior e-mails, correctly noting that the ICO should not act at this time. 2007-06-21 QUB Second refusal of the request for information. 2007-07-13 DJK Appeal, submitted to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of QUB. 2007-07-26 QUB Notification that a response to my appeal to a Pro-Vice-Chancellor will be delayed until the second half of August. 2007-08-15 QUB E-mail from a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, saying that a response to my appeal will be sent by September 30th (i.e. about seven weeks after the four-week limit). 2007-09-28 QUB Rejection of my appeal by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor. 2007-10-24 DJK Appeal to the ICO. 2007-11-27 ICO Acknowledgement of appeal, saying that it might be several months before I hear from the ICO again. 2008-05-15 DJK Second request for the information held by QUB. 2008-05-15 DJK Third request for the information held by QUB. 2008-06-12 QUB Rejection of my second and third requests, by the Head of the Registrar's Office. 2008-06-19 DJK E-mailed reply to the Head of the Registrar's Office at QUB. 2008-07-01 QUB Acknowledgement of my last e-mail, by the Head of the Registrar's Office. 2008-07-15 DJK E-mail to the ICO, notifying them of the rejected second and third requests for the information. 2008-10-14 ICO E-mail notifying me that an officer has been assigned to my case and asking me to confirm that I would like to proceed. 2008-10-15 DJK E-mail to the ICO, confirming that I would like to proceed. 2008-11-24 DJK E-mail to the ICO, briefly synopsizing how tree-ring dating works (this followed a telephone call, in which the case officer had said that might be helpful). 2008-11-24 ICO Acknowledgement of my last e-mail and notice that QUB's response had been slightly delayed. 2008-12-22 ICO Rejection of appeal. 2009-01-21 DJK E-mail summarizing telephone call with the ICO; during the call I was informed that it would take roughly two years for the ICO to issue a Decision Notice on the case. 2009-01-21 ICO Letter acknowledging my request for a Decision Notice (this was sent 43 minutes after my last e-mail, and its content appears to be independent of that). 2009-01-29 DJK E-mail to the ICO, asking why my requests for information had been processed under the FoI Act, instead of the EIR. 2009-03-02 DJK E-mail to the ACS, alleging a breach of the Aarhus Convention by the United Kingdom. 2009-03-10 ACS Reply from the ACS Legal Support Officer, concluding that the evidence substantiating the allegation is sufficient for the ACS to proceed with a review. 2009-03-10 ICO E-mail from the Assistant Information Commissioner for Northern Ireland, saying that he was handling the case and he had visited QUB (this was concomitant with a telephone call, which elaborated). 2009-03-11 DJK E-mail to the ACS, saying that the ICO was now progressing things, and so my allegation was unnecessary. 2009-03-11 ACS Acknowledgement of prior e-mail. 2009-03-25 ICO E-mail from the Assistant Information Commissioner, saying that he was continuing with work on the case and would contact me again after Easter. EDITOR'S NOTE: Background information: Why Irish tree-ring data is important, see: <[9]http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b910.htm> ---------------- CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor. <[10]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/> At 22:25 21/08/2009, you wrote: Phil, Thanks very much for that link- it definitely clears up a lot of the questions the article raises. Have papers/websites reported a similar story to this before? Have similar issues plagued other institutions? Lastly, would you be able to give us a short quote on the importance of the work the CRU does, and the benefits UEA gains from being associated therewith? Many thanks, Dan Youmans Dan Youmans News Editor (UEA) The Project e: [11]danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org w: [12]http://theprojectonline.org On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:13, Phil Jones wrote: Dan, There is no story here. We have lost no data. [13]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ We will be contacting Met Services around the world to see if we can release their data. There is an awful lot of history to the story that is doing the rounds on skeptic websites. They are just stirring things up - in some attempt to stop politicians doing anything climate change. Cheers Phil At 22:04 19/08/2009, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones, I am contacting you as UEA News Editor of The Project, a new, free, student newspaper set to launch in Norwich next month. I am writing to you about the story, published on The Register's website, about the CRU's loss of some data. Would it be possible for you to provide a reaction to this story for our paper, perhaps mentioning the pre-eminence of the CRU and the School of ENV that are so vital to UEA's reputation, or even better, if we could perhaps speak on the phone? I appreciate any help you can give me, Regards, Dan Youmans News Editor (UEA) The Project e: [14]danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org w: [15]http://theprojectonline.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 [16]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Youmans News Editor (UEA) The Project e: [17]danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org w: [18]http://theprojectonline.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1578. 2009-08-24 13:09:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:09:48 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid to: "Cox, Peter" ,Rob Wilson , Gabi Hegerl ,Phil Jones , Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney ,simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" Hi everyone, I've been on holiday for just over a week so unable to contribute to the discussions. Also, I can't find a version sent by Philip Brohan so I'm basing these comments on the version that Chris Turney circulated on 17th Aug plus the email discussions since then. The composition of the consortium is strong, but the need for a consortium project still seems weak, related to the objectives being general and difficult to "measure" whether we have achieved them. In agreement with some others' comments, it is unconvincing to say that a major aim is to determine climate variations over last 500 years with greatly reduced uncertainties. (a) Uncertainties of large-scale reconstructions are not fully estimated, so difficult to claim that we will reduce something when we don't know how big it is to begin with. (b) I don't think we'll "greatly" reduce them anyway. Constraining and directly influencing GCM development are difficult. Certainly the latter, where results from a paleo project like this would be just one piece of information amongst an array of others that will be considered in the ongoing unified model development. Much more likely is that results from a project like ours would influence the weighting or selection of individual models from perturbed physics ensembles or better still multi-model ensembles. It would be better, therefore, to focus the text more on that type of probabilistic constraining / weighting / evaluation than on things like "results from data extension packages can be fed directly to new models in an iterative process and new parameterisations developed" which may be seen as a bit naive. Finally, while I agree that the long reanalyses of the 20th century may help to provide more information on the stability of teleconnections, it might be argued that the extra information is marginal relative to what we already know from surface and atmospheric records and because the reanalyses driven by surface data only will "teleconnect" according to the model behaviour (likely to be fairly stable and hence may give us a false sense of stability) and not through constraining the atmospheric dynamic response via atmospheric observations. I'll stop here, not least because I've just received a message from Peter saying there's now a final version about to be submitted... sorry our emails have crossed! Please consider there comments anyway (if they still apply to this "final" version). Cheers Tim At 10:39 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote: >Dear Potential Consortium Members > >Chris Turney is in the back of beyond but we have had a discussion >on the phone and he has given me my instructions..;-) > >There has been loads of interesting email discussion about this >proposal, which bodes well for a lively consortium! > >Given the time constraints we have decided on the following course of action: > >1) Chris, Catherine Bass and me will revise the 2 pager (using >Philip Brohan's version as the starting point and making changes >consistent with the feedback we have had from Chris Franklin at >NERC) and send to NERC asap. > >2) If we get the go ahead from NERC we will hold a bid planning >meeting 22nd-24th September to prepare a proposal for the December >round. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend the >planning meeting where we can thrash out the details and sharpen the >scientific focus. > >We will get back to you as soon as we have feedback from NERC on the 2 pager. > >All the best > >Peter > >Prof Peter Cox >Professor of Climate System Dynamics >School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >University of Exeter >Exeter >EX4 4QF >UK >Tel: 01392 269220 >Mob: 07827 412572 >________________________________________ >From: Cox, Peter >Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:58 AM >To: Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine >Subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager > >Dear Folks > >I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss >a proposal for July 2010 is really an option. > >The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a >proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for >this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us >until December. > >So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the >University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or >we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year. > >Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although >Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus >will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going >full-steam ahead for the December call. > >Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and >submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ? > >All the best > >Peter > > >Prof Peter Cox >Professor of Climate System Dynamics >School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >University of Exeter >Exeter >EX4 4QF >UK >Tel: 01392 269220 >Mob: 07827 412572 >________________________________________ >From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM >To: Gabi Hegerl >Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip >Brohan; Bass, Catherine >Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager > >Hi All, >I think I am also keener for July 2010 >If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec >1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on >another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly. >I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-) > >Rob > >Gabi Hegerl wrote: > > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious > > modelling along the line of sensitivity > > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup > > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for > > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to > > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds. > > > > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative .... > > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to > > get thoughts clearer. > > > > Gabi > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > >> > >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), > >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we > >> have a number > >> of strands: > >> > >> - extending the instrumental records > >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series > >> are needed > >> > >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the > >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, > >> and we also have these for instrumental data also) > >> > >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons > >> between models and obs. > >> > >> Most important of all though is the justification for the > >> consortium and what the > >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all > >> the proxy and > >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders > >> of magnitude more proxy > >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could > >> reassess all these > >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good > >> for (or not) and > >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead > >> to new larger-scale > >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in > >> a few regions). This > >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), > >> but it wouldn't be main justification. > >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics > >> for the students. > >> > >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the > >> reconstructions. As Rob > >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline > >> has a specific set of > >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we > >> brought more things in. > >> > >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of > >> the emails to be going to > >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the > >> consortium bid. Just > >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be > >> enough. It will be difficult to sell, > >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy > >> data center at NCDC (Boulder) > >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series > >> available. > >> > >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good > >> scientific issues when > >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which > >> ones do the work > >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are > >> coming along - > >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be > >> addressed, enabling the > >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. > >> > >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at > >> local-to-regional scales with some > >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these > >> efforts, bringing together > >> all the contacts each of us has. > >> > >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to > >> reductions in climate sensitivity, > >> but it will be a long process. > >> > >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to > >> bring all the parts > >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous > >> efforts going > >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out > >> most of the issues. > >> > >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from > >> ERA-40 > >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a > >> paper > >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to > >> improve the > >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer > >> 20th century reanalyses. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> > >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: > >>> Morning All, > >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a > >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of > >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and > >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for > >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for > >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. > >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be > >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and > >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when > >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of > >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of > >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. > >>> > >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data > >>> > >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial > >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on > >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data > >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" > >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and > >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of > >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and > >>> parameters. > >>> > >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. > >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth > >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this > >>> record. > >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli > >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature > >>> trends and variability since 1552 > >>> > >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. > >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas > >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote: > >>>> Hi Chris et al, > >>>> > >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was > >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, > >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some > >>>> more specific comments: > >>>> > >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, > >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the > >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make > >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working > >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction > >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: > >>>> > >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of > >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction > >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). > >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already > >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from > >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are > >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust > >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. > >>>> > >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. > >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the > >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done > >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively > >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant > >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties > >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, > >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some > >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't > >>>> say from some forms of proxy data. > >>>> > >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so > >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals > >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD > >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to > >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). > >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with > >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other > >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is > >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a > >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration > >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of > >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the > >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of > >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. > >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it > >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating > >>>> chronologies), plus modelling. > >>>> > >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, > >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and > >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would > >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule > >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the > >>>> September one). > >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, > >>>> I will do what I can to contribute. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Sandy > >>>> > >>>> Chris Turney wrote: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold > >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. > >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks > >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. > >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash > >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you > >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for > >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north > >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it > >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested > >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. > >>>>> > >>>>> All the best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Chris > >>>>> **************************************************** > >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* > >>>>> > >>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing > >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/ > >>>>> // > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> The University of Exeter > >>>>> Exeter > >>>>> Devon > >>>>> EX4 4RJ > >>>>> UK > >>>>> > >>>>> Home page: > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> **************************************************** > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >> > >> Prof. Phil Jones > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 > >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 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 3925. 2009-08-24 13:43:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Rob Wilson , Gabi Hegerl , Phil Jones , Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Chris Jones , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" , "ewwo@bas.ac.uk" date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:43:30 +0100 from: Rob Allan subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager to: "Cox, Peter" Peter, I've added in a few changes and corrected a couple of typos in the attached. Re the historical reanalyses concern, I've toned that down re teleconnections in data sparse regions, but would say simply that I think that you will all be rather surprised to see just how much additional surface terrestrial and marine data are 'out there' and will be going into these reanalyses. There are as much marine surface instrumental weather observations around a good part of the globe prior to World War 2 to be recovered, digitised and assimilated into the reanalyses back into the mid-19th century as already exist in the international data bases, such as ICOADS. The improvement in the Pacific will be greater than I think any of us imagined would be possible. Cheers, Rob. On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 12:34 +0100, Cox, Peter wrote: > Dear Potential Consortium Members > > Here is the 2 pager that we would like to send to NERC later today. > > If you can see any obvious (factual or typing) errors please try to let me know by 4pm today. > > Otherwise we will get back to you as soon as NERC get back to us. > > Many Thanks > > Peter > > Prof Peter Cox > Professor of Climate System Dynamics > School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics > University of Exeter > Exeter > EX4 4QF > UK > Tel: 01392 269220 > Mob: 07827 412572 > > ________________________________________ > From: Cox, Peter > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:39 AM > To: Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl > Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine > Subject: NERC Consortium Bid > > Dear Potential Consortium Members > > Chris Turney is in the back of beyond but we have had a discussion on the phone and he has given me my instructions..;-) > > There has been loads of interesting email discussion about this proposal, which bodes well for a lively consortium! > > Given the time constraints we have decided on the following course of action: > > 1) Chris, Catherine Bass and me will revise the 2 pager (using Philip Brohan's version as the starting point and making changes consistent with the feedback we have had from Chris Franklin at NERC) and send to NERC asap. > > 2) If we get the go ahead from NERC we will hold a bid planning meeting 22nd-24th September to prepare a proposal for the December round. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend the planning meeting where we can thrash out the details and sharpen the scientific focus. > > We will get back to you as soon as we have feedback from NERC on the 2 pager. > > All the best > > Peter > > Prof Peter Cox > Professor of Climate System Dynamics > School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics > University of Exeter > Exeter > EX4 4QF > UK > Tel: 01392 269220 > Mob: 07827 412572 > ________________________________________ > From: Cox, Peter > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:58 AM > To: Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl > Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine > Subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager > > Dear Folks > > I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss a proposal for July 2010 is really an option. > > The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us until December. > > So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year. > > Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going full-steam ahead for the December call. > > Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ? > > All the best > > Peter > > > Prof Peter Cox > Professor of Climate System Dynamics > School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics > University of Exeter > Exeter > EX4 4QF > UK > Tel: 01392 269220 > Mob: 07827 412572 > ________________________________________ > From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM > To: Gabi Hegerl > Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine > Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager > > Hi All, > I think I am also keener for July 2010 > If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec > 1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on > another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly. > I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-) > > Rob > > Gabi Hegerl wrote: > > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious > > modelling along the line of sensitivity > > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup > > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for > > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to > > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds. > > > > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative .... > > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to > > get thoughts clearer. > > > > Gabi > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > >> > >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), > >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we > >> have a number > >> of strands: > >> > >> - extending the instrumental records > >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series > >> are needed > >> > >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the > >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, > >> and we also have these for instrumental data also) > >> > >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons > >> between models and obs. > >> > >> Most important of all though is the justification for the > >> consortium and what the > >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all > >> the proxy and > >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders > >> of magnitude more proxy > >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could > >> reassess all these > >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good > >> for (or not) and > >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead > >> to new larger-scale > >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in > >> a few regions). This > >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), > >> but it wouldn't be main justification. > >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics > >> for the students. > >> > >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the > >> reconstructions. As Rob > >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline > >> has a specific set of > >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we > >> brought more things in. > >> > >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of > >> the emails to be going to > >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the > >> consortium bid. Just > >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be > >> enough. It will be difficult to sell, > >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy > >> data center at NCDC (Boulder) > >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series > >> available. > >> > >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good > >> scientific issues when > >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which > >> ones do the work > >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are > >> coming along - > >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be > >> addressed, enabling the > >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. > >> > >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at > >> local-to-regional scales with some > >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these > >> efforts, bringing together > >> all the contacts each of us has. > >> > >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to > >> reductions in climate sensitivity, > >> but it will be a long process. > >> > >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to > >> bring all the parts > >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous > >> efforts going > >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out > >> most of the issues. > >> > >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from > >> ERA-40 > >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a > >> paper > >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to > >> improve the > >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer > >> 20th century reanalyses. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> > >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: > >>> Morning All, > >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a > >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of > >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and > >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for > >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for > >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. > >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be > >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and > >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when > >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of > >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of > >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. > >>> > >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data > >>> > >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial > >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on > >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data > >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" > >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and > >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of > >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and > >>> parameters. > >>> > >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. > >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth > >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this > >>> record. > >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli > >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature > >>> trends and variability since 1552 > >>> > >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. > >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas > >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote: > >>>> Hi Chris et al, > >>>> > >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was > >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, > >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some > >>>> more specific comments: > >>>> > >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, > >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the > >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make > >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working > >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction > >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: > >>>> > >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of > >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction > >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). > >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already > >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from > >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are > >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust > >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. > >>>> > >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. > >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the > >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done > >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively > >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant > >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties > >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, > >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some > >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't > >>>> say from some forms of proxy data. > >>>> > >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so > >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals > >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD > >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to > >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). > >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with > >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other > >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is > >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a > >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration > >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of > >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the > >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of > >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. > >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it > >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating > >>>> chronologies), plus modelling. > >>>> > >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, > >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and > >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would > >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule > >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the > >>>> September one). > >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, > >>>> I will do what I can to contribute. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Sandy > >>>> > >>>> Chris Turney wrote: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold > >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best. > >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks > >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. > >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash > >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you > >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for > >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north > >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it > >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested > >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. > >>>>> > >>>>> All the best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Chris > >>>>> **************************************************** > >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* > >>>>> > >>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing > >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/ > >>>>> // > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> The University of Exeter > >>>>> Exeter > >>>>> Devon > >>>>> EX4 4RJ > >>>>> UK > >>>>> > >>>>> Home page: > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> **************************************************** > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >> > >> Prof. Phil Jones > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 > > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2009_08_24_Consortium_Concept_TASOC.doc" 109. 2009-08-24 14:54:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 24 14:54:00 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: transparency to: Harold Ambler [[[unsent draft?]]] Dear Harold, You have come up with a whole list of motives for my actions, all of which are wrong. I don't consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University sector in the UK would either. University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants. I will send you another paper At 14:24 24/08/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Thank you especially for the attachment. A couple of thoughts: 1. Regarding the "scientists-only" policy. As a writer, I am puzzled by this. We in the publishing profession do not ordinarily object to scientists writing articles and books intended for a wide audience, even if it is clear that the individual is not a "born writer" or even a comfortable one. Plenty of valuable mass-market books have been written, nonetheless, by such authors, simply because the information that they were conveying probably could not have come from any other source. Some scientists write like angels, of course. 2. I do not share the view that the days when amateurs contributed meaningfully to the development of science have come to an end. If you have studied the history of science, particularly that of your own great country, then you already know that non-academic, frequently self-taught individuals have changed the scientific debate permanently in a given field because of their own (frequently scoffed-at) work. Your somewhat condescending position toward "non-scientists" is in keeping with Royal Society snobbery of the 19th century, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that, like those of the society, your efforts to keep the barbarians at the gate will be shown in the end to be a waste of time. 3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained. It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was." I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal Society fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that), he is exactly such a figure. If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best way to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data. The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to "audit" your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then the "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many. Thank you for your consideration. All the best, in all things, Harold On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Phil Jones wrote: It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1338. 2009-08-24 15:20:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 24 15:20:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: transparency to: Harold Ambler Dear Harold, I realise that I have again wasted my time trying to respond to people who do not want to understand some simple arguments. You have put completely wrong motives to statements in my last email. I work in a University. In the UK I am not considered a public servant. Attached is another paper about the costs of climate data in Europe. It is the Met services that you should be lambasting. I have been for years, but have not gotten very far. It is better to work with them according to their rules. I will say one more thing. Have you considered this issue from a perspective of a Met Service in Africa or South America. I have been told by people from these Met Services that one of the reasons they restrict access to data is that scientists in Europe and North America use their data to further their own scientific ends. This is a sort of data imperialism. They get nothing back and think of themselves as mere data collectors. They want to improve the lot of their scientists. I am able to help a few of them with grants to come and do MSc and PhD courses here at UEA, but it is only a few. It would be easy for McIntyre to produce his own global temperature series. He has no interest in doing this. Science advances through publications in scientific journals. This was how it worked in the 19th and 20th century. There are 4 versions of the global temperature series and they all agree with each other. Go to the web site below and download Ch 3, then look at Figure 3.1 [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html McIntyre has claimed to audit the GISS series - he has not written anything in the scientific literature though on this. The other 3 show much the same thing. Best Regards 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4089. 2009-08-24 17:00:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 24 17:00:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, From the language in this request, I'd regard it as vexatious. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f Subject: Freedom of Information Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA== Priority: Urgent From: "Keiller, Donald" To: , Cc: X-ARU-HELO: CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL X-ARU-sender-host: cambe02.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL) [193.63.55.173]:52733 X-ARU-Mailhub: yes X-ARU-Exchange: yes X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned X-Spam-Status: no Reply-to: Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk 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: 28247697 - c260ea255a6a (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" ([4]http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU. The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void. Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry. Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I currently work in an academic institution. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General right of access to information held by public authorities" In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference to such a request which- (a) is in writing, (b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and (c) describes the information requested. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request- (a) is transmitted by electronic means, (b) is received in legible form, and (c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hereby request: 1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller. Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit [5]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - [6]www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1297. 2009-08-24 17:13:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Cox, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:13:17 +0100 from: "Wolff, Eric W" subject: RE: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager to: Rob Wilson , Phil Jones Dear all, My apologies if I am too late - poor Internet connection at a meeting (in Greece, so no need to sympathise). The 2 pager is fine, but I agree with this last comment - if I was NERC I would want a little more on what \\i could expect for 3.5 MEuro. But go ahead if time is up Eric Eric Wolff British Antarctic Survey High Cross Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ET United Kingdom E-mail: ewwo@bas.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0)1223 221491 Fax: +44 (0)1223 221279 ________________________________________ From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 14:59 To: Phil Jones Cc: Cox, Peter; Tim Osborn; Gabi Hegerl; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine; Wolff, Eric W Subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager Hi, some minor comments and edits to Phil's version. I know that 2 pages is not a lot of space, but there is no brief specific information on, for example, the proposed palaeo updates. For example, how many coral sites (3 or ?) would be a realistic improvement on what is already available. From a tree-ring point of view, we are restricted to New Zealand, Tasmania and Souther America. Should we at least state that in collaboration with overseas partners, a major sampling of these three regions is proposed (covered by 2-3 PhD student projects?). These regions are pretty small - how can we ensure that a reviewer would not ask why the current reconstructions from these locations are not adequate for our purposes. Bar updating to present, can we really "improve" on what has been done previously? I think we could, but we make no statements in this regard. Rob Phil Jones wrote: > Peter, > Here's Simmons et al. (2004). > There is another paper almost accepted in JGR on the new ERA-INTERIM. > These are far better papers than any Kalnay et al papers that look at > NCEP. > > We'll be able to use ERA-40 for 1958-88 and ERA-INTERIM for 1989 > onwards, > and the longer ones from Compo et al. back to 1892. > > EURO4M will improve the input to the next set of ECMWF Reanalyses. > > Cheers > Phil > At 13:17 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote: >> Tim >> >> many thanks. We will correct the typo. >> >> All the overseas collaborators are now confirmed, so you are >> absolutely right we should also send them the two pager. >> >> All the best >> >> Peter >> >> Prof Peter Cox >> Professor of Climate System Dynamics >> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >> University of Exeter >> Exeter >> EX4 4QF >> UK >> Tel: 01392 269220 >> Mob: 07827 412572 >> ________________________________________ >> From: Tim Osborn [t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:16 PM >> To: Cox, Peter; Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >> Briffa; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine; >> ewwo@bas.ac.uk >> Subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager >> >> Dear Peter et al., >> >> my previous email with post-holiday comments just crossed with >> this. Some are still relevant, though this version is improved in >> relation to the claims of greatly reducing uncertainties thought we >> still claim too much influence on GCM development. >> >> Typo error: Jones, Briffa & Osborn affiliation is "Climatic Research >> Unit" NOT Climate Change Research Unit! >> >> Have all the overseas partners confirmed their participation and >> hence won't be surprised to see their names listed? We should send >> them a copy of the submitted version too. >> >> Cheers and thanks for your hard work on this at Exeter and elsewhere, >> >> Tim >> >> At 12:34 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote: >> >Dear Potential Consortium Members >> > >> >Here is the 2 pager that we would like to send to NERC later today. >> > >> >If you can see any obvious (factual or typing) errors please try to >> >let me know by 4pm today. >> > >> >Otherwise we will get back to you as soon as NERC get back to us. >> > >> >Many Thanks >> > >> >Peter >> > >> >Prof Peter Cox >> >Professor of Climate System Dynamics >> >School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >> >University of Exeter >> >Exeter >> >EX4 4QF >> >UK >> >Tel: 01392 269220 >> >Mob: 07827 412572 >> > >> >________________________________________ >> >From: Cox, Peter >> >Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:39 AM >> >To: Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >> >Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >> >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, >> Catherine >> >Subject: NERC Consortium Bid >> > >> >Dear Potential Consortium Members >> > >> >Chris Turney is in the back of beyond but we have had a discussion >> >on the phone and he has given me my instructions..;-) >> > >> >There has been loads of interesting email discussion about this >> >proposal, which bodes well for a lively consortium! >> > >> >Given the time constraints we have decided on the following course >> of action: >> > >> >1) Chris, Catherine Bass and me will revise the 2 pager (using >> >Philip Brohan's version as the starting point and making changes >> >consistent with the feedback we have had from Chris Franklin at >> >NERC) and send to NERC asap. >> > >> >2) If we get the go ahead from NERC we will hold a bid planning >> >meeting 22nd-24th September to prepare a proposal for the December >> >round. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend the >> >planning meeting where we can thrash out the details and sharpen the >> >scientific focus. >> > >> >We will get back to you as soon as we have feedback from NERC on the >> 2 pager. >> > >> >All the best >> > >> >Peter >> > >> >Prof Peter Cox >> >Professor of Climate System Dynamics >> >School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >> >University of Exeter >> >Exeter >> >EX4 4QF >> >UK >> >Tel: 01392 269220 >> >Mob: 07827 412572 >> >________________________________________ >> >From: Cox, Peter >> >Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:58 AM >> >To: Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >> >Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >> >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, >> Catherine >> >Subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager >> > >> >Dear Folks >> > >> >I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss >> >a proposal for July 2010 is really an option. >> > >> >The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a >> >proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for >> >this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us >> >until December. >> > >> >So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the >> >University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or >> >we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year. >> > >> >Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although >> >Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus >> >will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going >> >full-steam ahead for the December call. >> > >> >Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and >> >submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ? >> > >> >All the best >> > >> >Peter >> > >> > >> >Prof Peter Cox >> >Professor of Climate System Dynamics >> >School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >> >University of Exeter >> >Exeter >> >EX4 4QF >> >UK >> >Tel: 01392 269220 >> >Mob: 07827 412572 >> >________________________________________ >> >From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM >> >To: Gabi Hegerl >> >Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >> >Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip >> >Brohan; Bass, Catherine >> >Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager >> > >> >Hi All, >> >I think I am also keener for July 2010 >> >If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for >> Dec >> >1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on >> >another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly. >> >I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-) >> > >> >Rob >> > >> >Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> > > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious >> > > modelling along the line of sensitivity >> > > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup >> > > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for >> > > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to >> > > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds. >> > > >> > > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative .... >> > > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to >> > > get thoughts clearer. >> > > >> > > Gabi >> > > >> > > Phil Jones wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), >> > >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To >> summarise, we >> > >> have a number >> > >> of strands: >> > >> >> > >> - extending the instrumental records >> > >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series >> > >> are needed >> > >> >> > >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the >> > >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, >> > >> and we also have these for instrumental data also) >> > >> >> > >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons >> > >> between models and obs. >> > >> >> > >> Most important of all though is the justification for the >> > >> consortium and what the >> > >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all >> > >> the proxy and >> > >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two >> orders >> > >> of magnitude more proxy >> > >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could >> > >> reassess all these >> > >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good >> > >> for (or not) and >> > >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually >> lead >> > >> to new larger-scale >> > >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially >> detailed (in >> > >> a few regions). This >> > >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or >> PhDs), >> > >> but it wouldn't be main justification. >> > >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific >> topics >> > >> for the students. >> > >> >> > >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all >> the >> > >> reconstructions. As Rob >> > >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each >> discipline >> > >> has a specific set of >> > >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we >> > >> brought more things in. >> > >> >> > >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of >> > >> the emails to be going to >> > >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the >> > >> consortium bid. Just >> > >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be >> > >> enough. It will be difficult to sell, >> > >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The >> proxy >> > >> data center at NCDC (Boulder) >> > >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series >> > >> available. >> > >> >> > >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good >> > >> scientific issues when >> > >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which >> > >> ones do the work >> > >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that >> are >> > >> coming along - >> > >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be >> > >> addressed, enabling the >> > >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. >> > >> >> > >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at >> > >> local-to-regional scales with some >> > >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these >> > >> efforts, bringing together >> > >> all the contacts each of us has. >> > >> >> > >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to >> > >> reductions in climate sensitivity, >> > >> but it will be a long process. >> > >> >> > >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to >> > >> bring all the parts >> > >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together >> numerous >> > >> efforts going >> > >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash >> out >> > >> most of the issues. >> > >> >> > >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those >> from >> > >> ERA-40 >> > >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved >> in a >> > >> paper >> > >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to >> > >> improve the >> > >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer >> > >> 20th century reanalyses. >> > >> >> > >> Cheers >> > >> Phil >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: >> > >>> Morning All, >> > >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should >> be a >> > >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the >> importance of >> > >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and >> > >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for >> > >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for >> > >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. >> > >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be >> > >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and >> > >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 >> when >> > >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of >> > >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of >> > >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or >> otherwise. >> > >>> >> > >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data >> > >>> >> > >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial >> > >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on >> > >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough >> data >> > >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" >> > >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and >> > >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of >> > >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and >> > >>> parameters. >> > >>> >> > >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting >> talk. >> > >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth >> > >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on >> this >> > >>> record. >> > >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli >> > >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature >> > >>> trends and variability since 1552 >> > >>> >> > >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. >> > >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas >> > >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two >> PhDs. >> > >>> >> > >>> Rob >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote: >> > >>>> Hi Chris et al, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was >> > >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, >> > >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. >> Some >> > >>>> more specific comments: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two >> pages, >> > >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the >> > >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make >> > >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working >> > >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction >> > >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for >> corals: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of >> > >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction >> > >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). >> > >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already >> > >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from >> > >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are >> > >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust >> > >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still >> needs work. >> > >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the >> > >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done >> > >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more >> effectively >> > >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant >> > >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using >> uncertainties >> > >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, >> > >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some >> > >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and >> can't >> > >>>> say from some forms of proxy data. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so >> > >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals >> > >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around >> 1750-1800AD >> > >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to >> > >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). >> > >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I >> (with >> > >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other >> > >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC >> that is >> > >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, >> using a >> > >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, >> integration >> > >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of >> > >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using >> the >> > >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). >> One of >> > >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. >> > >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it >> is, it >> > >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating >> > >>>> chronologies), plus modelling. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, >> > >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope >> and >> > >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st >> would >> > >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule >> > >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the >> > >>>> September one). >> > >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December >> submission, >> > >>>> I will do what I can to contribute. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Cheers, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Sandy >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Chris Turney wrote: >> > >>>>> Hi guys, >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very >> cold >> > >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not >> the best. >> > >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all >> looks >> > >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. >> > >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash >> > >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you >> > >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're >> happy for >> > >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head >> north >> > >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it >> > >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be >> great. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested >> > >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> All the best, >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Chris >> > >>>>> **************************************************** >> > >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing >> > >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/ >> > >>>>> // >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> 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 >> > >>>>> The University of Exeter >> > >>>>> Exeter >> > >>>>> Devon >> > >>>>> EX4 4RJ >> > >>>>> UK >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Home page: >> > >>>>> 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 >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> **************************************************** >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>> 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 >> > >>> >> > >>> 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 >> > >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> Prof. Phil Jones >> > >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 >> > >> >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 >> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2846. 2009-08-24 21:38:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , "Cox, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine" , "ewwo@bas.ac.uk" date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:38:20 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager to: Rob Wilson Hi all, minor fiddling done with it, I do worry if we really need the runs or if we could make reasonable progress focusing more on the proxy side, but ok as is for now. It would be good if there were a way to clarify what data will be obtained and if this will be costed in this project or elsewhere, how many pdras etc (but then we would have to cut this here elsewhere). Gabi Quoting Rob Wilson : > Hi, > some minor comments and edits to Phil's version. > > I know that 2 pages is not a lot of space, but there is no brief > specific information on, for example, the proposed palaeo updates. > For example, how many coral sites (3 or ?) would be a realistic > improvement on what is already available. > From a tree-ring point of view, we are restricted to New Zealand, > Tasmania and Souther America. Should we at least state that in > collaboration with overseas partners, a major sampling of these three > regions is proposed (covered by 2-3 PhD student projects?). These > regions are pretty small - how can we ensure that a reviewer would not > ask why the current reconstructions from these locations are not > adequate for our purposes. Bar updating to present, can we really > "improve" on what has been done previously? I think we could, but we > make no statements in this regard. > > Rob > > Phil Jones wrote: >> Peter, >> Here's Simmons et al. (2004). >> There is another paper almost accepted in JGR on the new ERA-INTERIM. >> These are far better papers than any Kalnay et al papers that look at NCEP. >> >> We'll be able to use ERA-40 for 1958-88 and ERA-INTERIM for 1989 onwards, >> and the longer ones from Compo et al. back to 1892. >> >> EURO4M will improve the input to the next set of ECMWF Reanalyses. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> At 13:17 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote: >>> Tim >>> >>> many thanks. We will correct the typo. >>> >>> All the overseas collaborators are now confirmed, so you are >>> absolutely right we should also send them the two pager. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> Prof Peter Cox >>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics >>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >>> University of Exeter >>> Exeter >>> EX4 4QF >>> UK >>> Tel: 01392 269220 >>> Mob: 07827 412572 >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Tim Osborn [t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:16 PM >>> To: Cox, Peter; Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >>> Briffa; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine; >>> ewwo@bas.ac.uk >>> Subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager >>> >>> Dear Peter et al., >>> >>> my previous email with post-holiday comments just crossed with >>> this. Some are still relevant, though this version is improved in >>> relation to the claims of greatly reducing uncertainties thought we >>> still claim too much influence on GCM development. >>> >>> Typo error: Jones, Briffa & Osborn affiliation is "Climatic Research >>> Unit" NOT Climate Change Research Unit! >>> >>> Have all the overseas partners confirmed their participation and >>> hence won't be surprised to see their names listed? We should send >>> them a copy of the submitted version too. >>> >>> Cheers and thanks for your hard work on this at Exeter and elsewhere, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> At 12:34 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote: >>>> Dear Potential Consortium Members >>>> >>>> Here is the 2 pager that we would like to send to NERC later today. >>>> >>>> If you can see any obvious (factual or typing) errors please try to >>>> let me know by 4pm today. >>>> >>>> Otherwise we will get back to you as soon as NERC get back to us. >>>> >>>> Many Thanks >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Prof Peter Cox >>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics >>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >>>> University of Exeter >>>> Exeter >>>> EX4 4QF >>>> UK >>>> Tel: 01392 269220 >>>> Mob: 07827 412572 >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Cox, Peter >>>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:39 AM >>>> To: Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine >>>> Subject: NERC Consortium Bid >>>> >>>> Dear Potential Consortium Members >>>> >>>> Chris Turney is in the back of beyond but we have had a discussion >>>> on the phone and he has given me my instructions..;-) >>>> >>>> There has been loads of interesting email discussion about this >>>> proposal, which bodes well for a lively consortium! >>>> >>>> Given the time constraints we have decided on the following course >>> of action: >>>> >>>> 1) Chris, Catherine Bass and me will revise the 2 pager (using >>>> Philip Brohan's version as the starting point and making changes >>>> consistent with the feedback we have had from Chris Franklin at >>>> NERC) and send to NERC asap. >>>> >>>> 2) If we get the go ahead from NERC we will hold a bid planning >>>> meeting 22nd-24th September to prepare a proposal for the December >>>> round. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend the >>>> planning meeting where we can thrash out the details and sharpen the >>>> scientific focus. >>>> >>>> We will get back to you as soon as we have feedback from NERC on the >>> 2 pager. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Prof Peter Cox >>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics >>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >>>> University of Exeter >>>> Exeter >>>> EX4 4QF >>>> UK >>>> Tel: 01392 269220 >>>> Mob: 07827 412572 >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Cox, Peter >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:58 AM >>>> To: Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl >>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine >>>> Subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager >>>> >>>> Dear Folks >>>> >>>> I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss >>>> a proposal for July 2010 is really an option. >>>> >>>> The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a >>>> proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for >>>> this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us >>>> until December. >>>> >>>> So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the >>>> University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or >>>> we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year. >>>> >>>> Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although >>>> Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus >>>> will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going >>>> full-steam ahead for the December call. >>>> >>>> Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and >>>> submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ? >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> Prof Peter Cox >>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics >>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics >>>> University of Exeter >>>> Exeter >>>> EX4 4QF >>>> UK >>>> Tel: 01392 269220 >>>> Mob: 07827 412572 >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk] >>>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM >>>> To: Gabi Hegerl >>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith >>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip >>>> Brohan; Bass, Catherine >>>> Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I think I am also keener for July 2010 >>>> If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec >>>> 1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on >>>> another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly. >>>> I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-) >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> Gabi Hegerl wrote: >>>> > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious >>>> > modelling along the line of sensitivity >>>> > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup >>>> > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for >>>> > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to >>>> > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds. >>>> > >>>> > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative .... >>>> > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to >>>> > get thoughts clearer. >>>> > >>>> > Gabi >>>> > >>>> > Phil Jones wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi), >>>> >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we >>>> >> have a number >>>> >> of strands: >>>> >> >>>> >> - extending the instrumental records >>>> >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series >>>> >> are needed >>>> >> >>>> >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the >>>> >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to, >>>> >> and we also have these for instrumental data also) >>>> >> >>>> >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons >>>> >> between models and obs. >>>> >> >>>> >> Most important of all though is the justification for the >>>> >> consortium and what the >>>> >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all >>>> >> the proxy and >>>> >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders >>>> >> of magnitude more proxy >>>> >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could >>>> >> reassess all these >>>> >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good >>>> >> for (or not) and >>>> >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead >>>> >> to new larger-scale >>>> >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in >>>> >> a few regions). This >>>> >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), >>>> >> but it wouldn't be main justification. >>>> >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics >>>> >> for the students. >>>> >> >>>> >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the >>>> >> reconstructions. As Rob >>>> >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline >>>> >> has a specific set of >>>> >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we >>>> >> brought more things in. >>>> >> >>>> >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of >>>> >> the emails to be going to >>>> >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the >>>> >> consortium bid. Just >>>> >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be >>>> >> enough. It will be difficult to sell, >>>> >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy >>>> >> data center at NCDC (Boulder) >>>> >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series >>>> >> available. >>>> >> >>>> >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good >>>> >> scientific issues when >>>> >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which >>>> >> ones do the work >>>> >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are >>>> >> coming along - >>>> >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be >>>> >> addressed, enabling the >>>> >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified. >>>> >> >>>> >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at >>>> >> local-to-regional scales with some >>>> >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these >>>> >> efforts, bringing together >>>> >> all the contacts each of us has. >>>> >> >>>> >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to >>>> >> reductions in climate sensitivity, >>>> >> but it will be a long process. >>>> >> >>>> >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to >>>> >> bring all the parts >>>> >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous >>>> >> efforts going >>>> >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out >>>> >> most of the issues. >>>> >> >>>> >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from >>>> >> ERA-40 >>>> >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a >>>> >> paper >>>> >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to >>>> >> improve the >>>> >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer >>>> >> 20th century reanalyses. >>>> >> >>>> >> Cheers >>>> >> Phil >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: >>>> >>> Morning All, >>>> >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a >>>> >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of >>>> >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and >>>> >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for >>>> >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for >>>> >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. >>>> >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be >>>> >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and >>>> >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when >>>> >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of >>>> >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of >>>> >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial >>>> >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on >>>> >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data >>>> >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably" >>>> >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and >>>> >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of >>>> >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and >>>> >>> parameters. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk. >>>> >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth >>>> >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this >>>> >>> record. >>>> >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli >>>> >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature >>>> >>> trends and variability since 1552 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. >>>> >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas >>>> >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Rob >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Chris et al, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was >>>> >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, >>>> >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some >>>> >>>> more specific comments: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages, >>>> >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the >>>> >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make >>>> >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working >>>> >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction >>>> >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of >>>> >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction >>>> >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers). >>>> >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already >>>> >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from >>>> >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are >>>> >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust >>>> >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work. >>>> >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the >>>> >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done >>>> >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively >>>> >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant >>>> >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties >>>> >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before, >>>> >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some >>>> >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't >>>> >>>> say from some forms of proxy data. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so >>>> >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals >>>> >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD >>>> >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to >>>> >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals). >>>> >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with >>>> >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other >>>> >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is >>>> >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a >>>> >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration >>>> >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of >>>> >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the >>>> >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of >>>> >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium. >>>> >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it >>>> >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating >>>> >>>> chronologies), plus modelling. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, >>>> >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and >>>> >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would >>>> >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule >>>> >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the >>>> >>>> September one). >>>> >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, >>>> >>>> I will do what I can to contribute. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sandy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Turney wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold >>>> >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not >>> the best. >>>> >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks >>>> >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. >>>> >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash >>>> >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you >>>> >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for >>>> >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north >>>> >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it >>>> >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested >>>> >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Chris >>>> >>>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS* >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing >>>> >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/ >>>> >>>>> // >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> The University of Exeter >>>> >>>>> Exeter >>>> >>>>> Devon >>>> >>>>> EX4 4RJ >>>> >>>>> UK >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Home page: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Prof. Phil Jones >>>> >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Gabriele Hegerl chair of climate system science 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. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RW-2009 08 24 Consortium_Concept_TASOC_gh.doc" 487. 2009-08-25 07:29:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:29:44 +0100 from: "Deborah Wargate" subject: RE: Climate change research to: "Tofield Bruce Dr \(LCIC\)" Hi Bruce Thank you very much - yes we have some very clever indvidiuals within our district who have presented me with a CD of information of which my few lines is a very brief summary of one element and they will no doubt be spreading the word locally. One of whom is very keen to have a discussion with scientific experts in the field regarding what he sees as dire misinformation regarding climate change, the greenhouse effect and human influence which is why I will now mention his name where usually I would keep it confidential, Dr Hans Schreuder. If such an oportunity did arise it could really help those of us who had to leave university far too early although whether Poles Apart can be brought together I am never sure. Yes real climate is a useful resource which I must confess I haven't looked at recently - I shall do so now. Kind regards Deborah ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) [mailto:B.Tofield@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 24/08/2009 18:53 To: Deborah Wargate Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Hi Deborah I'm copying your e-mail to people more expert than myself in the detail of climate change measurement and modelling. Phil or Clare - could you perhaps send any relevant papers to Deborah. It is important that the Suffolk Climate Change Strategy gets the best advice it can - they are doing a great job overall. However, while it is sad that there seem still to be climate change deniers (who are probably responsible directly or indirectly for the response you quote) there are a number of sites that can provide helpful insight. One of the most useful is realclimate.org which needs a bit of exploring but can usually provide a helpful antidote to the lies that are otherwise peddled and which are difficult to refute. In respect of short-term fluctuations in long-term trends - which is what your responders are getting at I think - El Nino can have a significant impact. For information on this see [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/. Extracting a sentence from this: The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Nio) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years! The link to similar work is to [2]http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82, see p9. Another place to look for correct information is the Met Office site, [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html. Here, the link to Fact 2 gives straightforward information about the recent and current situation. It's dire and it is important not to be put off taking action by stupid misinformation. Hope this helps - but the people in CRU are the real experts. Bruce This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. 'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company registered in England (no. 05906083) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia Go green, keep it on screen. Think before you print - save energy and paper. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Deborah Wargate [Deborah.Wargate@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 15:55 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: Climate change research Dear Bruce Hope alls well. I am trawling through reponses to the SCDC climate change strategy to present a report to the Green Issues Task Group and one concerns me as I may well be challenged on it and it is not a piece of research I am familiar with: The response is: The premise that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is false - research published by inter alia the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia shows that the combined global land and marine surface temperature has fallen since 2004. Now unfortunately it does not give any more information as to the name of the research etc although I suspect looking at the CRU website it is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, [4]doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 Do you know 1) where I could get a look at a copy of the above 2) if the person could be refering to anything else and where I can get copies of that If you can answer these queries and have any other thoughts that would be much appreciated. I am writing to a tight timescale - report due in on 3rd Sept. Kind regards Deborah Wargate _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ 5201. 2009-08-25 08:48:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Aug 25 08:48:30 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: quick comment... to: Dave Thompson Dave, Fine. Odd sometimes that John drops me off. I'm away Aug 27 to Sep 5 if the proofs come during these 9 days. I'd like to see them, but will be out of email contact in Jersey. I doubt I'll be allowed to check email! The NH-SH series is interesting, but we don't want it too perfect. The drop in the difference series is interesting. Useful to look at some modelling runs to see if they get such a difference. I'm involved in a paper with Adrian Simmons on ERA-INTERIM (1989-2008) which is showing some interesting things with specific and relative humidity. I'll send when it's all accepted by JGR - hopefully by the time I'm back. Cheers Phil At 17:37 24/08/2009, Dave Thompson wrote: Hi Phil, Hope you don't mind me including you in the emails with John... I have a hunch there is something interesting in the NH/SH work, and as that work progresses, I hope you don't mind my bouncing my ideas off of you and John. I enjoyed putting the last pair of papers together with you....and would enjoy doing so again... Thanks, -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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 767. 2009-08-25 17:07:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:07:59 +0100 from: "Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC)" subject: RE: Climate change research to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , Deborah Wargate Deborah These people just waste your time. Just present the facts. You wouldn't get in a debate with a flat-earther. Bruce ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 12:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Deborah, Getting into debates with people is something I'd like to avoid. Cheers Phil At 10:22 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Dear Phil Thank you for this information your help is much appreciated. Yes we have indeed - several vocal ones in fact but one in Dr Schroeder who is very keen to actually debate this with the establishment. Deborah Wargate SCDC Environmental Sustainability Officer 01394 444747 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 10:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Bruce, Deborah, You seem to have one of the climate change deniers in your midst in Dr Schroeder! The web sites you have given Bruce provide some responses. Real Climate is a good one. There are numerous poor ones which keep on regurgitating the same myths. The Met Office site is good as well. There is another good one at New Scientist [2]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 As for this particular one, no climatologist would think that the world would warm year on year. Climate change caused by greenhouse gases is best viewed on the decadal timescale. On the year-to-year timescale, global temperatures are much more strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina events. The former cause the world to be warmer and the latter cooler. We've been in a La Nina in 2007 and 2008 and are now moving to an El Nino, so 2009 will be warmer than the last 2 years. The next big El Nino (which may be soon of the current event continues) may make 2010 the warmest ever year. The sentences you want to explain this are in the CRU Information Sheet No 1. [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (0.43C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24C above 1961-90 mean). The last sentence is the crucial one. People should look at decadal-scale trends and not at individual years. At the decadal time scale the effects of El Nino and La Nina cancel. This sort of thing has happened before - the attached paper dispells these myths. It also shows that in a future climate model simulation there will be periods with little warming even though the temperature gets warmer by 4 degrees C by 2100. Sadly , there are still people out there who keep peddling the same misinformation. Cheers Phil At 07:29 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Hi Bruce Thank you very much - yes we have some very clever indvidiuals within our district who have presented me with a CD of information of which my few lines is a very brief summary of one element and they will no doubt be spreading the word locally. One of whom is very keen to have a discussion with scientific experts in the field regarding what he sees as dire misinformation regarding climate change, the greenhouse effect and human influence which is why I will now mention his name where usually I would keep it confidential, Dr Hans Schreuder. If such an oportunity did arise it could really help those of us who had to leave university far too early although whether Poles Apart can be brought together I am never sure. Yes real climate is a useful resource which I must confess I haven't looked at recently - I shall do so now. Kind regards Deborah ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) [ [4]mailto:B.Tofield@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 24/08/2009 18:53 To: Deborah Wargate Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Hi Deborah I'm copying your e-mail to people more expert than myself in the detail of climate change measurement and modelling. Phil or Clare - could you perhaps send any relevant papers to Deborah. It is important that the Suffolk Climate Change Strategy gets the best advice it can - they are doing a great job overall. However, while it is sad that there seem still to be climate change deniers (who are probably responsible directly or indirectly for the response you quote) there are a number of sites that can provide helpful insight. One of the most useful is realclimate.org which needs a bit of exploring but can usually provide a helpful antidote to the lies that are otherwise peddled and which are difficult to refute. In respect of short-term fluctuations in long-term trends - which is what your responders are getting at I think - El Nino can have a significant impact. For information on this see [5]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/ . Extracting a sentence from this: The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Nio) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years! The link to similar work is to [6]http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82, see p9. Another place to look for correct information is the Met Office site, [7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html . Here, the link to Fact 2 gives straightforward information about the recent and current situation. It's dire and it is important not to be put off taking action by stupid misinformation. Hope this helps - but the people in CRU are the real experts. Bruce This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. 'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company registered in England (no. 05906083) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia Go green, keep it on screen. Think before you print - save energy and paper. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Deborah Wargate [Deborah.Wargate@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 15:55 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: Climate change research Dear Bruce Hope alls well. I am trawling through reponses to the SCDC climate change strategy to present a report to the Green Issues Task Group and one concerns me as I may well be challenged on it and it is not a piece of research I am familiar with: The response is: The premise that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is false - research published by inter alia the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia shows that the combined global land and marine surface temperature has fallen since 2004. Now unfortunately it does not give any more information as to the name of the research etc although I suspect looking at the CRU website it is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, [8]doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 Do you know 1) where I could get a look at a copy of the above 2) if the person could be refering to anything else and where I can get copies of that If you can answer these queries and have any other thoughts that would be much appreciated. I am writing to a tight timescale - report due in on 3rd Sept. Kind regards Deborah Wargate _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3210. 2009-08-26 16:13:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Renu R. Joseph" date: Wed Aug 26 16:13:01 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal to: "Bamzai, Anjuli" Anjuli, I'd have thought most of the IDAG group would not be possible, as we're working on a new proposal. I guess you could try some of the peripheral people from some of the modelling centers (such as Jerry Meehl, Ron Stouffer) and/or maybe someone like Jerry Potter. Cheers Phil At 14:06 25/08/2009, Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: OK got these. Any other suggested names from the IDAG group perhaps? -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:05 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Cc: Renu R. Joseph Subject: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal Anjuli, Thanks. Enjoy the rest of the your time in India with the family. As for reviewers, I've not worked with either Ray Bradley or Henry Diaz in the past 5 years. Only really met them at the CCPP meetings. Another set of the people are at NCDC - Dave Easterling and Russ Vose. I did a paper with Russ Vose in 2004, but that was the last with them. I have worked on a GCOS committee with Tom Peterson (also at NCDC) - so avoid him. I've done some work with Ben Santer and Karl Taylor at PCMDI in the past few years. There might be others at PCMDI though. I'm away from Aug 27 to Sept 5. Cheers Phil At 13:51 25/08/2009, Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: >No need for you to send any hard copies Phil. > >I meant we hope to receive the hard copies sent to us from DOE >grants.gov itself. We usually get them in a couple of days. Renu will >confirm receipt as hard copy gets to us. > >If you have any suggested reviewers with whom you have no conflict of >interests (you should not have collaborated the past 5 years or so), >please mail across. > >Yes, vacation is going very well. Nice not to worry about day-to-day >household chores for a change! Also spending quality time with my >86-year old mother. I know this time with her is a gift I will cherish >some day, in the not-too-distant future. > >Best >Anjuli > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:22 AM >To: Bamzai, Anjuli >Subject: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal > > > Anjuli, > Hope you're enjoying your time in India. > > How many hard copies? We have submitted online. > > I can get these posted off by the end of the week. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 09:45 25/08/2009, you wrote: > >OK, I hope the hard copies reach us in the next few days. Perhaps Renu > >can confirm receipt. > >I'll be back at DC only Sept 7. > > > >Phil: Currently on annual leave at New Delhi. Monsoons have failed > >miserably this year, widespread drought predicted for several areas in > >India. > > > >Anjuli > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Meardon Fiona Miss (ACAD) [[3]mailto:F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:00 AM > >To: Bamzai, Anjuli > >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal > > > >Dear Anjuli > > > >Further to your correspondence with Phil Jones regarding the above, my > >job share partner (Dr Alicia Meldrum) and I are the overall > >administrative and legal contact for this and have been dealing with >the > >submission of the renewal application. > > > >Phil has asked that we confirm to you that the application was >submitted > >via Grants.gov today. We have received the automatic confirmation email > >that it has been received and validated but please let Alicia or I know > >if there are any problems. > > > >With thanks and best wishes > > > >Fiona > > > > > >________________________________________ > >Miss Fiona Meardon, > >Research Contracts Manager, > >University of East Anglia > >Tel: 01603 591484 | Fax: 01603 591550 > >Email: f.meardon@uea.ac.uk | Web: [4]www.uea.ac.uk/research > > > >Research, Enterprise & Engagement 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. > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2827. 2009-08-27 11:18:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:18:33 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: fyi to: Tim Osborn , Phil Jones Phil, Tim, Thought you should know about this, I'd rather you didn't divulge the source of course. Hopefully Mr Youmans will be asking CRU for an interview..? Cheers Harry Begin forwarded message: > To: ian@hajata.org.uk > Subject: Fw: Press > > Harry, > > I hope you are well. > > Are you still working for CRU? > > Any advice on how I should respond to the below enquiry? The actual > quote in the linked article suggests the headline is misleading so > I thought I would ask you for background before deciding what, if > anything, to say in response to this enquiry. > > > --- On Wed, 19/8/09, Green Party wrote: > > From: Green Party > Subject: Press > Date: Wednesday, 19 August, 2009, 3:07 PM > > This is a response sent by Dan Youmans using the feedback form on > the website. The details of the message follow below: > Name: Dan Youmans > Email: danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org > Regarding: Press > comments: > Hi Adrian, I'm Dan Youmans, a Politics student at UEA, and the UEA > News Editor of The Project, a new, free student newspaper for > Norwich set to launch this September. We're currently working on > our first issue, and would like to cover the Climatic Research Unit > at UEA's loss of primary data (link below) http:// > www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ Would it be possible > for me to speak with you on the phone re this issue? We'd love to > hear your response, and a quote form the party's Deputy Leader, and > a UEA graduate to-boot would greatly enhance our launch issue. I > look forward to hearing from you, Many thanks Dan Youmans News > Editor (UEA) The Project e: danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org w: > http://theprojectonline.org > You can use this link to reply: danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2418. 2009-08-27 17:23:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:23:02 -0400 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: Question on temperature record in China to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil--very helpful. There were indeed a number of Skeptics, but also a lot of people across the disciplines eager for information, and of course impressed by IPCC. Were no one like me there to keep going after the Skeptics and talking to the others in the in between times, they would, it seems to me, be more likely to think there is something serious about the opposition of the Skeptics--but the way it came off, with me going after Zichichi and his skepticism, I think was helpful to the others. Now, I did get a few things to get back to Skeptics and others about. One is the temperature of the Arctic and how representative it is given the limited observations in the first half of the 20th century outside the Atlantic sector. I am actually wondering if what might have happened in that sector early on was a combination of a diminution of the volcanic aerosol and a strong enhancement of the soot deposition from US, Europe, and Soviet Union--coming from the initial tall stacks (constructed to loft the pollution away from emissions points) and falling on the sea ice, etc. in the North Atlantic sector. I should check the ice core records for soot, though dark particles would, I imagine, melt their way down through the snow/ice. Best, Mike On 8/23/09 6:04 AM, "Phil Jones" wrote: > Mike, > Here's a paper of mine from 2008 on China. > Figure 8 shows what you'd get for greater China back to > 1900 and compared with SST off the eastern Chinese coast. > Agreement good with Chinese data from 1950 from Li et al. > > I think the Wang is PK Wang and the paper is some years old. > There are lots of Wangs though.... > > One issue is that all the stations with data prior to late 1940s > would be in the east. Western half only starts since 1950. > > One other issue is that many Chinese works include some > paleo data to try to help in the west - trees, ice cores etc, > but you never know how they do it. They also all seem to be > by a Wang... > > The China region I chose included some data from Russia > (well USSR) to get stations near the border with > Mongolia. > > Hope you're enjoying the meeting - I know there are lots of > skeptics there. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Hi Phil--I am at an international meeting in Erice, Sicily, and during a >> presentation by some Chinese scientists, one showed a temperature record >> for >> China that drew a number of questions (as did the global record for the WW >> II upward bump in the record--but I have mentioned that to you before). >> >> The China record, cited to P. Wang, showed a strong warming that seemed to >> have a peak in the 1920s/30s and a second strong upward bump in the 1940s >> as >> well as the rise over last several decades. The question was mainly on the >> reasons for the extended peak during second quarter of the 20th century. >> >> There were a few thoughts: >> >> (1) some say this record reported on by Want is not generally viewed as >> reliable--I don't know the entire reference, but it was plotted in same >> way >> as your record on same graph, so I was wondering if this is the China land >> stations in your record? >> >> (2) for much of the time of this rise, China was at war with Japan, and so >> it is a bit hard to understand how the Chinese could have kept a stable >> network over this time (I just finished the book "The Man who Loved China" >> which is the story of Joseph Needham, whom I assume you know of given his >> British career story--and my grandfather was in China during much of this >> time), so I would think that there might be large uncertainties. So, is >> the >> set of stations stable and thought to be good? >> >> (3) if this is indeed from your record, does this suggest that some of >> what >> appears to be the global warming is affected by what this record indicates >> is happening in China; and what would the global record look like without >> the China data--if it is indeed thought that this record might be flawed. >> >> In any case, this record did raise a number of questions that the paper's >> author, who was focusing on a quite different aspect of science, could not >> defend or explain. >> >> Thanks for any insight that you can offer. >> >> Best, Mike MacCracken >> >> >> 4705. 2009-08-28 17:21:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:21:39 -0400 from: "Joseph, Renu" subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal] to: "Joseph, Renu" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Got them today. Thanks, -Renu ******************************************************** Renu R. Joseph Ph.D Program Manager Climate Change and Prediction Program Climate and Environmental Sciences Division SC-23.1 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 Ph: 301-903-9237 Fax: 301-903-8519 [1]renu.joseph@science.doe.gov For Courier Services: Alan Jenkins/ Renu Joseph US Department of Energy SC-23.1 19901 Germantown Rd MD 20874-1290 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Joseph, Renu Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:28 PM To: Bamzai, Anjuli; 'F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk'; 'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk' Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal] The hard copies of the proposals have not made it our office as yet. I am told it takes about 2 weeks to get it. If I do not get the proposal by Sept 4th, I will get in touch with the folks at our end again. Thanks for letting me know. -Renu ******************************************************** Renu R. Joseph Ph.D Program Manager Climate Change and Prediction Program Climate and Environmental Sciences Division SC-23.1 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 Ph: 301-903-9237 Fax: 301-903-8519 [2]renu.joseph@science.doe.gov For Courier Services: Alan Jenkins/ Renu Joseph US Department of Energy SC-23.1 19901 Germantown Rd MD 20874-1290 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Renu R. Joseph [mailto:rjoseph@atmos.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:02 AM To: Joseph, Renu Subject: [Fwd: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:45:42 -0400 From: Bamzai, Anjuli [3] To: Meardon Fiona Miss (ACAD) [4] CC: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) [5], Renu R. Joseph [6] References: [7] OK, I hope the hard copies reach us in the next few days. Perhaps Renu can confirm receipt. I'll be back at DC only Sept 7. Phil: Currently on annual leave at New Delhi. Monsoons have failed miserably this year, widespread drought predicted for several areas in India. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Meardon Fiona Miss (ACAD) [[8]mailto:F.Meardon@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:00 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Subject: USDoE - UEA Application for Renewal Dear Anjuli Further to your correspondence with Phil Jones regarding the above, my job share partner (Dr Alicia Meldrum) and I are the overall administrative and legal contact for this and have been dealing with the submission of the renewal application. Phil has asked that we confirm to you that the application was submitted via Grants.gov today. We have received the automatic confirmation email that it has been received and validated but please let Alicia or I know if there are any problems. With thanks and best wishes Fiona ________________________________________ Miss Fiona Meardon, Research Contracts Manager, University of East Anglia Tel: 01603 591484 | Fax: 01603 591550 Email: [9]f.meardon@uea.ac.uk | Web: [10]www.uea.ac.uk/research Research, Enterprise & Engagement 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. -- ********************************************** Dr. Renu R. Joseph, Research Associate Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Univ. of Maryland, College Park 3433 Computer and Space Sciences Building College Park, MD-20742 W #: 1-301-405-8833 F #: 1-301-314 9482 email: rjoseph at atmos.umd.edu wepage: [11]http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~rjoseph ********************************************** 1180. 2009-09-01 11:45:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:45:29 +0100 from: "Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC)" subject: RE: Climate change research to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , Deborah Wargate Deborah In the US, the attempt by large organisations to oppose climate change action via apparent grassroots activity is called 'astroturfing'. Grist is quite a good site to learn about these kind of things. See, for example, [1]http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-17-astroturf-wars-continue-api-energy-citizen-ralli es/ Don't know where the cd comes from that your Dr Schroeder has passed to you, but it would not be surprising if, underneath all, is something similar. Keep away from so-called 'debates' and just quote the material from Phil and elsewhere - which is scientifically peer reviewed. For non peer-reviewed interest, but of real interest and concern, read about studies of Greenland ice and glacier melting in today's Guardian. Global temperature rises are not uniform around the world because of the disposition of continents and oceans and the Arctic, in particular, has warmed more than average. While the implications are unclear, the potential is worrying as you will read about in the paper today. For a relatively low-lying county such as Suffolk, this is more germane I would have thought than a debate with climate change deniers. It is possible, because of non-linear effects of increased warming in and around the Arctic that sea level rise this century could exceed the 4th assessment report estimates (and this did point out that such effects were not taken account of because they weren't yet easily modelled). Phil could advise you better than I what is current informed scientific thinking on this point but now is the time to start thinking about the impact of climate-change driver sea-level rise. Bruce ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 12:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Deborah, Getting into debates with people is something I'd like to avoid. Cheers Phil At 10:22 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Dear Phil Thank you for this information your help is much appreciated. Yes we have indeed - several vocal ones in fact but one in Dr Schroeder who is very keen to actually debate this with the establishment. Deborah Wargate SCDC Environmental Sustainability Officer 01394 444747 ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 10:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Bruce, Deborah, You seem to have one of the climate change deniers in your midst in Dr Schroeder! The web sites you have given Bruce provide some responses. Real Climate is a good one. There are numerous poor ones which keep on regurgitating the same myths. The Met Office site is good as well. There is another good one at New Scientist [3]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 As for this particular one, no climatologist would think that the world would warm year on year. Climate change caused by greenhouse gases is best viewed on the decadal timescale. On the year-to-year timescale, global temperatures are much more strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina events. The former cause the world to be warmer and the latter cooler. We've been in a La Nina in 2007 and 2008 and are now moving to an El Nino, so 2009 will be warmer than the last 2 years. The next big El Nino (which may be soon of the current event continues) may make 2010 the warmest ever year. The sentences you want to explain this are in the CRU Information Sheet No 1. [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (0.43C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24C above 1961-90 mean). The last sentence is the crucial one. People should look at decadal-scale trends and not at individual years. At the decadal time scale the effects of El Nino and La Nina cancel. This sort of thing has happened before - the attached paper dispells these myths. It also shows that in a future climate model simulation there will be periods with little warming even though the temperature gets warmer by 4 degrees C by 2100. Sadly , there are still people out there who keep peddling the same misinformation. Cheers Phil At 07:29 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Hi Bruce Thank you very much - yes we have some very clever indvidiuals within our district who have presented me with a CD of information of which my few lines is a very brief summary of one element and they will no doubt be spreading the word locally. One of whom is very keen to have a discussion with scientific experts in the field regarding what he sees as dire misinformation regarding climate change, the greenhouse effect and human influence which is why I will now mention his name where usually I would keep it confidential, Dr Hans Schreuder. If such an oportunity did arise it could really help those of us who had to leave university far too early although whether Poles Apart can be brought together I am never sure. Yes real climate is a useful resource which I must confess I haven't looked at recently - I shall do so now. Kind regards Deborah ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) [ [5]mailto:B.Tofield@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 24/08/2009 18:53 To: Deborah Wargate Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Hi Deborah I'm copying your e-mail to people more expert than myself in the detail of climate change measurement and modelling. Phil or Clare - could you perhaps send any relevant papers to Deborah. It is important that the Suffolk Climate Change Strategy gets the best advice it can - they are doing a great job overall. However, while it is sad that there seem still to be climate change deniers (who are probably responsible directly or indirectly for the response you quote) there are a number of sites that can provide helpful insight. One of the most useful is realclimate.org which needs a bit of exploring but can usually provide a helpful antidote to the lies that are otherwise peddled and which are difficult to refute. In respect of short-term fluctuations in long-term trends - which is what your responders are getting at I think - El Nino can have a significant impact. For information on this see [6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/ . Extracting a sentence from this: The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Nio) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years! The link to similar work is to [7]http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82, see p9. Another place to look for correct information is the Met Office site, [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html . Here, the link to Fact 2 gives straightforward information about the recent and current situation. It's dire and it is important not to be put off taking action by stupid misinformation. Hope this helps - but the people in CRU are the real experts. Bruce This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. 'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company registered in England (no. 05906083) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia Go green, keep it on screen. Think before you print - save energy and paper. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Deborah Wargate [Deborah.Wargate@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 15:55 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: Climate change research Dear Bruce Hope alls well. I am trawling through reponses to the SCDC climate change strategy to present a report to the Green Issues Task Group and one concerns me as I may well be challenged on it and it is not a piece of research I am familiar with: The response is: The premise that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is false - research published by inter alia the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia shows that the combined global land and marine surface temperature has fallen since 2004. Now unfortunately it does not give any more information as to the name of the research etc although I suspect looking at the CRU website it is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, [9]doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 Do you know 1) where I could get a look at a copy of the above 2) if the person could be refering to anything else and where I can get copies of that If you can answer these queries and have any other thoughts that would be much appreciated. I am writing to a tight timescale - report due in on 3rd Sept. Kind regards Deborah Wargate _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1778. 2009-09-01 13:50:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Grant Foster , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz, b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Mike Mann , James Annan , Gavin Schmidt date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:50:03 +1200 from: Jim Salinger subject: RE: McLean et al. 2009 our response to: trenbert@ucar.edu Greetings Kevin From a hot Geneva night - although I have just calculated that August in NZ was the warmest ever: 10.4 which is +1.7 deg C and equal to average September. I did look up the AGU structure and Alan currently chairs the Atmospheric Sciences part. And Tim Kileen is the past president, the new president having just come and being a geologist. I am more than happy with the approach you suggest but, as doubtless you know, the deniers are really publicising it. Hope all is well with your parents...I am back properly Thursday next week, but in NZ from Tuesday (at RSNZ workshop in Wellington workshop on acidification Wednesday) Best Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : > Hi Jim > I am in chch. Not sure that this is the right thing to do. Look up the > AGU structure and see if there is a publications board or commission. > They are the ones who should be written to if anyone. Wouldn't hurt to cc > Alan. Also you should say that you believe there was a breakdown in the > editorial oversight and reviewing process. Do not say "shocked". Hint > that the commission should approach the responsible editor to upgrade > his/her practices. > Kevin > >> Hi Guys >> >> At WCC-3 in Geneva and just been talking with Steve Schneider who has >> been getting sick of being approached by folk quoting McLean et al at >> him. He strongly suggests we should write a courtesy letter to the >> Atmospheric Sciences Section of AGU, chaired by Alan Robock - see >> >> http://www.agu.org/inside/section_officers.php#A >> >> copied to the past president of AGU Tim Kilean along the lines: >> >> Dear AGU Officers for Atmospheric Sciences >> >> We thought as a courtesy we should send to you our response to the >> paper by Mclean et al in JGR. We are shocked that such a paper was >> published. >> >> Yours etc >> >> Paper attached >> >> I strongly suggest we do, as alan Robock and others would be horrified. >> >> Agree?? If son Grant perhaps should write it and send as lead author. >> If you don't let me know >> >> Best >> >> Jim >> \ >> Quoting Grant Foster : >> >>> >>> One thing that would definitely be of help: can someone familiar with >>> the literature about ENSO/temperature correlations write a brief >>> section on what was already known about this (with references)? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Grant >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest >>> sports videos. Check it out. >>> http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >> > > > ___________________ > Kevin Trenberth > Climate Analysis Section, NCAR > PO Box 3000 > Boulder CO 80307 > ph 303 497 1318 > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 3629. 2009-09-03 09:39:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:39:13 -0400 (EDT) from: Alan Robock subject: Re: AGU and Dr. P. Jones (fwd) to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, I was there once - flew there from Birmingham after the IUGG meeting and then took the ferry to France - half the price for the flight at the time as compared to flying to France, and Sherri met me and we went to the museum, seeing where the Germans hid in the caves. It was very interesting. Did you take the ship to St. Malo and have a nice meal? Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Alan, > Good decision from old Jersey! > Credit crunch means there are lots of Jersey's for > sale and Guernsey's. s Guernsey of further west and > windier they might be better for winters in Norwich. > > Great museum here of the occupation - never been before > even though I've been here a few times. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Dear Phil, >> >> We're always on holiday here in Jersey! >> >> Since the letter was to me, I have decided, with the concurrence of >> others at AGU, to ignore it and not reply. >> >> You, Mike Mann, and Ben Santer should form a club. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> >>> Alan,> Dear Tim, >>> On holiday in Jersey. Have found a wifi connection >>> unfortuntely? >>> Will get back to you when back at UEA. >>> Getting fed up with all these skeptics. >>> You've only seen the tip of the iceberg! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>>> >>>> This is part of a coordinated attack by global warming deniers on Phil >>>> and other climate scientists. To get a flavor of it, see the recent >>>> article in Nature at >>>> , reproduced >>>> below. >>>> >>>> Since the writer is not a member of AGU, I recommend that we just >>>> ignore >>>> the letter, so it doesn't waste any more of our time as well as Phil's. >>>> If he wants to submit it to EOS, he should use the formal process and >>>> not expect us to do it for him. >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> Alan Robock, Professor II >>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 >>>> x6222 >>>> Rutgers University Fax: >>>> +1-732-932-8644 >>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: >>>> robock@envsci.rutgers.edu >>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA >>>> http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:03:46 +0100 >>>> From: Rupert Wyndham >>>> To: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu, tlgrove@mit.edu >>>> Subject: AGU and Dr. P. Jones >>>> >>>> Gentlemen >>>> >>>> Please be advised that the letter attached has today been airmailed to >>>> you. >>>> >>>> Yours truly >>>> >>>> RCE Wyndham >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> Published online 12 August 2009 | Nature 460, 787 (2009) | >>>> doi:10.1038/460787a >>>> >>>> Nature News >>>> >>>> Climate data spat intensifies >>>> >>>> Growing demands for access to information swamp scientist. >>>> >>>> Olive Heffernan >>>> >>>> A leading UK climatologist is being inundated by >>>> freedom-of-information-act requests to make raw climate data publicly >>>> available, leading to a renewed row over data access. >>>> >>>> Since 2002, Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that >>>> investigates the statistical methods used in climate science, has >>>> repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit >>>> (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, for access to monthly >>>> global >>>> surface temperature data held by the institute. But in recent weeks, >>>> Jones has been swamped by a sudden surge in demands for data. >>>> >>>> Several organizations worldwide collect and report global average >>>> temperature data for each month. Of these, a temperature data set held >>>> jointly by CRU and the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, known >>>> as >>>> HadCRU, extends back the farthest, beginning in 1850. Although these >>>> data are made available in a processed format that shows the global >>>> trend, access to the raw data is restricted to academics. >>>> >>>> Between 24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 >>>> freedom-of-information-act requests from McIntyre and people affiliated >>>> with Climate Audit, requesting access to the data or information about >>>> their use. In the past month, the UK Met Office, which receives a >>>> cleaned-up version of the raw data from CRU, has received ten requests >>>> of its own. >>>> >>>> McIntyre, based in Toronto, Ontario, is best known for questioning the >>>> validity of the statistical analyses used to reconstruct the past 1,000 >>>> years of climate, but has more recently turned his attention to >>>> criticizing the quality of global temperature records. Jones concedes >>>> that raw climate data have imperfections such as duplication of >>>> stations but says that such minor errors would not alter the overall >>>> global temperature trend. McIntyre insists that he is not interested in >>>> challenging the science of climate change or in nit-picking, but is >>>> simply asking that the data be made available. "The only policy I want >>>> people to change is their data-access policy," he says. >>>> >>>> Jones says he can't fulfil the requests because of confidentiality >>>> agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, >>>> Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use. In >>>> some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in >>>> others >>>> the written records were mislaid during a move. >>>> >>>> He says he is now working to make the data publicly available online. >>>> As >>>> Nature went to press, Jones was expected to post a statement on the CRU >>>> website to that effect, including any existing confidentiality >>>> agreements. Jones says any such data release "needs to be done in a >>>> systematic way". >>>> >>>> "We're trying to make them all available," says Jones. "We're >>>> consulting >>>> with all the meteorological services about 150 members [of the World >>>> Meteorological Organization] and will ask them if they are happy to >>>> release the data." A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, >>>> saying "we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are >>>> their >>>> data". >>>> >>>> But getting the all-clear from other nations won't be without its >>>> challenges, says Jones, who estimates that it could take several >>>> months. >>>> In addition, some nations may object if they make money by selling >>>> their >>>> wind, sunshine and precipitation data. >>>> >>>> The dispute is likely to continue for some time. McIntyre is especially >>>> aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia >>>> Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data >>>> that >>>> had been refused to him. >>>> >>>> Webster says his team was given the station data for a very specific >>>> request that will result in a joint publication with Jones. "Reasonable >>>> requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances >>>> science," says Webster, "but it has to be an authentic request because >>>> otherwise you'd be swamped." >>>> >>>> Indeed, Jones says he has become "markedly less responsive to the >>>> public >>>> over the past few years as a result of this". >>>> >>> >>> > > 678. 2009-09-03 15:17:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:17:40 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: Maybe Pielke Sr. was right all along ... to: "Dian Seidel" , , "Ben Santer" , , "Imke Durre" , , "Parker, David" , "Phil Jones" History does not relate to whether these were day time or night time ascents but clearly the boundary layer is now seriously decoupled from the near-surface. You read it here first! Operational Radiosonde Network - data quality issues Towards the end of July, radiosonde operators and data users began to notice anomalous ascent data with a small number of the radiosondes used within the Met Office network. These sondes reported a jump in atmospheric temperature between surface and the 2-second data point, approximately 10m above the ground. Operators continued to monitor all flights, informing the forecasters when the data appeared suspicious. In the extreme cases, the temperature dropped by as much as 30 degrees! Analysis began immediately to try and identify any trends in the anomalous ascents. Archived high resolution data for the operational network was re-processed for all ascents between January and July 2009, to interrogate the surface to 2-second differentials. It was concluded that this problem was only evident in specific batches of radiosondes. The manufacturers were alerted and presented with the evidence and agreed to replace all remaining stock under warranty. This amounts to approximately 500 radiosondes 'sitting on the shelf' that are currently in the process of being replaced. The Met Office radiosonde operators were all made aware of the problem, and the operational network stopped using the suspect batches with immediate effect. Operators' experiences of using more recent stock suggests that this problem has been resolved. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 http://www.hadobs.org 5182. 2009-09-04 08:32:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:32:14 +0100 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: 1A01 schedule for incoming semester to: "Adger Neil Prof \(ENV\)" , "Bentham Graham Prof \(ENV\)" , "Andrews Julian Prof \(ENV\)" , "Gerrard Simon Dr \(VCO\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Vincent Chris Prof \(ENV\)" , "Burton Paul Dr \(ENV\)" , "Ferreira Ana Dr \(ENV\)" , "Hiscock Kevin Dr \(ENV\)" , "Herd Richard Dr \(ENV\)" , "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" , "Haynes Robin Prof \(ENV\)" Neil, last year I gave two lectures and a practical-seminar in ENV 1A01. The lectures were in week 7 and 12 and were upon 1) climate change and 2) peak oil and its effects respectively. I had an agreement with Graham that my week 12 lecture would be transfered to week 7 for 2009 so consolidating my teaching in this module. I also conveyed the information last year that the practical/seminar I give in week 7 is not suitable for assessment, yet this coming year students are still informed that it is. Now I find that, without any consultation, my second lecture (and probably the most important one) has been eliminated and the assessment still incorporates my practical/seminar. Can you confirm this and give me the rationale behind your decision? AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Adger Neil Prof (ENV) To: [2]Bentham Graham Prof (ENV) ; [3]Andrews Julian Prof (ENV) ; [4]Gerrard Simon Dr (VCO) ; [5]Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) ; [6]Vincent Chris Prof (ENV) ; [7]Burton Paul Dr (ENV) ; [8]Ferreira Ana Dr (ENV) ; [9]Hiscock Kevin Dr (ENV) ; [10]Kendall Alan Dr (ENV) ; [11]Herd Richard Dr (ENV) ; [12]Bentham Graham Prof (ENV) ; [13]Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) ; [14]Haynes Robin Prof (ENV) Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:56 AM Subject: 1A01 schedule for incoming semester Folks Welcome back to 1A01 - where we inspire the next generation of environmental scientists. Attached you will find the updated course manual for the semester. It is all but unchanged from last year. So please CHECK THE DATES AND THE SCHEDULE AND CONFIRM that you are able to contribute in the same manner as last year. Please let me know as soon as possible if there are any changes. Note that the rooms are not yet confirmed I am still negotiating and will confirm those next week if the finalized and confirmed version of this manual. Best wishes Neil Professor Neil Adger Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Tel +44 (0) 1603 593 732 Email [15]n.adger@uea.ac.uk [16]www.tyndall.ac.uk [17]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/adgern 'Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance' Details at: [18]http://www.cambridge.org/uk/browse/browse_highlights.asp?subjectid=1076991 1164. 2009-09-04 12:35:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Daithi Stone , Tim Delsole , claudia tebaldi , "Stott, Peter" , Myles Allen , Gabi Hegerl , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , Tim Barnett , Hans von Storch , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Toru Nozawa , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Nathan Gillett , Michael Wehner , Doug Nychka , Xuebin Zhang , "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)" , Stephen Leroy , seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:35:02 -0400 from: Tom Knutson subject: Re: Second iteration to: Knutti Reto All, FYI, I sent the following paragraph to Claudia yesterday, to flesh out my part for Subtask 2.5: Tropical cyclones and climate change: issues in detection and attribution of changes (Knutson) A key question for detection of a possible anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones is whether the strong correlation between local Atlantic sea surface temperature and Atlantic hurricane power dissipation, as shown by observed records since 1950, also holds for a greenhouse gas-induced warming. If so, past hurricane changes might be attributable to anthropogenic forcing via an indirect attribution argument, since tropical Atlantic sea surface warming has been attributed to anthropogenic forcing. Another implication would be a very large implied increase in Atlantic hurricane activity projected for the 21st century. Thus far, dynamical models do not support such an indirect attribution or dramatic projected increase, and thus there is not yet clear evidence of an anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. Owing to the importance of this issue, continued work will involve further analysis of hurricane observed data sets for possible homogeneity problems, and continued development and refinement of the dynamical models used to simulate climate change influences on hurricane activity. Regards, --Tom Knutson Knutti Reto wrote: > Attached some more suggestions for year 1-3 deliverables based on > Daithi's version. It's hard to say when these things will happen as none > of this is funded by IDAG, but it may not be that important in which > year we list it. > > Reto > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daithi Stone [mailto:stoned@csag.uct.ac.za] >> Sent: Freitag, 4. September 2009 18:06 >> To: Tim Delsole >> Cc: claudia tebaldi; Stott, Peter; Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Gabi >> Hegerl; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil >> Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard >> Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom >> Knutson; Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung- >> ki.min@ec.gc.ca >> Subject: Re: Second iteration >> >> Attached further comments (on Tim's and Peter's version) and the >> beginning >> of a schedule... >> Cheers, >> DA >> >>> Hi Claudia. Subtask 1.8 was completely blank, so I inserted a >> paragraph >>> and signed myself up. I've also signed up for a few more things. > My >>> insertions build upon Peter's revision submitted today. -Tim >>> >>> >>> Stott, Peter wrote: >>>> Dear Claudia, >>>> >>>> I'm attaching a version with some suggested changes and I've signed >>>> myself up for some more things. >>>> I'm also attaching a figure for inclusion with the figure caption >> below. >>>> Something to think about in the background for AR5 is who might > step >>>> into the mighty shoes of Daithi for providing detection and >> attribution >>>> figures and analysis on the CMIP ensemble for AR5 - I don't imagine >>>> Daithi wants to do that again so hopefully we can find a worthy >>>> successor ! >>>> >>>> Thanks very much for all your efforts ! >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Distributions of near-surface temperature trends during 1950-1997 > in >>>> different regions constrained by the global analysis in a climate >> forced >>>> with both anthropogenic and natural forcings (red lines) and with >>>> natural forcings only (green lines). The y axis gives the > normalized >>>> likelihood. The observed trend in each region is marked on each >> panel as >>>> a black line. The regions are South Australia (SAU), North > Australia >>>> (NAU), Central America (CAM), Western North America (WNA), Central >> North >>>> America (CAN), Eastern North America (ENA), Mediterranean Basin >> (MED), >>>> Northern Europe (NEU), South Asia (SAS), Atlantic (ATL), Pacific >> (PAC). >>>> Their geographical extents are defined in Christidis et al (2009). >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] >> On >>>> Behalf Of claudia tebaldi >>>> Sent: 31 August 2009 17:05 >>>> To: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Gabi Hegerl; >> Zwiers,Francis >>>> [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil Jones; David Karoly; >> Toru >>>> Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; >> Michael >>>> Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Jones, >>>> Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca >>>> Subject: Second iteration >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> First of all, thank you to all of you that replied to my first > draft >>>> with thoughtful comments, suggestions, edits, content. I tried and >>>> incorporated all that I could in this second version. >>>> The thing still needs your input, but hopefully this time it is a >> more >>>> targeted, specific set of things you can give me, and hopefully not >> as >>>> time consuming. >>>> My goal would be to have the proposal ready for submission at the >> end of >>>> next week, but we'll see. >>>> >>>> So, here is what I would like to get from you *by the end of this >>>> week* so that I can work on it for a few more days before that >>>> (admittedly arbitrary) deadline. >>>> Actually, one thing I would like you to do sooner, i.e. as soon as >> you >>>> get this email, is to reply telling me if you are (or want to be) a >>>> funded member, and, in that case, including a short bio. >>>> >>>> Then, for the proposal's narrative, I would like it of course if > you >>>> read the entire thing again and checked/edited/suggested again if >> you >>>> see something you don't like or would like changed. I don't have > any >>>> figures yet in there and it would be extremely helpful if I could >> get a >>>> few (with captions) to make the proposal less black and white. >>>> >>>> The most important feedback I need is related to the work plan, >> where >>>> some of you are missing still. Please go through it and sign >> yourself >>>> up. And if you see items that are still only a single sentence, >> please >>>> flesh those out. Even more importantly, I need specific > year-by-year >>>> deliverables from the various groups that are responsible for the >>>> tasks/subtasks. Maybe the heads of the groups can come up with > that >>>> kind of prediction/promise. >>>> >>>> That's about it. There are a few specific comments in the text > where >> I >>>> need info, you'll see, but those are few and sparse. >>>> >>>> So, summarizing >>>> >>>> ASAP: >>>> - Do you need money? Reply immediately with a yes or no, >> please, >>>> and send brief bio if the answer is yes (all) BY THE END OF THIS >> WEEK >>>> (meaning you can use the weekend too!): >>>> - Check narrative as a whole (all) >>>> - Contribute a figure w/caption (all) >>>> - Sign up for tasks/subtasks (all) >>>> - Come up with year-by-year deliverables (Tasks' quadres) >>>> >>>> Thank you all for your help. Again, I hope I did not >> misrepresent/forget >>>> anything substantial in trying to merge all the different streams > of >>>> feedback you kindly provided. >>>> I'm attaching the document in two formats, so that hopefully >> everybody >>>> will be able to open it ok (I'm trying to preemptively eliminate >> every >>>> excuse you can come up with for not doing this ;-) ) >>>> >>>> bye >>>> >>>> c >>>> -- >>>> Claudia Tebaldi >>>> Research Scientist, Climate Central >>>> http://www.climatecentral.org >>>> +1 (303) 775 5365 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Timothy DelSole >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Earth Sciences >>> George Mason University >>> Fairfax, VA >>> >>> Mailing Address: >>> Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies >>> 4041 Powder Mill Rd. >>> Suite 302 >>> Calverton, MD 20705-3106 >>> >>> email: delsole@cola.iges.org >>> Office: 301-902-1258 >>> Fax: 301-595-9793 >>> COLA: 301-595-7000 >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Tom Knutson ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab /NOAA | phone: +1-609-452-6509 201 Forrestal Road | fax: +1-609-987-5063 Princeton, New Jersey 08542 U.S.A. | e-mail: Tom.Knutson@noaa.gov Homepage: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/tom-knutson-homepage 3511. 2009-09-05 11:25:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:25:02 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Arctic2k update? to: Darrell Kaufman , Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , David Schneider , "Bette L. Otto-Bliesner" , Raymond Bradley , Miller Giff , Bo Vinther , Keith Briffa D et al - Please write all emails as though they will be made public. I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is developed - don't want to waste anyone's time, including yours or Mc's. Since the recon in Science has an error, I think you do need to publish a correction in Science. In that, you can very briefly not it didn't affect the calibration, nor the final result. I don't think you have a choice here. And I don't think RealClimate alone is the place for this, although RC could be good for the bigger list of issues. Don't do it on Mc;s blog. But, it would be good to hear from Ray and Mike, since they have the most experience in getting it right. Here are some other QUICK thoughts - don't count on me for the next week. Proposal hell and traveling. Make sure you have Keith's feedback before saying anything about the dendro aspects. Don't know about Dye3 issue Error analysis should be done and be the topic of another paper - it wasn't included in this paper, so it's something that should be done outside the peer-review process. There is lots of new research to be done, and someone should do it as time allows. Don't get pushed into something too rushed or preliminary, and your defense is that you wrote a paper that reviewed well and was published. The goal wasn't to do everything in this paper. #4 - your are absolutely right and that could be in a blog someplace, or just let them go ahead and do a stupid thing. If this was a climate field recon it would be different, no? #5 is tricky. Giving him the data would be good, but only if it is yours to give. You can't give him data that you got from others and are not allowed to share. But, it would be nice if he could have access to all the data that we used - that's the way science is supposed to work. See what Mike and Ray say... Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few months ago - to make sure we got it all right. We knew we'd get this scrutiny. This paper has had great impact so far, so that's something to remember - its good work. Thanks, peck On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, "Darrell Kaufman" <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> wrote: All: I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn't be wasting time reading the blogs. Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature. This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite (Nick's graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree? There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group: (1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there's also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and doesn't seem to be included in Keith's recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide some advise? (2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere? (3) We didn't publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update? The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration. (4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add those records in and show that the primary signals remain? (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the 10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was published). The only "non-published" data are the annual series from the ice cores (Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed? Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre? Please let me -- better yet, the entire group -- know whether you think we should post a revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1 through 5 above). I'm also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data. Other thoughts or advise? Darrell On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you? This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn't enter the calibration, nor does it affect the recent warming trend. The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the reconstruction. It doesn't change any of our major or minor interpretations of course. Nick On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay <[2]nmckay@email.arizona.edu> wrote: Hi all, I haven't checked the original reference for it's interpretation, but I checked the code and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He's also right that flipping doesn't affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with the 1900-year trend. I've attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped. Nick [cid:3334994702_4110695] Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute of the Environment Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: [3]jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 [4]regalado@email.arizona.edu Embedded Content: image7.jpg: 00000001,780e1428,00000000,00000000 2136. 2009-09-06 15:22:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Stephen Leroy" , "claudia tebaldi" , "Tom Knutson" , "Knutti Reto" , "Daithi Stone" , "Tim Delsole" , "Stott, Peter" , "Myles Allen" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Doug Nychka" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)" , seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: Re: Second iteration to: "Gabi Hegerl" hi...gabi has it right. historically DOE has been pleased to see pre- defined tasks completed year by year and not so concerned about time sequence. best, tim > Hi all, I'll have a look next week, sorry for being slow. > > RE timeline: Its not very binding - so far, the agency seemed happy to > see each year a progress report with some progress, and tasks being > labelled 'done' or started - I am not under the impression that they > are very worried about the order of things as long as we can show we > are making good progress - of course, > if there were a concern about that, then they might start looking at > our promises. > So, if you distribute your activities over the timeline in a way that > results appear over time then we should be ok.... based on the last 2 > times. > > Gabi > > Quoting Stephen Leroy : > >> I've added a subtask 1.9 and a few sentences to subtask 2.2. Based on >> Tim DelSole's last version. >> >> Stephen >> >> >> Tom Knutson wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> FYI, I sent the following paragraph to Claudia yesterday, to flesh >>> out my part for Subtask 2.5: >>> >>> Tropical cyclones and climate change: issues in detection and >>> attribution of changes (Knutson) >>> >>> A key question for detection of a possible anthropogenic influence >>> on tropical cyclones is whether the strong correlation between >>> local Atlantic sea surface temperature and Atlantic hurricane power >>> dissipation, as shown by observed records since 1950, also holds >>> for a greenhouse gas-induced warming. If so, past hurricane >>> changes might be attributable to anthropogenic forcing via an >>> indirect attribution argument, since tropical Atlantic sea surface >>> warming has been attributed to anthropogenic forcing. Another >>> implication would be a very large implied increase in Atlantic >>> hurricane activity projected for the 21st century. Thus far, >>> dynamical models do not support such an indirect attribution or >>> dramatic projected increase, and thus there is not yet clear >>> evidence of an anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. >>> Owing to the importance of this issue, continued work will involve >>> further analysis of hurricane observed data sets for possible >>> homogeneity problems, and continued development and refinement of >>> the dynamical models used to simulate climate change influences on >>> hurricane activity. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> --Tom Knutson >>> >>> Knutti Reto wrote: >>>> Attached some more suggestions for year 1-3 deliverables based on >>>> Daithi's version. It's hard to say when these things will happen as >>>> none >>>> of this is funded by IDAG, but it may not be that important in which >>>> year we list it. >>>> >>>> Reto >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Daithi Stone [mailto:stoned@csag.uct.ac.za] >>>>> Sent: Freitag, 4. September 2009 18:06 >>>>> To: Tim Delsole >>>>> Cc: claudia tebaldi; Stott, Peter; Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Gabi >>>>> Hegerl; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil >>>>> Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard >>>>> Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom >>>>> Knutson; Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung- >>>>> ki.min@ec.gc.ca >>>>> Subject: Re: Second iteration >>>>> >>>>> Attached further comments (on Tim's and Peter's version) and the >>>>> beginning >>>>> of a schedule... >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> DA >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Claudia. Subtask 1.8 was completely blank, so I inserted a >>>>> paragraph >>>>>> and signed myself up. I've also signed up for a few more things. >>>> My >>>>>> insertions build upon Peter's revision submitted today. -Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stott, Peter wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Claudia, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm attaching a version with some suggested changes and I've signed >>>>>>> myself up for some more things. >>>>>>> I'm also attaching a figure for inclusion with the figure caption >>>>> below. >>>>>>> Something to think about in the background for AR5 is who might >>>> step >>>>>>> into the mighty shoes of Daithi for providing detection and >>>>> attribution >>>>>>> figures and analysis on the CMIP ensemble for AR5 - I don't imagine >>>>>>> Daithi wants to do that again so hopefully we can find a worthy >>>>>>> successor ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks very much for all your efforts ! >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Distributions of near-surface temperature trends during 1950-1997 >>>> in >>>>>>> different regions constrained by the global analysis in a climate >>>>> forced >>>>>>> with both anthropogenic and natural forcings (red lines) and with >>>>>>> natural forcings only (green lines). The y axis gives the >>>> normalized >>>>>>> likelihood. The observed trend in each region is marked on each >>>>> panel as >>>>>>> a black line. The regions are South Australia (SAU), North >>>> Australia >>>>>>> (NAU), Central America (CAM), Western North America (WNA), Central >>>>> North >>>>>>> America (CAN), Eastern North America (ENA), Mediterranean Basin >>>>> (MED), >>>>>>> Northern Europe (NEU), South Asia (SAS), Atlantic (ATL), Pacific >>>>> (PAC). >>>>>>> Their geographical extents are defined in Christidis et al (2009). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] >>>>> On >>>>>>> Behalf Of claudia tebaldi >>>>>>> Sent: 31 August 2009 17:05 >>>>>>> To: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Gabi Hegerl; >>>>> Zwiers,Francis >>>>>>> [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil Jones; David Karoly; >>>>> Toru >>>>>>> Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; >>>>> Michael >>>>>>> Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Jones, >>>>>>> Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca >>>>>>> Subject: Second iteration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all, thank you to all of you that replied to my first >>>> draft >>>>>>> with thoughtful comments, suggestions, edits, content. I tried and >>>>>>> incorporated all that I could in this second version. >>>>>>> The thing still needs your input, but hopefully this time it is a >>>>> more >>>>>>> targeted, specific set of things you can give me, and hopefully not >>>>> as >>>>>>> time consuming. >>>>>>> My goal would be to have the proposal ready for submission at the >>>>> end of >>>>>>> next week, but we'll see. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, here is what I would like to get from you *by the end of this >>>>>>> week* so that I can work on it for a few more days before that >>>>>>> (admittedly arbitrary) deadline. >>>>>>> Actually, one thing I would like you to do sooner, i.e. as soon as >>>>> you >>>>>>> get this email, is to reply telling me if you are (or want to be) a >>>>>>> funded member, and, in that case, including a short bio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, for the proposal's narrative, I would like it of course if >>>> you >>>>>>> read the entire thing again and checked/edited/suggested again if >>>>> you >>>>>>> see something you don't like or would like changed. I don't have >>>> any >>>>>>> figures yet in there and it would be extremely helpful if I could >>>>> get a >>>>>>> few (with captions) to make the proposal less black and white. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The most important feedback I need is related to the work plan, >>>>> where >>>>>>> some of you are missing still. Please go through it and sign >>>>> yourself >>>>>>> up. And if you see items that are still only a single sentence, >>>>> please >>>>>>> flesh those out. Even more importantly, I need specific >>>> year-by-year >>>>>>> deliverables from the various groups that are responsible for the >>>>>>> tasks/subtasks. Maybe the heads of the groups can come up with >>>> that >>>>>>> kind of prediction/promise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's about it. There are a few specific comments in the text >>>> where >>>>> I >>>>>>> need info, you'll see, but those are few and sparse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, summarizing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ASAP: >>>>>>> - Do you need money? Reply immediately with a yes or no, >>>>> please, >>>>>>> and send brief bio if the answer is yes (all) BY THE END OF THIS >>>>> WEEK >>>>>>> (meaning you can use the weekend too!): >>>>>>> - Check narrative as a whole (all) >>>>>>> - Contribute a figure w/caption (all) >>>>>>> - Sign up for tasks/subtasks (all) >>>>>>> - Come up with year-by-year deliverables (Tasks' quadres) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you all for your help. Again, I hope I did not >>>>> misrepresent/forget >>>>>>> anything substantial in trying to merge all the different streams >>>> of >>>>>>> feedback you kindly provided. >>>>>>> I'm attaching the document in two formats, so that hopefully >>>>> everybody >>>>>>> will be able to open it ok (I'm trying to preemptively eliminate >>>>> every >>>>>>> excuse you can come up with for not doing this ;-) ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bye >>>>>>> >>>>>>> c >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Claudia Tebaldi >>>>>>> Research Scientist, Climate Central >>>>>>> http://www.climatecentral.org >>>>>>> +1 (303) 775 5365 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Timothy DelSole >>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>> Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Earth Sciences >>>>>> George Mason University >>>>>> Fairfax, VA >>>>>> >>>>>> Mailing Address: >>>>>> Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies >>>>>> 4041 Powder Mill Rd. >>>>>> Suite 302 >>>>>> Calverton, MD 20705-3106 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: delsole@cola.iges.org >>>>>> Office: 301-902-1258 >>>>>> Fax: 301-595-9793 >>>>>> COLA: 301-595-7000 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > > > > -- > Gabriele Hegerl > chair of climate system science > 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. > > > > 1409. 2009-09-07 00:13:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:13:56 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: New Zealand summer temps to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, just a quick Q before I go to bed! I've just updated the IPCC paleo chapter Southern Hemisphere plot where we showed, amongst other things, Ed Cook's New Zealand TRW reconstruction, with CRUTEM2v Jan-Mar smoothed temperatures. For my update I've used CRUTEM3v, expecting them to be rather similar but with a few more years on the end. But the pre-1930 temperatures are now very different, being much cooler (by > 0.5 degC for a 25-year low-pass mean) in CRUTEM3v than CRUTEM2v. Previously they had been, on average, near or even above the 1961-1990 mean, now they're at -0.5 degC. Is this a result of some homogenization work on New Zealand summer temp data? Or just some random artefact of minor changes somewhere? Cheers Tim -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ 728. 2009-09-07 09:22:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 7 09:22:05 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Question on temperature record in China to: Mike MacCracken Mike, There is a paper in last week's issue of Science on Arctic temps back over the last 2K years. To give you an idea of the Arctic site locations here are a couple of papers - one from long ago. This shows when series start in different regions and a PCA on the data we had then. Apart from updates there isn't much more except for Greenland - see the other paper. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/ This page has the early Greenland data. There is a paper in submission extending this back with ice core data. Also there is a little more early Canadian and Alaskan data. Cheers Phil At 22:23 27/08/2009, you wrote: Thanks Phil--very helpful. There were indeed a number of Skeptics, but also a lot of people across the disciplines eager for information, and of course impressed by IPCC. Were no one like me there to keep going after the Skeptics and talking to the others in the in between times, they would, it seems to me, be more likely to think there is something serious about the opposition of the Skeptics--but the way it came off, with me going after Zichichi and his skepticism, I think was helpful to the others. Now, I did get a few things to get back to Skeptics and others about. One is the temperature of the Arctic and how representative it is given the limited observations in the first half of the 20th century outside the Atlantic sector. I am actually wondering if what might have happened in that sector early on was a combination of a diminution of the volcanic aerosol and a strong enhancement of the soot deposition from US, Europe, and Soviet Union--coming from the initial tall stacks (constructed to loft the pollution away from emissions points) and falling on the sea ice, etc. in the North Atlantic sector. I should check the ice core records for soot, though dark particles would, I imagine, melt their way down through the snow/ice. Best, Mike On 8/23/09 6:04 AM, "Phil Jones" wrote: > Mike, > Here's a paper of mine from 2008 on China. > Figure 8 shows what you'd get for greater China back to > 1900 and compared with SST off the eastern Chinese coast. > Agreement good with Chinese data from 1950 from Li et al. > > I think the Wang is PK Wang and the paper is some years old. > There are lots of Wangs though.... > > One issue is that all the stations with data prior to late 1940s > would be in the east. Western half only starts since 1950. > > One other issue is that many Chinese works include some > paleo data to try to help in the west - trees, ice cores etc, > but you never know how they do it. They also all seem to be > by a Wang... > > The China region I chose included some data from Russia > (well USSR) to get stations near the border with > Mongolia. > > Hope you're enjoying the meeting - I know there are lots of > skeptics there. > > Cheers > Phil > >> Hi Phil--I am at an international meeting in Erice, Sicily, and during a >> presentation by some Chinese scientists, one showed a temperature record >> for >> China that drew a number of questions (as did the global record for the WW >> II upward bump in the record--but I have mentioned that to you before). >> >> The China record, cited to P. Wang, showed a strong warming that seemed to >> have a peak in the 1920s/30s and a second strong upward bump in the 1940s >> as >> well as the rise over last several decades. The question was mainly on the >> reasons for the extended peak during second quarter of the 20th century. >> >> There were a few thoughts: >> >> (1) some say this record reported on by Want is not generally viewed as >> reliable--I don't know the entire reference, but it was plotted in same >> way >> as your record on same graph, so I was wondering if this is the China land >> stations in your record? >> >> (2) for much of the time of this rise, China was at war with Japan, and so >> it is a bit hard to understand how the Chinese could have kept a stable >> network over this time (I just finished the book "The Man who Loved China" >> which is the story of Joseph Needham, whom I assume you know of given his >> British career story--and my grandfather was in China during much of this >> time), so I would think that there might be large uncertainties. So, is >> the >> set of stations stable and thought to be good? >> >> (3) if this is indeed from your record, does this suggest that some of >> what >> appears to be the global warming is affected by what this record indicates >> is happening in China; and what would the global record look like without >> the China data--if it is indeed thought that this record might be flawed. >> >> In any case, this record did raise a number of questions that the paper's >> author, who was focusing on a quite different aspect of science, could not >> defend or explain. >> >> Thanks for any insight that you can offer. >> >> Best, 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2621. 2009-09-07 10:13:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Timothy L. Grove" date: Mon Sep 7 10:13:11 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AGU and Dr. P. Jones (fwd) to: Alan Robock Tim, Alan, I said I would send a brief reply when I got back. Alan is right to ignore these sorts of letters. I'm afraid I have become less responsive to the public over the years, but this has been as a result of continuous defamatory remarks on a number of blog sites. I have tried in the past discussing via email with a few of these people, but it is just a time wasting exercise. Many of the papers I'd been sending them have been published in JGR and one in Reviews of Geophysics. I recall giving lectures in the past when there would be one person who would disagree with something or all I said in an invited talk. The internet has allowed all these people to find one another unfortunately. Some of the emails are quite spiteful, but as yet not as bad as some of the things that have been said ot written about Ben Santer and Mike Mann. In the UK the head of the Natural Environment Research Council tried engaging with these people a couple of years ago, but gave up as it was just the deniers that responded. If you look at the Nature site, that Olive Heffernan set up, after the piece about a month ago, almost all of the responders were deniers. I've given up trying to engage them. I know I should persevere, but I just don't have the time. Cheers Phil At 13:11 03/09/2009, Alan Robock wrote: Dear Phil, We're always on holiday here in Jersey! Since the letter was to me, I have decided, with the concurrence of others at AGU, to ignore it and not reply. You, Mike Mann, and Ben Santer should form a club. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA [1]http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Alan,> Dear Tim, On holiday in Jersey. Have found a wifi connection unfortuntely? Will get back to you when back at UEA. Getting fed up with all these skeptics. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg! Cheers Phil This is part of a coordinated attack by global warming deniers on Phil and other climate scientists. To get a flavor of it, see the recent article in Nature at <[2]http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html>, reproduced below. Since the writer is not a member of AGU, I recommend that we just ignore the letter, so it doesn't waste any more of our time as well as Phil's. If he wants to submit it to EOS, he should use the formal process and not expect us to do it for him. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA [3]http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:03:46 +0100 From: Rupert Wyndham To: robock@envsci.rutgers.edu, tlgrove@mit.edu Subject: AGU and Dr. P. Jones Gentlemen Please be advised that the letter attached has today been airmailed to you. Yours truly RCE Wyndham -------------------- Published online 12 August 2009 | Nature 460, 787 (2009) | doi:10.1038/460787a Nature News Climate data spat intensifies Growing demands for access to information swamp scientist. Olive Heffernan A leading UK climatologist is being inundated by freedom-of-information-act requests to make raw climate data publicly available, leading to a renewed row over data access. Since 2002, Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that investigates the statistical methods used in climate science, has repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, for access to monthly global surface temperature data held by the institute. But in recent weeks, Jones has been swamped by a sudden surge in demands for data. Several organizations worldwide collect and report global average temperature data for each month. Of these, a temperature data set held jointly by CRU and the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, known as HadCRU, extends back the farthest, beginning in 1850. Although these data are made available in a processed format that shows the global trend, access to the raw data is restricted to academics. Between 24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 freedom-of-information-act requests from McIntyre and people affiliated with Climate Audit, requesting access to the data or information about their use. In the past month, the UK Met Office, which receives a cleaned-up version of the raw data from CRU, has received ten requests of its own. McIntyre, based in Toronto, Ontario, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to reconstruct the past 1,000 years of climate, but has more recently turned his attention to criticizing the quality of global temperature records. Jones concedes that raw climate data have imperfections such as duplication of stations but says that such minor errors would not alter the overall global temperature trend. McIntyre insists that he is not interested in challenging the science of climate change or in nit-picking, but is simply asking that the data be made available. "The only policy I want people to change is their data-access policy," he says. Jones says he can't fulfil the requests because of confidentiality agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use. In some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in others the written records were mislaid during a move. He says he is now working to make the data publicly available online. As Nature went to press, Jones was expected to post a statement on the CRU website to that effect, including any existing confidentiality agreements. Jones says any such data release "needs to be done in a systematic way". "We're trying to make them all available," says Jones. "We're consulting with all the meteorological services about 150 members [of the World Meteorological Organization] and will ask them if they are happy to release the data." A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, saying "we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are their data". But getting the all-clear from other nations won't be without its challenges, says Jones, who estimates that it could take several months. In addition, some nations may object if they make money by selling their wind, sunshine and precipitation data. The dispute is likely to continue for some time. McIntyre is especially aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data that had been refused to him. Webster says his team was given the station data for a very specific request that will result in a joint publication with Jones. "Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science," says Webster, "but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you'd be swamped." Indeed, Jones says he has become "markedly less responsive to the public over the past few years as a result of this". Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4986. 2009-09-07 15:03:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 7 15:03:33 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Climate change research to: "Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC)" Bruce, Fine with me. I've put it on the CRU noticeboard - along with a copy of what was sent to the Pope. Cheers Phil At 14:47 07/09/2009, you wrote: Ta Ok if I circulate the exchange to colleagues to warn them in case similar issues arise. Bruce ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 September 2009 14:39 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: RE: Climate change research Bruce, I don't think many of them look at it. They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired. This is another issue. All people working in the field have day to day jobs to do and don't want to spend evenings going on blog sites trying to put people right. Cheers Phil At 14:13 07/09/2009, you wrote: Thanks Phil Not very nice. Whats all this about? Who are these people who sign this? Bruce ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 September 2009 09:40 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC); Deborah Wargate Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Deborah, Bruce, I'd just ignore the skeptics if I were you. I received the attached whilst I was away. I also got a hard copy as well as the letters this person sent to Gordon Brown and to the Pope! I send it as I noticed that Hans Schroder is on the list from the UK - at the end. The letter was also sent to numerous others including the American Geophysical Union. They sent it on to me and they are going to ignore it as well. As I said there is no point debating with these people. It is just time wasting. I have tried to engage with them in the past, but they refuse to listen or read anything I send them. As an aside, I'm on two WMO committees and am going to a meeting in Geneva next week. Also UK government decisions are not based on the basis of CRU data! These people get their information from blog sites such as Climate Audit. Cheers Phil At 11:45 01/09/2009, Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) wrote: Deborah In the US, the attempt by large organisations to oppose climate change action via apparent grassroots activity is called 'astroturfing'. Grist is quite a good site to learn about these kind of things. See, for example, [3]http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-17-astroturf-wars-continue-api-energy-citizen-ra llies/ Don't know where the cd comes from that your Dr Schroeder has passed to you, but it would not be surprising if, underneath all, is something similar. Keep away from so-called 'debates' and just quote the material from Phil and elsewhere - which is scientifically peer reviewed. For non peer-reviewed interest, but of real interest and concern, read about studies of Greenland ice and glacier melting in today's Guardian. Global temperature rises are not uniform around the world because of the disposition of continents and oceans and the Arctic, in particular, has warmed more than average. While the implications are unclear, the potential is worrying as you will read about in the paper today. For a relatively low-lying county such as Suffolk, this is more germane I would have thought than a debate with climate change deniers. It is possible, because of non-linear effects of increased warming in and around the Arctic that sea level rise this century could exceed the 4th assessment report estimates (and this did point out that such effects were not taken account of because they weren't yet easily modelled). Phil could advise you better than I what is current informed scientific thinking on this point but now is the time to start thinking about the impact of climate-change driver sea-level rise. Bruce ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 12:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Deborah, Getting into debates with people is something I'd like to avoid. Cheers Phil At 10:22 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Dear Phil Thank you for this information your help is much appreciated. Yes we have indeed - several vocal ones in fact but one in Dr Schroeder who is very keen to actually debate this with the establishment. Deborah Wargate SCDC Environmental Sustainability Officer 01394 444747 ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 August 2009 10:03 To: Deborah Wargate; Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Cc: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Bruce, Deborah, You seem to have one of the climate change deniers in your midst in Dr Schroeder! The web sites you have given Bruce provide some responses. Real Climate is a good one. There are numerous poor ones which keep on regurgitating the same myths. The Met Office site is good as well. There is another good one at New Scientist [5]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 As for this particular one, no climatologist would think that the world would warm year on year. Climate change caused by greenhouse gases is best viewed on the decadal timescale. On the year-to-year timescale, global temperatures are much more strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina events. The former cause the world to be warmer and the latter cooler. We've been in a La Nina in 2007 and 2008 and are now moving to an El Nino, so 2009 will be warmer than the last 2 years. The next big El Nino (which may be soon of the current event continues) may make 2010 the warmest ever year. The sentences you want to explain this are in the CRU Information Sheet No 1. [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (0.43C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24C above 1961-90 mean). The last sentence is the crucial one. People should look at decadal-scale trends and not at individual years. At the decadal time scale the effects of El Nino and La Nina cancel. This sort of thing has happened before - the attached paper dispells these myths. It also shows that in a future climate model simulation there will be periods with little warming even though the temperature gets warmer by 4 degrees C by 2100. Sadly , there are still people out there who keep peddling the same misinformation. Cheers Phil At 07:29 25/08/2009, Deborah Wargate wrote: Hi Bruce Thank you very much - yes we have some very clever indvidiuals within our district who have presented me with a CD of information of which my few lines is a very brief summary of one element and they will no doubt be spreading the word locally. One of whom is very keen to have a discussion with scientific experts in the field regarding what he sees as dire misinformation regarding climate change, the greenhouse effect and human influence which is why I will now mention his name where usually I would keep it confidential, Dr Hans Schreuder. If such an oportunity did arise it could really help those of us who had to leave university far too early although whether Poles Apart can be brought together I am never sure. Yes real climate is a useful resource which I must confess I haven't looked at recently - I shall do so now. Kind regards Deborah ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) [ [7]mailto:B.Tofield@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 24/08/2009 18:53 To: Deborah Wargate Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Hi Deborah I'm copying your e-mail to people more expert than myself in the detail of climate change measurement and modelling. Phil or Clare - could you perhaps send any relevant papers to Deborah. It is important that the Suffolk Climate Change Strategy gets the best advice it can - they are doing a great job overall. However, while it is sad that there seem still to be climate change deniers (who are probably responsible directly or indirectly for the response you quote) there are a number of sites that can provide helpful insight. One of the most useful is realclimate.org which needs a bit of exploring but can usually provide a helpful antidote to the lies that are otherwise peddled and which are difficult to refute. In respect of short-term fluctuations in long-term trends - which is what your responders are getting at I think - El Nino can have a significant impact. For information on this see [8]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/ . Extracting a sentence from this: The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Nio) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years! The link to similar work is to [9]http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82, see p9. Another place to look for correct information is the Met Office site, [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html . Here, the link to Fact 2 gives straightforward information about the recent and current situation. It's dire and it is important not to be put off taking action by stupid misinformation. Hope this helps - but the people in CRU are the real experts. Bruce This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. 'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company registered in England (no. 05906083) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia Go green, keep it on screen. Think before you print - save energy and paper. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Deborah Wargate [Deborah.Wargate@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 15:55 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: Climate change research Dear Bruce Hope alls well. I am trawling through reponses to the SCDC climate change strategy to present a report to the Green Issues Task Group and one concerns me as I may well be challenged on it and it is not a piece of research I am familiar with: The response is: The premise that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is false research published by inter alia the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia shows that the combined global land and marine surface temperature has fallen since 2004. Now unfortunately it does not give any more information as to the name of the research etc although I suspect looking at the CRU website it is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, [11]doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 Do you know 1) where I could get a look at a copy of the above 2) if the person could be refering to anything else and where I can get copies of that If you can answer these queries and have any other thoughts that would be much appreciated. I am writing to a tight timescale - report due in on 3rd Sept. Kind regards Deborah Wargate _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2332. 2009-09-07 15:33:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 7 15:33:44 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Data Loss- a couple of questions to: Daniel Youmans Dan, One other thing. 99.5% of the data is not relevant to the UK as it relates to the rest of the world. Odd that UK FOI Act encompasses non-UK relevant data. Also many of the requests through the act have come from non-UK people. This is also allowed under the Act. Anybody, anywhere can ask for data from any UK public body and it doesn't have to be about data that has any relevance to the UK. I can digitize some data for Mongolia, then someone can ask me for it if they have some suspicion that I might have it! Cheers Phil At 01:48 07/09/2009, you wrote: Hello Phil, Firstly, thank you very much for that last, extremely comprehensive, email. Since then, I've put a bit more research into the kind of people writing about the CRU in this way; it didn't take much digging to show the level of skepticism/cynicism present in some of these commentators. Would it be possible for you to answer a few more questions, even if only briefly? For the non-climate scientists out there (which includes me) could you maybe say a little about the relative utility of the data you cannot release (for whatever reason), provided with what you can. I mean, does the 'gridded' data permit further study/peer review? Are the processes you use to come to this releasable data industry-standard? Also, do you know the number of FOI/EIR requests the centre or University receives, and how many of these are successful? Lastly, do you have an ontological view on the state of play re this data. Obviously the FOI Act excepted a lot of the data you hold- which is explained in responses to requests. Do you think this is acceptable? Is there necessarily a trade-off between access to data for the good of the scientific method and the huge costs incurred in amassing this data? Once again, many thanks for the time you've put into replying to me- we go to press in a week, so I hope these should be the finishing touches to our story! Best, Dan Dan Youmans News Editor (UEA) The Project e: [1]danielyoumans@theprojectonline.org w: [2]http://theprojectonline.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3316. 2009-09-08 08:25:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:25:05 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: more from McIntyre to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith: this from McIntyre: Briffa's Yamal series, which has been a staple of these sorts of studies for many years. It would be highly desirable for someone to do a detailed reconciliation of why the updated version of Polar Urals yields such different results to Briffa's Yamal series. I assume he's referring to Grud's (sp) recent work. Let me know if you have a quick explanation. Thanks. 584. 2009-09-08 12:58:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129] to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, Whilst it's getting close, I would not regard the language as sufficiently abusive or argumentative as to render this request as vexatious. In fact, I logged it and acknowledged it prior to my departure on hols but didn't get around to circulating the request it seems... (I would, however, appreciate my proper gender being recognised! Lol) As it is very much in line with other such requests, I presumed our response would be very much the same... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:00 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information > > > Dave, > From the language in this request, I'd regard it as vexatious. > Cheers > Phil > >>X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender >>to using -f >>Subject: Freedom of Information >>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information >>Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA== >>Priority: Urgent >>From: "Keiller, Donald" >>To: , >>Cc: >>X-ARU-HELO: CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL >>X-ARU-sender-host: cambe02.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL) >>[193.63.55.173]:52733 >>X-ARU-Mailhub: yes >>X-ARU-Exchange: yes >>X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned >>X-Spam-Status: no >>Reply-to: Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk >>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: 28247697 - c260ea255a6a (trained as not-spam) >>X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=f >>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=n >>X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=s >>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >> >>Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing >disbelief the litany of >>excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at >"Climate Audit" >>(http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original >temperature data >>held at CRU. >> >>The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality >agreements which >>were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. >>If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are >null and void. >> >>Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow >scientists access to >>original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the >very heart of >>scientific enquiry. >> >>Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay >and must be >>withdrawn. >> >>Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that >I am a academic >>who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I >>currently work in an academic institution. >> >>Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General >right of access to >>information held by public authorities" >> >>In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a >reference to >>such a request which- >>(a) is in writing, >>(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for >correspondence, and >>(c) describes the information requested. >> >>For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be >treated as made in >>writing where the text of the request- >>(a) is transmitted by electronic means, >>(b) is received in legible form, and >>(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference. >> >>I hereby request: >> >>1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data >set that has been >>sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech >>between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 >> >>2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying >the transmission >>of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia >Tech between >>January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further >dissemination or >>disclosure. >> >>Yours sincerely, >> >>Dr. D.R. Keiller. >>Department of Life Sciences, >>Anglia Ruskin University, >>East Road, >>Cambridge, >>CB1 1PT >> >> >> >>-- >>EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, >>more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally >>Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now >>rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & >>Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental >>Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy >>& Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. >> >> >> >>This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named >>recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in >>error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show >>them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and >>then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. >> >>Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not >>necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin >University. >> >>Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and >>attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in >keeping with good >>computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are >actually virus >>free. >> >>Please note that this message has been sent over public >networks which may >>not be a 100% secure communications >> >>Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email >>management service - >>www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 2929. 2009-09-08 17:10:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:10:02 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Phil, Thanks for the very prompt and complete response. While I certainly don't think we will be passing on all this information to Mr. McIntyre, I suspect we may abbreviate it in some way for use in response to Mr. McIntyre's appeal, if to only illustrate that our position is not internally inconsistent. The degree to which we engage with Mr. McIntyre will I'm sure be a topic of conversation between JCF and myself tomorrow... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:51 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Cc: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Dave, I don't recall all the facts from that long ago. There is or was a version on a US Dept of Energy website from about 1990. This was a contract requirement at the time. Much extra data has been added since then, and this is what the restrictions refer to from the mid-to-late 1990s. The 1996 version (cruwlda2) wasn't a complete version and was something we developed for a number of people in EU projects to use. We made these available to people on these projects via our ftp site, as it was easier to do this than sending disks at that time (email attachments were smaller then). I don't have a copy of that file and I know it wouldn't have had the additional US and Canadian data. The file newcrustnsall.dat was put there for the Met Office to pick up. We should have deleted it, but didn't. Despite its name, I'm not sure that it is ALL the stations. I just checked and it doesn't have the additional US and Canadian data. So if has this version it isn't the version that produced Jones and Moberg (2003). Neither of these datasets were explained in the data file. There are lots of codes with the data and I used to send the details of these codes in emails to people on the projects and the Met Office. Since 2003, we've done a lot more work on the data. We removed a lot of duplicates that had got into the dataset between the late 1990s and 2003 and also added a lot more data in. We've also modified the codes in the last few years to try and make updating easier. There are no contradictions in your present refusal. The file newcrustnsall.dat is the one that has the data that we weren't supposed to pass on. An issue is that there aren't just versions in 1990, in 1996, in 2003 and now. The dataset gets updated every month and every 4-6 months we add some more back data in as we get time. Adding in data is not a trivial task, as we have to assess whether it is OK and we have to do checks as to whether we already have the data. So even when we get permission to post the data, it will still change from month to month, just like the gridded version changes. Cheers Phil At 15:24 08/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, This has already been sent to Jonathan by Jane Baker (I believe) and I anticipate that we will be moving into the 'next phase' of our appeals process involving JCF this week or next. As a starter, could you verify/comment on the 'facts' as reported by Mr. McIntyre? Was an earlier version of the data sent to him 2002? If so, what was it - raw station data or gridded data? Also - has a set of the raw station data been sent to USDoE? I am meeting JCF tomorrow and would expect to discuss this matter.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:14 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2009. I have been away on holidays for two weeks and apologize for the delay in replying to your letter. I am in possession of three earlier versions of the CRU station data. The 1990 version has been posted at a US Department of Energy website for many years. In September 2002, I requested a copy of this data from Dr Jones. He sent me a 1996 version (cruwlda2) - a version that was also posted at the CRU website until recently - and indicated that the then revised version would posted up when Jones and Moberg (2003) was published, which, according to the date-stamps at your FTP site was done in Feb 2003, as Dr Jones had undertaken to do (the data set newcrustnsall recently removed from your public directory). Notwithstanding this, when Warwick Hughes and Willis Eschenbach requested station data, for some reason, CRU failed to provide then with this information. As you noted in your letter, following your recent refusal to provide station data to me, I examined the CRU FTP site and determined that the newcrustnsall was the version of the station data for Jones and Moberg 2003 that Dr Jones had previously undertaken to post up on the Internet. While these data sets are of interest, my request was for the current version of the data set and I do NOT wish to withdraw my appeal of your ruling. Could you please advise me of Mr Colam-French's email so that I may submit further particulars of the basis of my appeal. In the mean-time, I would appreciate it if you reflected further about the apparent contradictions in your present refusal, given Dr Jones' previous provision of an earlier version of the dataset to me, the posting of two versions of the data set on your website, one from 1996 to the end of July 2009 and the other from 2003 to the end of July 2009 and the provision of a version to the US Department of Energy, where it has been posted on the internet since 1990. Regards, Steve McIntyre -----Original Message----- From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[2] mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:29 PM To: stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03) - Appeal initial response Mr. McIntyre Further to your email of 24 July 2009, attached please find further information regarding your request received 26 June 2009. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 478. 2009-09-09 08:48:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 08:48:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: WMO Letter in Support of CRU to: Peter, I thought WMO might do this. Can you investigate whether the Met Office is prepared to send out the letter to all NMSs? Attached is the latest version of the letter. I guess Stephan might be able to send us a list of the PR emails, but we need first to know if the UK PR will be able to send them off. John Mitchell a year or two ago was the UK PR attending the WMO Congress, but the official PR is likely to be your CE. John would be up to speed on all these FOI issues, so would know all the background. I'll send you something else that came through whilst I was on holiday. Cheers Phil X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvEAADQqpkrAqNgX/2dsb2JhbAAI30UChBYFils X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.0 Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:01:28 +0200 From: "Stephan Bojinski" To: , "Phil Jones" Cc: "Carolin Richter" Subject: WMO Letter in Support of CRU 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: 30041566 - 25147c8ab9d2 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=30041566&m=25147c8ab9d2&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=30041566&m=25147c8ab9d2&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=30041566&m=25147c8ab9d2&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Phil, Peter, I talked to Carolin about this issue. She perfectly understands your concerns and would in principle be willing to help, but advises that WMO is currently not in a position to write such a letter - this appear to be too delicate a subject (unfortunately). She confirmed to note your concerns and to build a case to revisit the issue of data exchange on the WMO level hopefully at a later stage. Please try to solve the problem on the national level first by going through the MetOffice (you may have already started doing so). Sorry for not being more helpful on this issue. 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: [4]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4522. 2009-09-09 09:12:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:12:21 +0100 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Freedom Of Information to: "Phil Jones" Sounds like a whole barrel of laughs. I hope to have booked John at 11 today but taht is hopee rather than expectation. At least his diary said he was free then ...! We've also had something through parlimentary channels from a MP in Bromsgrove I think. It was whilst I was off sick. I am chasing that down and will advise if it adds anything new to the mix. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 September 2009 09:04 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Peter, Here's an email from your Press Officer to ours about a letter from a Stuart Harmon. I modified the intended reply a little and this went back to Dave Britton a few days ago via our press officer. I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I'm surprised that your press office have bothered to reply to it. Also attaching another thing I got for amusement. This one was sent to the President of the AGU (Tim Grove) and also to Alan Robock. Alan persuaded Tim to ignore it and gave him some of the background. I wasn't aware that Alan was so up to speed with all this - good that he was. The funny thing is that the person in Cornwall sent me a hard copy which arrived last week. He sent me a copy plus the letter he's sent to the Pope. This letter is up in the CRU coffee room. The attachments are amazingly complex and ridiculous. McIntyre has appealed here and that is going through the process. Two others have appealed as well - academics at Anglia Ruskin University and one at Oxford. I have been meaning to check up on the Oxford one, and may send it on. Cheers Phil From: "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" CC: "Gook Susan Mrs (MAC)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:45:51 +0100 Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Thread-Topic: Freedom Of Information Thread-Index: AcocbS5xHTGcjyXjTgefRcdwsOHSfAOnaKpAAAHNl8A= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2009 14:45:48.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4DBDBA0:01CA2B12] Hi Phil The Met Office would like our comments about a reply they plan to send to Stuart Harmon - see below. Could you let me know asap if you are happy with it. I wonder if the line about records not being kept is unnecessary? And I notice they are not saying that we hope to provide some of the data in the future. I attach the agreed UEA statement as a reference. Over to you... (they're in a hurry by the way). Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [2]www.uea.ac.uk/comm A PREMIER RESEARCH AND TEACHING UNIVERSITY 2009 "What Uni" Student Choice Award winner and 2nd amongst mainstream English universities in the National Student Survey World top 200, European top 100, UK top 30 (Times League Table 2010) Norwich: fourth highest cited UK city for science, thanks to the University and our Norwich Research Park partners. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Britton, Dave [[3] mailto:Dave.Britton@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:18 PM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Richards, Chris Subject: RE: Freedom Of Information Simon, Chris Please see the email below that I plan to send the Stuart Harmon. Do you have any issues/clarifications. A quick response on this would be very much appreciated. Cheers Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ Stuart, Firsty, I am sorry that I have not responded sooner. Unfortunately I have been away from the office for the last 3 weeks or so. The Met Office and CRU are not in a position to release this data under FOI or otherwise as we have obtained some of the data from scientists and institutions on the understanding that this station data will be be publicly released, mainly as some of the data has a commercial value. We are not in a position to clarify which data sets have been provided under such terms and which have not as records were not kept. As a result we cannot release the data where we have no authority to do so and any such release of data could damage relationships with data providers The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition. I hope this helps Dave From: STUART HARMON To: dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk; dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk Sent: Tuesday, 28 July, 2009 11:51:56 PM Subject: Freedom Of Information Dear Mr Britton I am preparing an article on the freedom of information act and would request your comments on why the Met Office is unwilling to release temperature data and methodology. Provided to you is a link to Mr McIntyres web site [4]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623. The article I am proposing is to be based on the unintended consequences of abusing the freedom of information act to prevent the release of information. In summary I pose to posit the following:- 1 The reason for not releasing information is to hide information which will be embarrassing. I will use the MP's expenses to illustrate. 2 Another reason is because the organisation is incompetent. 3 The organisation is politicised and manipulates data to create an intended result. Should the organisation subsequently be guilty of any of the above the unintended consequence of not releasing data is that the organisation will bring British science into disrepute. Which is not in the national interest. Best regards Stuart Harmon Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5050. 2009-09-09 09:13:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 09:13:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter [1]http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jon es-457.html Here's this Oxford person's web site. I am going to contact my son who is at Bath in their Chemistry Dept as he teaches and does research in NMR. He'll probably tell me he's never heard of him. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Topic: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Index: AcocuvbRB/fNSyVpSGSv6dbZ6S0BIQKS1IxQADPsplA= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:34:00.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EE58E0:01CA27DB] Dear All, We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his request for the following information: "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond. Kind regards, Jane ***************************************************** Jane Baker LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC) Library UEA Norwich NR4 7TJ 01603 59 3483 For LaRC enquiries please email larc@uea.ac.uk For Blackboard enquiries please email the Staff or Student IT Helpdesk staff.help@uea.ac.uk or it.helpdesk@uea.ac.uk My office days are Wednesday to Friday Bob Heath is in the office Mondays and Tuesdays -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob Heath (r.heath@uea.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your vacation message. You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect. 1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available elsewhere. You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner. I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources on providing information in a different format to that which is already available". However I asked for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand. 2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations 3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot simultaneously be true. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be covered by a strict confidentiality agreement. It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations: a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential: there is an express duty of confidence b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an implied duty of confidence >From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements: a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is provided. b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of confidentiality. d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence. e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which, although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41." At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear. Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information. Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of this data will breach such agreements. I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Prof. Jones Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2047. 2009-09-09 09:19:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 09:19:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Heard of this person? to: Matthew Jones Matthew, Have you heard of this person? [1]http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jon es-457.html He is putting in Freedom of Information Requests for CRU climate data - see below. Was he one of the people you applied to do a PhD with Oxford some time ago? I know he's in Physics, but it mentions NMR on his web site - it does seem more quantum physics than chemistry. Cheers Dad From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Topic: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Index: AcocuvbRB/fNSyVpSGSv6dbZ6S0BIQKS1IxQADPsplA= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:34:00.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EE58E0:01CA27DB] Dear All, We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his request for the following information: "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond. Kind regards, Jane ***************************************************** Jane Baker LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC) Library UEA Norwich NR4 7TJ 01603 59 3483 For LaRC enquiries please email larc@uea.ac.uk For Blackboard enquiries please email the Staff or Student IT Helpdesk staff.help@uea.ac.uk or it.helpdesk@uea.ac.uk My office days are Wednesday to Friday Bob Heath is in the office Mondays and Tuesdays -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob Heath (r.heath@uea.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your vacation message. You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect. 1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available elsewhere. You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner. I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources on providing information in a different format to that which is already available". However I asked for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand. 2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations 3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot simultaneously be true. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be covered by a strict confidentiality agreement. It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations: a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential: there is an express duty of confidence b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an implied duty of confidence >From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements: a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is provided. b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of confidentiality. d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence. e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which, although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41." At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear. Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information. Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of this data will breach such agreements. I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Prof. Jones Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1599. 2009-09-09 09:26:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 9 09:26:25 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Freedom Of Information to: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" Peter, Good luck with John and hopefully you'll get to see him. If you do and he wants to talk to me, then arrange a time to call him or vice versa - at home or here. John probably won't want anything via email. I'm here today ad tomorrow, but in London for a UKCP09 meeting tomorrow. I'm in Geneva on Mon-Weds next week at an IPCC D&A meeting. Peter Stott will likely be in Geneva. Cheers Phil At 09:12 09/09/2009, you wrote: Sounds like a whole barrel of laughs. I hope to have booked John at 11 today but taht is hopee rather than expectation. At least his diary said he was free then ...! We've also had something through parlimentary channels from a MP in Bromsgrove I think. It was whilst I was off sick. I am chasing that down and will advise if it adds anything new to the mix. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 [1]http://www.hadobs.org ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 September 2009 09:04 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Peter, Here's an email from your Press Officer to ours about a letter from a Stuart Harmon. I modified the intended reply a little and this went back to Dave Britton a few days ago via our press officer. I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I'm surprised that your press office have bothered to reply to it. Also attaching another thing I got for amusement. This one was sent to the President of the AGU (Tim Grove) and also to Alan Robock. Alan persuaded Tim to ignore it and gave him some of the background. I wasn't aware that Alan was so up to speed with all this - good that he was. The funny thing is that the person in Cornwall sent me a hard copy which arrived last week. He sent me a copy plus the letter he's sent to the Pope. This letter is up in the CRU coffee room. The attachments are amazingly complex and ridiculous. McIntyre has appealed here and that is going through the process. Two others have appealed as well - academics at Anglia Ruskin University and one at Oxford. I have been meaning to check up on the Oxford one, and may send it on. Cheers Phil From: "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" To: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" CC: "Gook Susan Mrs (MAC)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:45:51 +0100 Subject: FW: Freedom Of Information Thread-Topic: Freedom Of Information Thread-Index: AcocbS5xHTGcjyXjTgefRcdwsOHSfAOnaKpAAAHNl8A= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2009 14:45:48.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4DBDBA0:01CA2B12] Hi Phil The Met Office would like our comments about a reply they plan to send to Stuart Harmon - see below. Could you let me know asap if you are happy with it. I wonder if the line about records not being kept is unnecessary? And I notice they are not saying that we hope to provide some of the data in the future. I attach the agreed UEA statement as a reference. Over to you... (they're in a hurry by the way). Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [3]www.uea.ac.uk/comm A PREMIER RESEARCH AND TEACHING UNIVERSITY 2009 "What Uni" Student Choice Award winner and 2nd amongst mainstream English universities in the National Student Survey World top 200, European top 100, UK top 30 (Times League Table 2010) Norwich: fourth highest cited UK city for science, thanks to the University and our Norwich Research Park partners. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Britton, Dave [ [4]mailto:Dave.Britton@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:18 PM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Richards, Chris Subject: RE: Freedom Of Information Simon, Chris Please see the email below that I plan to send the Stuart Harmon. Do you have any issues/clarifications. A quick response on this would be very much appreciated. Cheers Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ Stuart, Firsty, I am sorry that I have not responded sooner. Unfortunately I have been away from the office for the last 3 weeks or so. The Met Office and CRU are not in a position to release this data under FOI or otherwise as we have obtained some of the data from scientists and institutions on the understanding that this station data will be be publicly released, mainly as some of the data has a commercial value. We are not in a position to clarify which data sets have been provided under such terms and which have not as records were not kept. As a result we cannot release the data where we have no authority to do so and any such release of data could damage relationships with data providers The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition. I hope this helps Dave From: STUART HARMON To: dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk; dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk Sent: Tuesday, 28 July, 2009 11:51:56 PM Subject: Freedom Of Information Dear Mr Britton I am preparing an article on the freedom of information act and would request your comments on why the Met Office is unwilling to release temperature data and methodology. Provided to you is a link to Mr McIntyres web site [5]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623. The article I am proposing is to be based on the unintended consequences of abusing the freedom of information act to prevent the release of information. In summary I pose to posit the following:- 1 The reason for not releasing information is to hide information which will be embarrassing. I will use the MP's expenses to illustrate. 2 Another reason is because the organisation is incompetent. 3 The organisation is politicised and manipulates data to create an intended result. Should the organisation subsequently be guilty of any of the above the unintended consequence of not releasing data is that the organisation will bring British science into disrepute. Which is not in the national interest. Best regards Stuart Harmon Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 420. 2009-09-10 10:48:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:48:47 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: cruts to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, On 10 Sep 2009, at 10:01, Tim Osborn wrote: > Thanks. see Q below... > > On Thu, September 10, 2009 9:57 am, Ian Harris wrote: >> I would add that I'm still investigating. It looks like a database >> difference, here are the French mean, min, max: >> >> For 0909041051, original db: >> 2003 6 16.13 6.90 20.60 >> 2003 7 18.58 9.40 23.80 >> 2003 8 18.25 8.90 23.80 >> >> For 0909021348, latest db: >> 2003 6 19.12 8.50 23.60 >> 2003 7 20.61 12.20 26.70 >> 2003 8 21.04 11.90 26.60 > > What are these? Values for an individual station? Is it odd that > mean is > not equal to the average of min and max? Or does France not > operate on > the convention that Tmean = 0.5*(Tmin+Tmax), and instead do > something like > Tmean = average of 6-hourly or hourly obs? Sorry - didn't mean to confuse things. This is part of the output from my 'retrace' program. The mean is the spatial mean of all the cells in the country, but the min and max are for the highest and lowest cell (I deleted the coordinates that are also output). Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2580. 2009-09-10 12:05:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:05:22 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Met Office Seminars to: "Willett, Kate" ,, , Kate. Thanks. I've let a few more know here. I think this will likely work through the Audio Visual Centre here. We've had at least one project meeting this way. Good luck with the heffalumps! Cheers Phil At 10:25 10/09/2009, Willett, Kate wrote: >Hello, hope all is well in the world of CRU. I've now moved up in the >world to the exciting role of CR Seminar Co-ordinator - well I think I >was the only one who could be bothered to take it on or something like >that. Anyway, we do occasionally do a video link up to Wallingford but I >don't really see why we couldn't do video link-ups to CRU/Tyndall/ENV if >it was ever desired and assuming you have the right facilities at your >end. Could it even be something useful for the MSc course? > >So, I've put a list of all the seminars this Autumn in this email. If >you could pass this on to anyone who you think might be interested that >would be great and let me know if there are any seminars you would be >interested in seeing and I'll try and organise a link up. I haven't >discovered whether we can simultaneously link up to more than one >location at a time yet but Wallingford rarely request a link up anyway. > >On another note, I'm sending our summer student Richard Pope back with a >large amount of past significant weather data and a keen interest in >climate research if I haven't completely destroyed his brain with >squiggly timeseries and long IDL code. Might be worth looking out for as >a future PhD candidate/ interesting final year project. > >Enjoy the rest of the summer! > >Kate > >Tue, 15th Sep 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Anders Persson (11:00-11:30): What is a "Rossby Wave"? > >Fri, 18th Sep 2009 11:00 Green Island 2: EXTERNAL >Gil Compo (CIRES Climate Diagnotic Center and NOAA Physical Sciences >Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA): >Developing the surface input reanalysis for climate applications (SIRCA) >1850-2011 > >Tue, 22nd Sep 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Cyril Morcrette (11:00-11:30): Analysis of cloud increment diagnostics: >the inner workings of PC2 > >Tue, 29th Sep 2009 11:00 Green Island 1: EXTERNAL >TBC: TBC > >Tue, 6th Oct 2009 11:00 Green Island 3+4): >Chun Kit Ho (11:00-11:30): TBC >Kate Willett (11:30-12:00): Honey, hotpants and heffalumps: deciphering >the good, the dodgy and bizarre observational data > >Tue,13th Oct 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: EXTERNAL >Bethan Harris (Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, >Reading, UK): >Super-volcanoes > >***START OF HIGH LATITUDES THEME*** > >Mon, 19th Oct 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Jeff Ridley (11:00-12:00): One step beyond the pole: a review of >advances in Polar science > >Tue, 27th Oct 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Jamie Rae (11:00-11:20): The ice2sea project >Rutger Dankers (11:20-11:40): TBC >Bruce Ingleby (11:40-12:00): A quick look at Arctic buoys in NWP > >Tue, 3rd Nov 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Peter Thorne (11:00-11:20): Nature and Science: New York Times or New >York Post? >Ann Keen (11:20-11:40): Why has the Arctic sea ice extent reduced so >much in recent summers? >Helene Hewitt (11:40-12:00): A quick overview of sea ice modelling and >future challenges > >Wed, 4th Nov 2009 14:00 Green Island 2: EXTERNAL >Olaf Morgenstern (NIWA, New Zealand): >The Northern Annular Mode in the CCMVal-2 simulations: Anthropogenic >forcing? > >Tue, 10th Nov 2009, 14:00 Green Island 1: >Holly Titchner (11:00-11:30): Development of a global sea ice dataset >Matt Palmer (11:30-12:00): High latitude ocean convection: a conduit for >warming the deep ocean? > >***END OF HIGH LATITUDES THEME*** > > >Thur, 26th Nov 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: EXTERNAL >Dargan M. W. Frierson (Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of >Washington, Seattle, WA, USA): >Simple Models of the Effect of Moisture on the Global Circulation of the >Atmosphere > >Wed, 2nd Dec 2009, 11:00 Green Island 1: >Alejandro Bodas (11:00-11:30): COSP: a satellite simulation software >Johnny Williams (11:30-11:50): Dynamical regimes in the atmosphere > >Dr Kate Willett Climate Research Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK >Tel: +44(0)139288(4288) Fax: +44(0)1392885681 >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3679. 2009-09-10 16:45:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:45:57 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, Another 'orphan' that I need to address.... I'm afraid that responding that a request is 'ludicrous' is not a viable exception under EIR! ;-) I'm assuming that the data is received from a vast array of scientists and stations around the globe. If I understand you correctly, there is no one place, either here or elsewhere, that has listed the sources of the data that comprises the CRUTEM data set? (This is question 2). If that is the case, I would think that we would need to think carefully about our response or I fear we could end up with a headline blazing 'CRU has no idea where it's data comes from!' The first question relates to who we have 'solicited' to get such information. Once again, if I understand correctly, there is no such list and such solicitations would have occurred over a long period of time and there may no longer be a record of whom we actually contacted...? I would think that even if we state in some fashion that we don't have the data on who we solicited, the question of who gives us data probably merits the invocation of the 40 day extension period to answer. Remember, we don't have the 'appropriate limit' under EIR so it's either 'we don't have it' or it's 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the time it would take to locate & retrieve the information.... Deadline on this one is tomorrow and I'm sure we won't have a response ready by then.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:49 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 >request (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) [FOI_09-127: EIR_09-18] > > Dave, > This is a ludicrous request!! GHCN doesn't have this sort > of information. They don't keep a track either of where each > bit of data, or each station, comes from! > Some of it is in the papers we referred to on the web page > and others we have written over the years. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > Another request from Mr. O'Donnell. As this one is quite >different that >> the other, I will treat it separately. >> Do we actually have the requested information? I am >assuming that we know >> where we get this information from so we should have a list >of where we >> get the data; what I am not sure of is whether we have a list of who >> CRU/UEA has approached to provide the data. >> >> Deadline is 11 September BUT we have the option under Reg. >7(1) of EIR to >> extend this deadline to 40 days where we 'reasonably believe the the >> complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is >> impracticable either to comply or... to make a decision to >refuse to do >> so" within the standard 20 day period. This should be >considered with all >> requests under EIR where applicable (Note - this provision >does not exist >> under FOIA) >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ryan ODonnell [mailto:ode3197@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:00 AM >> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Subject: Re: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request >> (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) >> >> >> Mr. Palmer, >> >> I apologize in advance for not consolidating this into a >single request. >> >> I request, under FOI/EIR, a list of the individual scientists, >> governments, NMSs, and any other organization that has been >solicited to >> provide temperature data for inclusion in the CRU land >temperature index >> by any person acting in an official capacity at CRU or the >University of >> East Anglia. I additionally request, as a separate entity, >a list of the >> individual scientists, governments, NMSs, and any other >organization that >> is known to have provided temperature data for the >aforementioned purpose. >> >> The reason for my request is to determine what parties have >or may have >> contributed information in order to lobby these parties to >provide the >> University of East Anglia written statements of unconditional or >> conditional release (on satisfactory terms for academic and >scientific >> research) of this information; or, alternatively, written >statements that >> the information is already considered public domain. >> >> It is in the public interest for the temperature information >to be freely >> available in order for the scientific processes of replication and >> sensitivity analysis of the CRU land temperature index to be >conducted. >> As your organization has offered the position that it lacks >the resources >> to complete this arduous undertaking itself, it is therefore >greatly in >> the public interest that the individuals and organizations that are >> apparently preventing release of the information be provided >such that >> they can be lobbied through the appropriate channels. >> >> Regards, >> Ryan O'Donnell >> >> >> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > wrote: >> >> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Subject: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request >(FOI_09-123; >> EIR_09-16) >> To: "ode3197@yahoo.com" >> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 6:25 AM >> >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> >> Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request received >> yesterday, 11 August 2009. It contains further information >regarding the >> handling of this request under the Environmental Information >Regulations >> 2004. I will be in contact with you further in due course. >> >> Cheers, Dave Palmer >> >> >> ____________________________ >> David Palmer >> Information Policy & Compliance Manager >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich, England >> NR4 7TJ >> Information Services >> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 >> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 2642. 2009-09-11 11:11:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:48 -0400 from: jarmour@nas.edu subject: Request from Michael Mann to Review PNAS MS # 2009-09401 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12526819081944457" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.024 (F2.74; T1.27; A2.04; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:48 -0400 Message-Id: <23125268190839@ejpweb15> September 11, 2009 Dear Dr. Jones, Michael Mann is conducting the review of a Direct Submission by wang et al. (MS #2009-09401) and would like you to be a reviewer for this article if your schedule permits. We would need to have your critique within the next 10 days. Reviewers are asked to recuse themselves from handling a manuscript if they have a potential conflict of interest, intellectual or financial, that precludes them from rendering an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. Reviewers who have a conflict but believe that it does not preclude their making a proper judgment must disclose to the journal the nature of the conflict. If you are a recent collaborator of any of the authors (that is, you have coauthored a paper with any of the authors within the past 48 months), we ask that you recuse yourself. To ACCEPT or DECLINE to review this manuscript, click the appropriate link below. If you choose to ACCEPT, you will have access to the manuscript and review form immediately. It is our policy that reviewers remain anonymous. If you choose to DECLINE, we would be grateful if you could identify others we might contact who would also be qualified to review this manuscript. Thank you for your help. Sincerely yours, Josiah Armour PNAS Editorial Office (p) 202.334.2679 (f) 202.334.2739 (e) jarmour@nas.edu ******************************************************************* Manuscript Details Title: "Improving Spatial Temperature Estimation of Global Climate Change - The Case of China" Tracking #: 2009-09401 Authors: Jin-Feng wang (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Mao-Gui Hu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) George Christakos (San Diego State University) Cheng-Sheng Jiang (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Yan-Sha Guo (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Ai-Hua Ma (Beijing Normal University) ACCEPT [1]Accept the invitation and begin your review. DECLINE [2]Decline the invitation and provide alternate reviewer suggestions. Abstract: A small variation of global annual temperature would cause considerable ecological, economic and social consequences at a regional scale or worldwide, which is why considerable efforts are made worldwide to improve the accuracy of temperature estimation across space. These efforts typically include extending the monitoring network, improving record quality, and integrating multi-sourced information bases. Statistical inference of global climate attributes on the basis of observed samples can introduce considerable uncertainty in temperature estimation. A theoretical model of annually averaged spatial temperature estimation is proposed that is statistically unbiased and minimizes the estimation error variance throughout the large territories of heterogeneous climate change. On the basis of the extensive China dataset, it is shown that the study of climate change can be improved by using proposed model in the spatial analysis of temperature values. Compared to the currently used grid average technique, the proposed model can reduce the standard deviation of the annually averaged temperature predictions by 0.50C and the standard error deviation of the annually averaged temperature anomaly by 50%. The proposed method is applicable in the study of climate attributes at both the regional and global levels. 4916. 2009-09-11 11:44:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Myles Allen , Knutti Reto , "Stott, Peter" , Gabi Hegerl , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , Tim Barnett , Hans von Storch , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Toru Nozawa , Ben Santer , Daithi Stone , Richard Smith , Nathan Gillett , Michael Wehner , Doug Nychka , Xuebin Zhang , Tom Knutson , "Jones, Gareth S" , Stephen Leroy , seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca, dpierce@ucsd.edu date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:44:15 -0400 from: Tim Delsole subject: Re: Important: Input for Funding to: claudia tebaldi Claudia. I cannot tell from your email whether I should explicitly ask for travel support for myself to attend IDAG meetings. Travel support doesn't seem to be included in "consulting fees" or "full support." Also, I don't see travel support in the latest version of the proposal, leading me to believe that travel support is automatically included, but I'm not sure. Can you clarify whether we need to ask for travel support explicitly, or whether it is included automatically in the proposal? -Tim claudia tebaldi wrote: > Hi again > > I'm attaching the current version after some remassaging, especially > of the task list. > There is a need for a reference that I would like to get from David > Karoly, and a general request for input having to do with the > synthesis products that originally were described as instrumental to > AR5 but Gabi thinks they would not be prepared in time for that. So > I'm wondering if people have specific ideas for the next round of > review papers that we could describe at the end of Section 3 of the > document. > > MOST IMPORTANTLY: > I need some very specific input from *all of you* (only exception, > Francis's group). > > After asking Anjuli I can confirm that government employees cannot > receive funding besides travel reimbursement. So for those of you that > are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, the only thing that remains to do is to go > through the document once again, make sure your work (past and future) > is not misrepresented, and then send me a note with an "OK" or your > new comments, specifying that you are a government employee (please > don't let me guess it). > > For those of you that are ACADEMICS WITH 12 MONTHS SALARY all that we > can budget is a small amount of consulting fees, up to 2 weeks' worth. > If you belong to this category please respond saying that you are or > you are not interested. If you are, then include in the document at > the end in the place already arranged for it a statement of work > referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the > narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific > instructions). > > For THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET FULL SUPPORT, please say if you want it > or not, and if you do, then do as I requested above: include in the > document at the end in the place already arranged for it a statement > of work referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the > narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific > instructions). > > Please shoot me an email and say something, esp. those of you abroad > for whom I'm not familiar with affiliations/months of salary. Needless > to say, if you don't send the bio and don't put yourself down in the > Statements of Work session you won't be budgeted but for travel > reimbursement. > > Can I ask you to do this at your earliest convenience, but at the > latest before mid-week next week? > > Thanks > > c > > PS I received only 2 figures in response to my earlier request. If you > take the time to read the narrative and have a good figure for it, > send it along! > > ############################ > Biographical Sketches: Instructions > ############################ > > The biographical sketch is limited to a maximum of two pages. It must > contain name and position title, organization, degree, years and field > of study for each academic degree; a listing of research and > professional positions, awards, and honors; and references to all > publications for the past three years along with any earlier > publications pertinent to this application. If this list causes the > biographical sketch to exceed two pages, select the most pertinent > publications to stay within the page limit. > > > Current and Pending Support > > The PI/PD(s) are requested to list all their current and pending > non-Federal and Federal support. > > Identification of Potential Conflicts of Interest/Bias in Selection of > Reviewers > > Provide the following information: > > Collaborators and Co-editors: List in alphabetical order all > persons, including their current organizational affiliation, who are, > or who have been, collaborators or co-authors with you on a research > project, book or book article, report, abstract, or paper during the > 48 months preceding the submission of this application. Also, list any > individuals who are currently, or have been, co-editors with you on a > special issue of a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings > during the 24 months preceding the submission of this application. If > there are no collaborators or co-editors to report, state 'none'. > > Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors and Advisees: List the names > and current organizational affiliations of your graduate advisor(s) > and principal postdoctoral sponsor(s) during the last 5 years. Also, > list the names and current organizational affiliations of your > graduate students and postdoctoral associates during the past 5 years. > > -- > Claudia Tebaldi > Research Scientist, Climate Central > http://www.climatecentral.org > & Adjunct Professor > Department of Statistics - UBC Vancouver > office 604 822 3595 (Canadian area code) > cell 303 775 5365 (US area code) > -- Timothy DelSole Associate Professor Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Earth Sciences George Mason University Fairfax, VA Mailing Address: Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies 4041 Powder Mill Rd. Suite 302 Calverton, MD 20705-3106 email: delsole@cola.iges.org Office: 301-902-1258 Fax: 301-595-9793 COLA: 301-595-7000 1908. 2009-09-11 15:47:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:47:47 -0400 from: jarmour@nas.edu subject: Review Instructions for PNAS MS#2009-09401 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk September 11, 2009 Title: "Improving Spatial Temperature Estimation of Global Climate Change - The Case of China" Tracking #: 2009-09401 Authors: wang et al. Dear Dr. Jones, Thank you for agreeing to review "Improving Spatial Temperature Estimation of Global Climate Change - The Case of China" [PNAS MS#2009-09401]. PNAS has exceedingly high standards and strives to publish papers of exceptional quality and importance. Please consider the novelty and general interest of this article when preparing your review. [1]View the manuscript and begin your review. This step will log you into our system and allow you access to the manuscript, review form, and reviewer instructions. Please recuse yourself if you are a recent collaborator of any of the authors (that is, if you have coauthored a paper with any of the authors within the past 48 months). Please inform Michael Mann if you have concerns that the release of this paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, or security. Such concerns will be brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief for further evaluation. When reviewing the work, please carefully evaluate the Supplementary Information (when available) to ensure the additional data make a substantive contribution to warrant publication online. Additionally, if you find references to "data not shown" during your evaluation, please alert the editorial office. PNAS does not allow references to "data not shown" to support claims in the work. Please submit your review by September 21, 2009 or let us know right away if you will need an extension. Sincerely yours, Josiah Armour PNAS Editorial Office (p) 202.334.2679 (f) 202.334.2739 (e) jarmour@nas.edu P.S. We request that all reviews be submitted online; however, if you encounter any difficulties with this process you may download the [2]PNAS review form and e-mail that to pnas@nas.edu. 2938. 2009-09-11 23:09:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:09:17 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2009JD013094 (Editor - Joost de Gouw): Review Instructions for to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for agreeing to review manuscript number 2009JD013094 entitled "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" by Matthew J. Menne, Claude Williams, Jr., and Micheal Palecki 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 October 11, 2009. 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, Joost de Gouw Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 3644. 2009-09-12 10:15:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat Sep 12 10:15:45 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: IPCC Expert Meeting on detection and Attribution - 14-16th to: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: lucy.hayes@decc.gsi.gov.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-185.messagelabs.com!1250505457!52987078!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.1.3; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [62.25.106.208] Subject: IPCC Expert Meeting on detection and Attribution - 14-16th September, 2009 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:37:33 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPCC Expert Meeting on detection and Attribution - 14-16th September, 2009 Thread-Index: AcofJrrYpHOKM19AQPS3nRpiOKfrZA== From: "Hayes, Lucy (DECC - CESA)" To: "Phil Jones" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2009 10:37:35.0216 (UTC) FILETIME=[BBB8F700:01CA1F26] X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 1168462, limit: 512000) 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 Dear Phil, Your expenses request to cover the IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution in Geneva has been cleared. There is a confirmation letter in the post for you to sign and return, along with a claim form, which I also attach here it may be easier for you to fill this out online and print it off also to send back to us. Many thanks, Lucy. <> <> Lucy Hayes Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis (CESA) Department of Energy and Climate Change Whitehall place London Tel: 0300 068 5588 Fax: 0300 068 5006 lucy.hayes@decc.gsi.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. 2009-09-12 16:51:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:44 +0200 from: Manola Brunet subject: Re: Omar's email to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hola Phil, Had a smooth trip, almost everything run on time but Brits trains, as usual, and I just got to Exeter. So replying from the B&B (quite basic place to stay overnight, but well) and keen to sightseeing into town :-) For me is clear that likely Omar is the only one in WCDMP working in several fronts and lines of activity, and MEDARE is just one of his responsibilities. My guess is he didn't sent at the end in early summer the official letters of invitation to de PRs, although I can't be sure of this because I recall an email from Serhat Sensoy asking me if another colleague from his office could attend the meeting. I'll look at my email and PC folders to see if I can find any prove of WMO invitation letters to this WS. Perhaps he's right and although he had got the agreement of the local organisers (Malta's PR), he didn't send such letters. If so, still worse because he had plenty of time to do it (remember our exchange of emails among the SG and I, that they got you fed up). Another possibility (I think this is more correct) is he spent the money he got in Jan/Feb 2009 for organising the WS and now has to ask again for more money! Well, both explanations: Omar is snowed under work or he run out of money, can be right, but it's clear he didn't realise people have other things to do and have Agendas. I'm particularly tired of this kind of informality. Yes, please, try to make Omar understand that he can't use (dispose) of people's time !! I was, and still am, upset with Omar in particular and with WMO in general. There is no way such stile of working! [[[redacted: chitchat]]] [[[original email about deleting appears deleted]]] P.Jones@uea.ac.uk escribi: > Hola Manola, > I've saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now > I'm at home I just have some hard copies. I also don't understand why > he can't do anything till Dec 09 and then he has already invited > people? Dec 09 will likely be too late for some people as meeting > would be in Jan or early Feb as CCL is in late Feb - or it was when he > invited me earlier! This is always the same at WMO - leaving things > till they are too late. In GCOS we have someone who has finally > understood that people have agendas, so everything is planned months > in advance - even with flight booking! > > Off to GVA tomorrow for IPCC - they also plan well in advance. I'll look > out for Omar! [[[redacted: chitchat]]] 3829. 2009-09-14 10:40:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:40:30 +1000 from: "Don McNeil" subject: seasonal adjustment? to: Dear Phil: I note that the HadCRUT3v temperature data have been seasonally adjusted because the monthly effect is small, and I wonder if you could tell me the method you used to do it. I've read your 2006 paper (by downloading the PDF file from your site) but cannot see where you say precisely how the data were adjusted (apart from subtraction the 1961-2000 averages for each grid location from all the values for each grid). Did you do the same thing for the monthly averages, that is, by calculating and subtracting monthly averages for each grid location for data from the period 1961-2000? I presume the method is explained more fully in other papers you have written, but I can't easily get these complete papers from the Internet here in Thailand. Thai universities usually can't afford to pay for the subscriptions. Kind regards....Don 665. 2009-09-14 13:06:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:06:48 +0100 from: "Laura Lang" subject: FW: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement to: Dear Tim Thank you very much for your time and helpful explanations. Many thanks for agreeing to give me a few lines on the facts you mentioned explaining climate modelling graphs and the reasons for levelling off/dips; also the current and predicted overall trend in global temperature and link to carbon emissions. The email below will give you the context for my enquiry should you wish to refer to it. I would be interested to hear your view on the paragraphs highlighted if you have time but appreciate you are nearing term time. Many thanks again for your time. Best wishes. Laura Laura Lang Teffont, Wiltshire 0172 716 217 From: roderick.eaton [mailto:roderick.eaton1@virgin.net] Sent: 13 September 2009 10:17 To: laura.lang@virgin.net Subject: Fw: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement Dear Ms Lang Thank you for your email. As promised, I am writing to explain the position regarding the group bringing this issue to council. For about three years, I have been researching the climate change theories from an analytical and scientific point of view. Each person must of course come to his/her own conclusions with or without a clear understanding of the facts but I hardly think that the media has covered both sides (natural and man-made) of the scientific debate in equitable measure. 'There's nothing like a good crisis (real or imaginary).' There has been no increase in global average temperature since 1998 and temperature started to reduce in 2005 and has continued to do so. The UN IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) models failed to predict this and carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase year on year (I have the figures and will send them if you require). Could the models, based on a positively weighted conversion factor of CO2 forcing (not applied to solar forcing), be barking up the wrong tree? I think this likely. IPCC scientists themselves include many strongly worded caveats in their reports and some oppose the IPCC conclusions altogether. As was accepted from Dr Richard Lindzen's (IPCC Lead Author) evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee (2005): those who dissented from the 'anthropogenic cause' (Man-Made Climate Change) theory were not given a full hearing by the IPCC organisation. I would recommend reading the works of Lord Lawson ('An Appeal to Reason') and articles by Lord Monckton (former scientific advisor to the UK government) together with peer review papers by perhaps Dr Larry Vardiman (Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri) on Dr Henrik Svensmark's work (Dr Svensmark is the Head of the Danish National Space Centre). You will quickly realise that the science is by no means 'settled' on the MMCC theory. The cosmo-climatological theory is very powerful and based on natural phenomenon relating to radiation effects on cloud formation. Over 31,400 science-based professionals signed up to the ongoing Oregon Petition and 800 to the International Manhattan Declaration. I have details of 130 scientists listed in my own database who oppose the MMCC theory e.g. Drs Fred Singer (the founder of the US weather satellite program), Timothy Ball, Vincent Gray (IPCC expert reviewer and graduate of Cambridge University) and Tim Patterson (Professor of Geology at Carleton University - Canada) et al, not to mention Dr McKintrick who worked with Steve McIntyre to flaw the IPCC's hockey stick curve (subsequently withdrawn by the IPCC as it omitted the Mediaeval Warm period and the mini ice age in the past 1000 years to over emphasise the half a degree Celsius global temperature rise of the 20th century). After Mann's Hockey Stick Curve was withdrawn, I noted that the IPCC 2001 report made quite a startling admission as follows: Chapter 1; page 97, concludes: "Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural." Having carried out considerable research on the topic, I am firmly of the opinion that the balance of probability is that man-made emissions do not constitute any significant effect on climate. In particular, there is a very poor correlation between man made carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature. The anthropogenic emission of all GHGs is well below half a percent of the total greenhouse effect (which is predominantly natural) and the greenhouse effect itself is but one aspect of the overall climatic system (one example is El Nino warming caused by tectonic movement below the ocean). The costs of Kyoto (Carbon Credit scheme) and the 'green obligation' for electricity companies is passed on to the private, commercial and industrial consumer, of course. Together with VED increases, fuel and other so called green taxes the costs are very high but excusable on the back of the MMCC tenet. The support and furtherance of a belief in MMCC at a local level is demonstrated by the Nottingham Declaration. We are unable to support this 'blind science' approach, which, as the Lords select committee stated should be based on evidence. What I have seen is IPCC scientists properly placing caveats on their findings in the Climate reports and their expert reviewers who dissent from the 'orthodoxy' often being ignored. This is not so much by other scientists but rather by the government officials who write the 'Summaries for Policy Makers'. These have a strong tendency to omit the caveats and promote a 'done deal' on AGW despite the evidence. The Stern Report (Nicky Stern is an economist) and more obviously, Al (alarmist) Gore exaggerate further the IPCC conclusions. Perhaps the following quote from Dr Benjamin Santer (a leading climatologist and author of the last IPCC Report's chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming) will give you an insight to the lack of consensus in the scientific community: "It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter "on the detection of greenhouse warming." I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that man-made climate change was a done deal." Energy efficiency is a prudent and cost saving approach and, provided one continues to be free to make one's own choices, one may indeed save oneself some money. I fully support that of course. If some choose to change their lifestyles in terms of what they eat, riding a bike or where they may take their holidays, then that is their own personal preference. I simply do not believe that any government or council should be pushing these things on people who have their own way of life and ideas on climate. If global warming were to return for whatever reason, it could well be an encouragement for people to holiday in the UK (rather than go abroad for the sun) and I would expect air conditioning sales would increase. As Nigel Lawson writes: "As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome which they ranked as "virtually certain" to happen - and that was "reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure". This echoes a study done by our own Department of Health which predicted that by the 2050s, the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by 2,000 a year, and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a year - something that ministers have been curiously silent about. All in all, given that global warming produces benefits as well as costs, it is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being "catastrophic", would do any net harm at all." Being signed up to the Nottingham Declaration gives government much opportunity to introduce draconian measures, to tax, control, interfere and regulate on the back of reducing CO2 emissions. I do not believe that withdrawal from it would do other than free people to follow their chosen lifestyles and put the emphasis back onto council providing services rather than control measures. In context, if Wiltshire Council hit its target emission cut (50% in five years) right now, China would have produced sufficient CO2 in 3 minutes to make up for it. If the whole UK carbon economy shut down right now, it would take under 6 weeks for China to fill the gap. Climate is a very complex subject and I hope that this will help you understand that the drastic measures you mention will not have any effect at all on climate but just bring more drastic negative changes to our lives here and now. Kind regards Rod Eaton, MBA, DMS (Leeds), MCMI, FIET ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Eaton, Rod To: [2]roderick.eaton1@virgin.net Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:20 AM Subject: FW: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Laura Lang [laura.lang@virgin.net] Sent: 11 September 2009 22:02 To: Eaton, Rod Subject: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement Dear Mr Eaton It would be helpful if you explain the rationale for withdrawing Wiltshire Council from the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change in the face of compelling scientific evidence on the need for urgent and drastic reduction of carbon emissions. I look forward to hearing from you. Laura Lang ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ This email originates from Wiltshire Council and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and may be subject to Copyright or Intellectual Property rights. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the email from your inbox. Any disclosure, reproduction, dissemination, modification and distribution of the contents of the email is strictly prohibited. Email content may be monitored by Wiltshire Council to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. No contract is intended by this email, and any personal opinions expressed in this message are those of the sender and should not be taken as representing views of Wiltshire Council. Please note Wiltshire Council utilises anti-virus scanning software but does not warrant that any e-mail or attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accepts no liability for any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions. Receipt of this e-mail does not imply consent to use or provide this e-mail address to any third party for any purpose. Wiltshire Council will not request the disclosure of personal financial information by means of e-mail any such request should be confirmed in writing by contacting Wiltshire Council. ______________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________ 5289. 2009-09-14 14:30:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:30:58 +0100 from: Brian Hoskins subject: humidity paper to: Adrian Simmons , p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Adrian & Phil Phil left me your paper when I was visiting UEA. Impressive and interesting! If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected. Best wishes Brian 279. 2009-09-14 16:14:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:14:30 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: new zealand temps: crutem2 to crutem3 to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Maybe you should see David if he can recall making any changes to land stations over NZ - and if so when? There might have been changes immedaiately after Jones and Moberg (2003) that Harry wasn't aware of. Another thought is to check whether your programs work with CRUTEM2 as of now. CRUTEM2 data are on the CRU site, go to the temp page and they are near the bottom. Cheers Phil > Phil, I had a look at figure 1 of Brohan et al. showing land station > coverage and coloured dots for new/deleted/edited stations. All in > New Zealand are black, implying no change from CRUTEM2! I'll check > with programs again in case I screwed up, but fairly confident I > didn't -- so its rather confusing as to why CRUTEM2 and 3 are so > different over New Z. in summer. Tim > > At 21:27 11/09/2009, you wrote: >> Tim, >> This one would be good enough. I don't know if it is the right one. >> We >>also got some additional NZ stations as well. >> It is more about exposures in Australia - that cause the pre-1910 >> data >>to be less good. >> For NZ, it is more work on the early NZ data. Exposures would be a >>problem, but before about 1880. There was a gap in much NZ data during >>the 1870s. It may be that we had only a couple of sites for V2, but got >>several more for V3. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> > Hi Phil, >> > >> > I'm wondering how best to explain the cause of the change in New >> Zealand >> > summer temps from crutem2 to crutem3. I could just say that crutem3 >> uses >> > differently (or better?) homogenised stations records from some >> locations >> > (could I say that the homogenisation adjusted for 19th century >> exposures >> > being different?), with a pers. comm. to you. But if there's a >> reference >> > for homogenised New Zealand data, that would be better. I saw this >> one, >> > by Jim Salinger that mentions "newly homogenised SW Pacific data" and >> > includes New Zealand. Would this be what you now use? >> > >> > Salinger MJ (1995) >> > Southwest Pacific temperatures: trends in maximum and minimum >> temperatures >> > Atmospheric Research >> > Volume 37, Issues 1-3, July 1995, Pages 87-99 >> > Minimax Workshop >> > >> > doi:10.1016/0169-8095(94)00071-K >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Though I can't download the PDF from home to see what it says. >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > -- >> > Dr. Tim Osborn >> > RCUK Academic Fellow >> > Climatic Research Unit >> > School of Environmental Sciences >> > University of East Anglia >> > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> > www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >> > >> > >> > >> > > > 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 > > > 1791. 2009-09-14 16:30:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:21 +0100 from: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" subject: RE: FW: Concrete News - HADCRU Data to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dear Phil, I would just advise again that the more information we give them the more column inches they come up with - but I agree that the factual inaccuracies need to be stamped on. Best, 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: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:39 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: FW: Concrete News - HADCRU Data > > Dave, Annie, > Best to suggest to Nick that he talks to me. We've lost no >data, as I keep telling anybody. The gridded datasets are >sitting on the CRU site for anybody to download. > If you want me to contact Nick I can do, but he's got two >things wrong already - so this suggests the article isn't >going to be any good. > > I had told Nick that I couldn't see him till the week of >Sept 28. It seems he has made up hid story already! > > Cheers > Phil > >> Annie, >> Now what? Clearly the article would appear to have a 'slant' that is >> not favourable to the University. I have commented on Concrete >> articles in past although I'm not sure what notice was taken >of my comments. >> I feel myself being drawn into this..... >> >> Cheers, Dave >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk [mailto:Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:19 PM >> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >> Subject: RE: Concrete News - HADCRU Data >> >> Dave, >> >> Thanks for the reply. Would a time be possible the following >week? If >> you would like I could send a draft of the article in advance of >> printing in which you could reply, if relevant to your job role, on >> specific issues raised? >> >> Also, to help with the accuracy of the article, could you comment on >> accusation that these agreements have been breached and >undermined by: >> the transfer of gridded data to Peter Webster but the refusal, under >> conditions of CRU agreements, of the same data to other scientists; >> the admitted loss of copies of agreements CRU hold with countries or >> particular weather stations. >> >> Thanks again, >> Nick >> >>> Nick, >>> I'm pretty busy this week so an interview doesn't look likely. >>> >>> However, what I can state is that the Climatic Research >Unit has made >>> available full gridded datasets of surface temperature data and >>> averages since 1982 (on its website since the late 1990s). These >>> datasets have been compiled from data acquired from weather >stations >>> around the world, courtesy of Meteorological agencies such as the >>> UK's own Met Office. >>> Some >>> of these organisations give us this information on the >understanding >>> that it is used solely for the compilation of our gridded datasets >>> and may only be used with the full permission of the >relevant agency. >>> >>> We receive numerous requests for the raw data provided to CRU. The >>> data are not ours to pass on without the full permission of the >>> relevant Met Services, but CRU hopes in future that it may >be able to >>> provide this information, jointly with the Hadley Centre, >subject to >>> obtaining consent for publication from the rights holders. >>> >>> The methodology used in compiling datasets from this raw data is >>> fully explained in many published scientific papers by CRU staff. >>> >>> Cheers, Dave >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk [mailto:Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk] >>>>Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 6:39 PM >>>>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>>>Subject: Concrete News - HADCRU Data >>>> >>>>Mr.Palmer, >>>> >>>>I'm the News Editor, Nick Church, for UEA's student paper, >Concrete. >>>>I'm in the process of writing an article on the recent >controversy of >>>>CRU data and its availability and transparency with the scientific >>>>community. >>>> >>>>Would it be possible to have a discussion next week over >this subject >>>>and the numerous FOI/EIR requests made and currently in >process over >>>>this data and topic? >>>> >>>>Sincerely, >>>> >>>>Nick Church >>>>Concrete News Editor >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > > 4444. 2009-09-14 16:44:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:44:32 +0100 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: humidity paper to: Brian Hoskins Brian I'm not sure I could argue that with confidence (or anything else much about convection with any confidence) but it seems you've thought about it, so I would hesitate to argue with you unless I can find good grounds. Adrian Brian Hoskins wrote: > Adrian > The humidity above the boundary layer affects the towers that entrain, > but you could argue that the few towers that get from near surface to > the upper troposphere, and probably set the temperature there may have > little entrainment and therefore be sensitive mainly to the near surface > humidity. > Do you buy that??!! > Best wishes > Brian > > Adrian Simmons wrote: > >> Brian >> >> I'm glad you liked it. I should really have been spending more time on >> GEMS/MACC than writing this up, but the main result was too interesting >> to ignore. We did our best to convince first ourselves and then the >> reviewers that there was a reasonable case that what we presented is >> sound, and it was pleasing when Kate Willett produced the HadCRUH >> extension that showed a similar drop in RH over land than ERA, and when >> I noticed that variations averaged separately over land and sea were >> similar. It all looks to hang together, but ... >> >> I have to get back to the day job for now, but will keep an eye on how >> things unfold, and look a bit more at what happens higher up in a few >> weeks time, I hope. Upper-air water vapour over the ocean is much better >> in ERA-Interim than ERA-40, but not as good as it might be - not >> correlating as well with qsat(SST) as the SSMI retrievals do - and >> shifting radiosonde humidity biases make things tricky over land, so I'm >> not sure quite how much progress can be made with current reanalysis >> products. >> >> All the best >> >> Adrian >> >> >> Brian Hoskins wrote: >> >> >>> Phil >>> The deep convective regions in the tropics would be very sensitive to >>> the low level moisture supply and therefore to boundary layer humidity. >>> Brian >>> >>> .Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Brian, >>>> The paper has now been accepted. I think I asked Tim Osborn to give >>>> you >>>> a copy as I was somewhere else when you were there for UEA degree. I'm >>>> glad you found it interesting and impressive. >>>> What you say sounds possible. It depends how much of the change in the >>>> atmos column is related to changes at the surface? I need to think >>>> about this. I'm supposed to be involved in a break out group here at an >>>> IPCC meeting in Geneva, so it will be later in th week. >>>> I guess a question for Adrian is whether ERA-INTERIM's tropopause >>>> height >>>> is reasonable, and whether any changes have occurred? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Adrian & Phil >>>>> >>>>> Phil left me your paper when I was visiting UEA. Impressive and >>>>> interesting! >>>>> >>>>> If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has >>>>> not gone up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected >>>>> amplification of the warming in the tropics with height has not really >>>>> been detected. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------- 2214. 2009-09-15 11:44:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:44:16 +0100 (BST) from: Nicolas.Church@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: CRU data to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I think you've misunderstood my intentions. I have made no statements on what, or what not, CRU has done; I merely wanted a response to the claims made against CRU. Furthermore, the article - which has not been written - will not, and never intended to be, an article disputing global warming or giving bias to climate change skeptics. I merely wanted to give you the opportunity to voice your concerns and opinions on the matter to UEA students, who, though interested, may not fully understand the details of the arguement. That is why I'm keen for you to counter claims made again CRU, so it is easier for me to communicate this in my article. I'll try again 28th September. Regards, Nick > Nick, > Although I'm away I can look at my emails. I've seen one from Dave > Palmer and it seems you have already written your story. You have > several things wrong in the email you sent to Dave. CRU has lost no > data - if you cannot accept that then there is no point in talking to > you. If you are going to believe what is on blog sites then again there > is no point talking to you. > All the gridded temperatures are on the CRU web site. You are wrong > there also. > > Wait till Sept 28. As I said earlier there is no story in this. > > Cheers > Phil > > > 2797. 2009-09-15 14:07:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:07:14 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: Fwd: Re: Hughes, NIWA & CRU (fwd) to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, This is the original e-mail re NZ series that came to me via Phil. I think that I produced new versions of the Tmean archive files around 11/10/06. I have attached the reformatted series from NZ. The raw data are also attached. I can be far more specific if you need more info. For example, I usually generate a monthly differences file between new and old versions wherever there is overlap. I could probably find this but it does not tell you if a new station is added or if new blocks are added outside of the previous period of coverage. Cheers David ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:43:41 +0100 From: Phil Jones To: d.lister@uea.ac.uk Subject: Fwd: Re: Hughes, NIWA & CRU David, Just received these from NIWA in NZ. Can you go about replacing what we have for NZ? First get these sites into the correct format for the big file (up to 1990) and I'll merge them in at some point. Second replace what we have in the 1991 onwards file with this lot. This is all just mean T. There isn't a rush for this, but useful to do for the time Harry needs the files. Cheers Phil > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:06:53 +1200 > From: Jim Salinger > Reply-To: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz > Organization: NIWA > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) > To: j.renwick@niwa.co.nz > CC: Phil Jones , David Wratt , > b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, m.hollis@niwa.co.nz > Subject: Re: Hughes, NIWA & CRU > X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 > (clam.niwa.co.nz [192.168.16.8]); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:06:55 +1200 (NZST) > X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 192.168.16.8 > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > Hello All > > Attached please find a .csv file containing various New Zealand series which > have been corrected for Phil. There is still the odd collywobble in them > though particularly Auckland for 1861 and 1862 (too warm). > > Now - various information that might assist you all: > > Kaitaia - this is the observatory, but has two sites > > Auckland - current site Mangere, but includes four other sites prior to 1959 > (Albert Park, Museum, Domain, Albert Barracks) > > New Plymouth Airport - prior to 1944 three other sites > > Gisborne Airport - from 1937, town site in early days > > Napier - rural site from 1982, four other sites prior > > Wellington - other sites prior to Kelburn in 1928 which many have commented > on > > Hokitika Airport - present site from 1963, two other sites prior > > Christchurch - I have used a corrected Lincoln record, as the long > Christchurch record had some 'urban warming' in it > > Invercargill Airport - prior to 1940 various town sites > > Dunedin - prior to 1947 other sites rather than Musselburgh - six of them > from 1853 > > So, at this point not sure what has gone into the KNMI series but if these > are simply appended records then, given the different sites and hilliness of > NZ towns there will be temperature changes between sites. > > Cheers > > Other Jim > > Jim Renwick wrote: >> Hi all: >> A little more, in response to Phil's mail overnight - and thanks for >> re-sending the data Phil, which I have now looked at. >> >>> A few things. The CRU station data aren't on the Climate Explorer web >>> site. >> Right, but Hughes made it fairly clear in his mail that he had taken >> data from CE at KNMI, so I did the same to see if I could duplicate his >> analysis. Some of the data look a bit suspicious - from both sources, at >> times. >> >>> I don't know which set of station data are there, nor where they come >>> from - probably from WWR. They may come from CRU, but we've not >>> released our station data for years - certainly not up to 2002. I >>> would need to do some comparisons with what you got from the Dutch >>> site and what I sent you earlier (reattached). The Climate Explorer >>> site may have GISS/NCDC station data? Our NZ station data have >>> applied adjustments to Wellington, Hokitika and Dunedin. These could >>> likely be better. >> OK - I ran the same very simple analysis of the CRU station data, and >> what I got from the CE station data, as attached. I have kept the CRU >> island stations (Campbell, Chathams, Raoul) out of the NZ average >> calculations - though I just noted that Chathams is one of the CE station >> included in my average there, whoops. >> Anyway, comparing like stations, I see that both CE and CRU have very >> similar-looking time series for Auckland, Wellington, Hokitika, Dunedin, >> and Chatham Is, fairly similar for Christchurch, and different for >> Invercargill. Perhaps Jim S or Brett would like to comment on which is >> "correct"? >> >>> With Hughes choosing the region 35-45S by 170-180E, he will have >>> missed off Dunedin and Invercargill. The 3 boxes with land data are >>> 1835, 1836 and 1907. Because of the grid spacing Dunedin and >>> Invercargill fall in separate boxes 1978 and 1979. >> Not from the CE station data, though. Dunedin and Invercargill get >> through. >> >>> To do the comparisons that you have you need to omit the v versions. >>> CRUTEM2 and CRUTEM3 should be much the same. The only reasons that I >>> can think of to explain the differences between 2 and 3 is slight >>> differences in the normals used. 3 was a bit laxer in its normals >>> requirements and may have used more of the 1961-90 WMO normals. >> Right - 2 and 3 seem similar, and the v versions (variance adjustments) >> do not change things much. >> >>> HadCRUT2 and HadCRUT3 bring the SST anomalies in. There is more of a >>> difference between these (see Rayner et al., 2006 in JGR). >>> >>> Rayner, N.A., et al., 2006: Improved analyses of changes and >>> uncertainties in sea surface temperature measured in situ since the >>> mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469. >> Yes - quite a bit of extra work between 2 and 3 there. And again, the >> stronger warming trend when oceans are included. >> >>> The simplest thing to do to solve this issue, would be for you to >>> send me your adjusted station temperature data and then I can replace >>> them in the next version. We will be updating with extensive back >>> data early 2007. >> Fine - I'll leave Jim S to respond to this (and maybe give me the latest >> version too). >> I hope we can at least sort out the NZ data satisfactorily for CRU (and >> others as appropriate). I wish you luck with data from other parts of >> the globe!! >> >> Cheers, >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\New_Zealand Stations.csv" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\nz_reform.tmp" 1470. 2009-09-17 02:54:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:54:45 -0700 from: claudia tebaldi subject: IDAG proposal: final chance *by September 23rd* to: Myles Allen , Knutti Reto , "Stott, Peter" , Gabi Hegerl , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , Tim Barnett , Hans von Storch , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Toru Nozawa , Ben Santer , Daithi Stone , Richard Smith , Nathan Gillett , Michael Wehner , Doug Nychka , Xuebin Zhang , Tom Knutson , Tim Delsole , "Jones, Gareth S" , Stephen Leroy , seung-ki.min@ec.gc.ca, dpierce@ucsd.edu Dear IDAGgers I am aiming for submission by September 28th. I should tell you that in fact we could submit after October 1st without major consequences, but that would mean the project would be funded -- if successful -- starting the next fiscal year. I'm saying this so that if you have major concerns with the proposal as it stands you can hit the breaks hard and we can try and address them. This said, unless I hear about this major type of concerns, I will try to submit before the end of the month, so: By mid-week next week, I.e. **** by Wednesday the 23rd *** I would like you to a) tell me if you are dissatisfied with some part of the proposal and how you would like to edit it AND b) send me your bio sketch if you want consulting money. I sent all the details previously so I'm not going to repeat them here, but please note that the bio-sketch needs to follow some pretty detailed rules, so please go back to my previous email about those. We are going under the assumption that the level of funding available for consulting is $8,000 per person which for simplicity I will characterize as two weeks' worth, so that we do not have to worry about those of you in academia having a 12 months' salary (per Anjuli's directive, two weeks are as much as it is admissible in that case). I never heard from a few of you. For those I will assume travel money is all that is needed unless I hear otherwise AND RECEIVE THE BIO in time, and of course I'll have to go under the assumption that they are ok with the proposal as it stands. Thank you to all of you that contributed to the proposal this time around cheers claudia -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central [1]http://www.climatecentral.org & Adjunct Professor Department of Statistics - UBC Vancouver office 604 822 3595 (Canadian area code) cell 303 775 5365 (US area code) 2025. 2009-09-17 05:22:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:22:24 -0400 (EDT) from: Nature Publishing Group subject: Plan B for Copenhagen to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Plan B for Copenhagen In 11 days the curtain will rise in Bangkok for the penultimate round of negotiations before the climate change conference in Copenhagen starts in December. Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will descend on Copenhagen to wrangle over the details of a new global climate deal a potential successor to the Kyoto Protocol. As the world moves along the road to Copenhagen, Nature has covered every aspect of the science and politics of climate change in articles collected together in a Nature News Special. In this week's addition to The Road to Copenhagen Special, David Victor warn us of the dangers of a rushed, stapled-together global climate deal. Access the Nature News special free online. http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=6&m=34046081&r=MTc3MDk2NTI2OQS2&b=2&j=NTgwOTA5NTYS1&mt=1&rt=0 Want to stay up-to-date with global science research, news, features and much more? Purchase an annual subscription today and enjoy a 20% discount! http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=9&m=34046081&r=MTc3MDk2NTI2OQS2&b=2&j=NTgwOTA5NTYS1&mt=1&rt=0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a registered user of Nature Publishing Group's Web sites, our database indicates that you have opted-in to receive NPG Product Information and Special Offers. If you no longer wish to receive these emails or to discontinue all email services from Nature Publishing Group, please update your online account. www.nature.com/nams/svc/myaccount (You will need to log in to be recognised as a Nature registrant) For further technical assistance, please contact our registration department mailto:registration@nature.com For print subscription enquiries, please contact our subscription department mailto:subscriptions@nature.com For other enquiries, please contact our customer feedback department mailto:feedback@nature.com Nature Publishing Group 75 Varick Street, 9th floor | New York | NY 10013-1917 USA Nature Publishing Group's worldwide offices: London Paris Munich New Delhi Tokyo Tokyo Melbourne San Diego San San Francisco Washington New York Boston on • Hong Kong Gurgaon Mexico o City Basingstoke Macmillan Publishers Limited is a company incorporated in England and Wales under company number 785998 and whose registered office is located at Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. © 2009 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved 4945. 2009-09-17 08:28:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 17 08:28:03 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Myles Allen" Myles, Never say you got this email from me! I probably shouldn't be passing this on - maybe it's protected under the Data Protection Act. Several other people have tried the same ploy he has used about what the agreements we had with Met Services mean. His response contains a very mild implicit threat, but it is very mild. Some others have been much more explicit. As an aside some of the papers published on the CRU dataset contain more information than you would get with the GISS or NCDC data. The web page we put up is here - this is what he's referring to. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ Good to see you again - and see you on Oct 15 at the UKCP09 meet. Cheers Phil From: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" To: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" Sender: "Baker Jane Mrs (LIB)" Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:33:59 +0100 Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Topic: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Thread-Index: AcocuvbRB/fNSyVpSGSv6dbZ6S0BIQKS1IxQADPsplA= Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 12:34:00.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EE58E0:01CA27DB] Dear All, We have received an appeal from Prof. Jonathan Jones regarding our response to his request for the following information: "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I have sent out an acknowledgement letter. We have until 24th September 2009 to respond. Kind regards, Jane ***************************************************** Jane Baker LaRC Co-ordinator / Blackboard support Learning and Resources Centre (LaRC) Library UEA Norwich NR4 7TJ 01603 59 3483 For LaRC enquiries please email larc@uea.ac.uk For Blackboard enquiries please email the Staff or Student IT Helpdesk staff.help@uea.ac.uk or it.helpdesk@uea.ac.uk My office days are Wednesday to Friday Bob Heath is in the office Mondays and Tuesdays -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Jones [[2]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:10 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Heath Robert Mr (LIB); Baker Jane Mrs (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Dear Mr Palmer, Thank you for your letter dated 14 August, reference ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) in response to my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". I regret that I do not consider your response satisfactory, and am therefore appealing your decision. As I understand you are currently on holiday I am copying this to Bob Heath (r.heath@uea.ac.uk) and Jane Baker (jane.baker@uea.ac.uk) as you requested in your vacation message. You have refused my request on three grounds, all of which are incorrect. 1. Reg. 12(4)(b) - Request is manifestly unreasonable: Information is available elsewhere. You claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" namely the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU. It is factually incorrect to claim that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources" and your argument cannot stand. A "subset of data already available" would mean that the data I requested could be obtained from "the gridded data made available by the GHCN and the CRU" by downloading some or all of this data and deleting selected parts. The data I have requested cannot be obtained in this manner. I refer you to the discussion of the gridding process at [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . You further claim that "it is unreasonable for the University to spend public resources on providing information in a different format to that which is already available". However I asked for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009". I have only requested a copy of a data set which has already been prepared by the university, and so is already available. Once again your statement is factually incorrect and your argument cannot stand. 2. Reg. 12(5)(a) - Adverse effect on international relations: Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations 3. Reg. 12(5)(f) - Adverse effect on the person providing information: Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement I will take these two points together as they are in essence the same. I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is "already available" and that the data is "confidential". Clearly these two statements cannot simultaneously be true. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(a) you state that releasing this information "would damage the trust that other national scientists and institutions have in UK-based public sector organisations" and consequently "would damage the ability of the University and other UK institutions to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries". I draw your attention to resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organization which states that "WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products". It is perverse to claim that acting in accordance with this resolution could endanger cooperation with meteorological organizations. With regard to Reg. 12(5)(f), the data I requested has already been provided to at least one other individual, namely Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. Clearly this data cannot be covered by a strict confidentiality agreement. It is, of course, true that this data could be covered by limited confidentiality agreements. The FOI and EIR are quite clear on the responsibilities of organizations claiming exemption on grounds of confidentiality. The exemption "only applies if a breach of confidence would be 'actionable'". Courts will only recognise that a person holds information subject to a duty of confidence in two types of situations: a) where that person expressly agrees or undertakes to keep information confidential: there is an express duty of confidence b) where the nature of the information of the circumstances in which the information is obtained imply that the person should keep the information confidential: there is an implied duty of confidence >From your letter it appears that UEA is claiming an exemption of the first kind, as you cite a number of supposed confidentiality agreements that you do hold, which are available at [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ . In fact the great majority of these are not clearly confidentiality agreements: a) The 1994 FAX to the Met Office is simply a statement from Dr Hulme about the planned use of the data; there is no reply as to the conditions under which the data is provided. b) The 1993 letter from DNMI is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with DNMI that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. c) The form in Spanish simply states that the data should only be used for the specified purpose, and as no purpose was specified this cannot establish a duty of confidentiality. d) The web page is simply a statement by the Met Office of its own policies; this provides no evidence whatsoever of any duties under which UEA might hold data. It further notes that NERC data centres may make the data available under certain circumstances, so there is no absolute duty of confidence. e) The 1994 letter from Bahrain International Airport is a limited request for confidentiality not a formal agreement, and is almost certainly superseded by WMO Resolution 40. If UEA wishes to claim exemption under this clause it must first establish with Bahrain International Airport that an express duty of confidentiality still applies. I understand that in the past UEA has refused to release the data I have requested and related data because the request came from a person who was not an academic. I remind you that "No regard may be had to the identity of the person who is requesting the information nor to the purpose to which they will put the information." I also remind you that "When considering the balance of interests, public authorities must have regard to the interests of the person to whom the duty of confidence is owed; the public authority's own interests in non-disclosure are not relevant to the application of this exemption." I further remind you that "If you receive a request for information which, although it was confidential when it was obtained, was obtained a long time ago, you should consider carefully whether the disclosure of that information would still constitute an actionable breach of confidence within the meaning of section 41." At best UEA has limited evidence for the existence of limited confidentiality agreements covering part of the data I have requested. It is not clear to me that these documents in any way establish an express duty of confidence. However, even if they do, the responsibilities of UEA under Reg. 12(11) of the EIR are clear. Regulation 12 (11) says: (11) Nothing in these Regulations shall authorise a refusal to make available any environmental information contained in or otherwise held with other information which is withheld by virtue of these Regulations unless it is not reasonably capable of being separated from the other information for the purpose of making available that information. Thus UEA is certainly required to provide me with all the data I have requested with the possible exception of data held under an express duty of confidence (for data withheld it is required to establish that such an express duty of confidence does in fact exist). Please note that if it is not possible to identify which data is covered by supposed confidence agreements, then it is difficult to maintain that the release of this data will breach such agreements. I therefore appeal your decision, and reiterate my request for "a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009". -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2009 09:41 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Response Prof. Jones Attached please find a response to your request received on 24 July 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4333. 2009-09-17 10:37:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 17 10:37:51 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: !A01 lecture to: Phil Jones don't pass on further, but let me know what you think! From: "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" To: "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:36:02 +0100 Subject: !A01 lecture Thread-Topic: !A01 lecture Thread-Index: Aco2uXy1UueRbHe4SuGsiY7l8BMXMg== Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2009 10:35:59.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B4D3EB0:01CA36B9] Tim I have had to go through 1A01 lectures to extract reading lists etc and I read the slides of Alan Kendalls lecture from last year which he is planning to give this year. I attach the slides. As you will note there are many assertions that will be very confusing to students. And the lecture gives no sources for where the students can follow up on these and verify or falsify what Alan is saying. I would like a quick chat about this. Not sure what to do perhaps just let is slide given that this is the last year of Alans teaching etc. Thanks for your thoughts. Lets talk by phone. Neil Professor Neil Adger Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Tel +44 (0) 1603 593 732 Email n.adger@uea.ac.uk [1]www.tyndall.ac.uk [2]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/adgern 'Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance' Details at: [3]http://www.cambridge.org/uk/browse/browse_highlights.asp?subjectid=1076991 232. 2009-09-17 15:11:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:11:27 -0400 from: Brian Luckman subject: RE: Divergence Project to: "'Tom Melvin'" , BRIFFA Dear Tom and Keith, That is great news- both that you have got the project and that Keith is recovering well. As I said in earlier correspondence with Keith this is an essential project for the discipline and I fully support it. However, at this time I have no active dendroclimate students here (nor do I expect any future ones as I am already almost two years post retirement and renewing year by year) so I would not expect to contribute significantly in terms of analysis or techniques. However, over the last 10 years we have collected almost 100 new spruce and fir sites in the Yukon and Northern B.C. that would be of some interest to you in the project. These have been the focus of a master's project analyzing 20+ sites along the Dempster Highway that bracket Gordon's TTHH site and I sent a copy of this M.Sc. Thesis to Jonathan Barichivitch earlier this summer (when I last contacted Keith). The analysis was very simple and looked at whether there were differences in the correlations with climate data from Dawson for the 1900-1950 and 1951-2000 periods. I also have a doctoral student who is working with the entire network but that work is proceeding very slowly and he has experienced serious family crises, is currently on leave and I am not optimistic that he will finish. I am therefore prepared to release these data to other projects as, having gone through 6 field seasons to collect it I would hate to see the work go to waste. Accordingly, about 9 months ago I sent all of these data to Martin Wilmking for his project and have no objection to sending you the same data (I assume you would want the raw data). Alternatively, based on your address listing, I assume Martin is likely part of this project also and you might want to check how far he has progressed with the analysis of that data and maybe he would share any results from that work. I don't know what state his work is at. As I am not likely to be doing much additional dendroclimate work I could, if you so wish, send you other data from the Canadian Cordillera (Picea and Larix) which includes some relatively long chronologies but they end in the early to mid 1990s. Let me know what you would like. I expect to be in Finland though, as I will probably be contributing to a dendrogeomorph session on Natural Hazards, I am unlikely to have anything particularly new to say on the Divergence issue. If I were to participate and present it would likely simply be based on the master's work that you may already have seen- though I would obviously attend any such discussion. So, that's the state of play here. Great to know Keith is back in the system and the project is a go. Having not heard about it for so long I was worried that maybe it didn't fly- but it has. Let me know how I can contribute. Cheers Brian -----Original Message----- From: Tom Melvin [mailto:t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk] Sent: September 11, 2009 9:32 AM To: esper@wsl.ch; samuli.helama@helsinki.fi; hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se; kurt.nicolussi@uibk.ac.at; Michael_Pisaric@carleton.ca; wilmking@UNI-GREIFSWALD.DE; eavaganov@forest.akadem.ru; ben.smith@nateko.lu.se; drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu; luckman@uwo.ca; mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu; rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu; rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk Cc: Keith; Tim Subject: Divergence Project Dear Colleagues and Friends, We are writing now to inform you that our application to the UK NERC for support to investigate the so-called "Divergence" phenonomen in temperature-sensitive trees over a range of geographical and ecological situations has formally been approved. This message is addressed to those of you who generously offered support and indicated willingness to collaborate with us in this work. We were and are grateful and excited by the prospect of our collaboration. Most of you will know that I was diagnosed a few months back as having a kidney tumour. I have since then had an operation to remove the offending organ and, providing all continues to go well, I intend to be back at work in October. The formal start date of the project will be 1st May 2010 and Tom will be paid full time for the 30 month duration of this contract. In the meantime we are anxious to establish a close working relationship between ourselves and all of you - but ideally a collaborative network involving us all. The first idea we had was to organise a small "forum" on our website so that we can maintain contact, discuss problems, keep each other informed of progress, and exchange ideas, data and software. It would help us if Tom's dendroclimatic software, including some novel techniques, was tried out and discussed (maybe as beta testing) before we make it openly available. We also would like you opinion on the suggestion of holding a session on "divergence" at the next International Tree Ring Conference to be held in Rovaniemi in June next year - would any of you be willing to contribute to such a session? Anyway, this is to let you know that we were very serious in expressing our wish that this project be a collaborative effort with all of you. Thanks for your help in getting this project and thanks for your collaborative support. Best wishes Keith and Tom 10-Sept-2009 Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 4049. 2009-09-18 10:11:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:11:10 -0400 from: "Joseph, Renu" subject: Can I get a paragraph from you ASAP. to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, Just noticed a BAMS article Li, Q., H. Zhang, J. Chen, W. Li, X. Liu, and P. Jones, 2009: A Mainland China Homogenized Historical Temperature Dataset of 1951-2004. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1062-1065. Would you be able to quickly provide me a paragraph describing the highlights of the paper for the BER weekly. The template for the weekly news-note can be found at [1]http://www.sc.doe.gov/ober/bernews.html <[2]http://www.sc.doe.gov/ober/bernews.html> . Also, pls. keep us in mind, as more papers that are partially or totally funded by DOE are published. It would be nice for me to get the information about 2-3 weeks prior to the when the paper comes out in print. Thanks, -Renu ******************************************************** Renu R. Joseph Ph.D Program Manager Climate Change and Prediction Program Climate and Environmental Sciences Division SC-23.1 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 Ph: 301-903-9237 Fax: 301-903-8519 [3]renu.joseph@science.doe.gov For Courier Services: Alan Jenkins/ Renu Joseph US Department of Energy SC-23.1 19901 Germantown Rd MD 20874-1290 1005. 2009-09-18 15:26:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:26:45 +0200 from: omestre subject: [homemc] COST ES0601 news/next meetings to: homemc@meteo.fr, homewg2@meteo.fr, homewg4@meteo.fr Dear all, Sorry for cross-postings... Administrative stuff : our Action will finally to the long awaited Grant Holding system... Not many impacts for the participants of the Action, except that a new budget and workplan has to be prepared... We need to organize (that is to set the exact dates) as soon as possible the next meetings of the Action: Expert Meeting in Olso (november) (Oevind) Expert Meeting in Tortosa (november) (Enric) Expert Meeting in Vienna (november) (Leopold) Expert Meeting in Toulouse (december) (Olivier) WG234 meeting in Mallorca (Jose) Dear organizers of those meetings, can you start to discuss the possible dates with the participants (see below). Concerning the Mallorca WG meeting, it is dedicated to those who have conducted homogenisation on the benchmark dataset, and to those who have been active in daily values homogenisation. The crucial point is that Victor Venema has to be there :-) . Jose, can you handle this? R Training school in Belgrade. I have to see this with Predrag, but i guess we will delay it. Maybe december? Olivier Nov-09 Spain (Tortosa) Constanta Boroneant Petr Stepanek Pere Esteban Peter Domonkos *Enric Aguilar* * * Dec-09 France (Toulouse) *Oliver Mestre* Alexis Hannart Jul-09 France (Toulouse) Christine Gruber *Olivier Mestre* Mar-10 Austria (Vienna) *Ingeborg Auer* Reinhard Boehm Olivier Mestre Mar-10 Sweden (Linkoping) *Anders Grimvall* Oevind Nordli Oliver Mestre Tamas Szentimrey Jose Guijarro Nov-09 Austria (Vienna) *Leopold Haimberger* S. Broennimann Petr Stepanek Sep-09 Czech Rep. (Brno) Anders Grimvall *Petr Stepanek* Agne Buruauskaite-Harju Nov-09 Norway (Oslo) Anders Grimvall *Oevind Nordli* Gaston Demaree Heikki Tuomenvirta Anders Moberg Ingeborg Auer Perr Stepanek? 34. 2009-09-18 16:02:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Sep 18 16:02:25 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: comments on Thompson et al. Nature paper to: Thomas C Peterson Tom, I recall talking about this paper to Mike at the last CCPP meeting in DC. It should be easier to explain the revised record, but it may mean that sulphate aerosols become less important. Skeptics will use anything to undermine things. The change when corrections are applied (which should be submitted soon) will make the 1940s warmer overall, so will affect the key AR4 diagram from D&A - well the specific ocean one. This paper has just been accepted - attached. You can also get another at Congratulations! Your recently accepted article, "Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational datasets", is now available on the AGU Papers in Press site: [1]http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/papersinpress.shtml#id2009JD012442 Another one with Dave Thompson is on the J. Climate accepted page as well. I wish I could find some time to write papers as first author!!! Cheers Phil At 14:01 18/09/2009, you wrote: Hi, Phil, Dick Reynolds and I passed on a copy of the Thompson, Kennedy, Wallace and Jones paper on the large discontinuity...to Mike MacCracken. I thought you might enjoy his comments, the key one being: The only disappointment about the article from my view are its limited comment on the implicationsI think they will be huge. Regards, Tom ************************* Hi Tom and DickThank you very much for sending along the paper, I had not yet seen it though understood the UK efforts were looking at this period. I was interested in how the US contribution to the measurements grew starting in something like 1939 (when Lend-Lease started) and grew more gradually than when it shut downso it is indeed the whole period that will be affected. The only disappointment about the article from my view are its limited comment on the implicationsI think they will be huge. It is this (uncorrected) warmth that has been the basis for so much of the interest in solar contributions to climate change, so that will be seriously impacted, getting us back to where many of us think we should be, with solar changes in heating being weighted about equally with GHG changes in heating and not having to search out all sorts of exotic feedbacks to show how a small solar change could have a disproportionately large effect. So, I think it will mean the detection-attribution studies weigh solar less and find the human influence going back further in time. Many of the Skeptics have also using that early 1940s level to be the end of natural warming post the Little Ice Age, saying human influences played little early role (though methane concentration was up a lot, and CO2 some, so there was actually a significant forcing prior to the early 1940s, but its influence was misestimated as there was this focus on the Sun (how it can be so constant is truly amazing, but that is what it appears). I think there was also an important and unfortunate psychological result of the 1940s high pointnamely it hid the early human influences and so let the argument be made that natural variability (internal and external) was larger than it has been, so the problem was not as bad as it really is. I have for quite a number of years asked people to put their finger over the WWII period and then look at the global record, and one gets a quite different impression of hat has been happening and its relation to human activities, etc. Basically, now, it will seem much more evident that human activities started earlier. I think the new result will also affect the estimate of the aerosol offsetthe only way to be explaining the mid-20th century was with a pretty large sulfate cooling. Now, that wont be nearly so necessary, likely making that aerosol effect smaller, which will be interesting. It will therefore also affect the ideas about geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. And finally, the result may help in figuring out why estimates of sea level rise during the 20th century have been so far below observationsIPCCdrawing from the model results--could only explain a small share of 20th century rise. Less sulfate and solar influence and more even warming over time might well help in this regard. So, again, fascinatingit will be nice now to have a citation for a situation that I have been pointing out in talks and my 2008 review paper. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5209. 2009-09-18 19:59:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:59:03 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2009JD013094 Joost de Gouw: Review Received by Journal of to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 3736 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Jones: Thank you for your review of "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" by Matthew J. Menne, Claude Williams, Jr., and Micheal Palecki [Paper #2009JD013094], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached for your reference. Sincerely, Joost de Gouw Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assessment: Category 2 Ranking: Very Good Confidential Re-Review: Yes Annotated Manuscript: No Highlight: No Highlight: Comments: Review of Menne et al General This is an extremely useful paper that should be published as soon as possible. I've separated my comments into major and minor, even though the major ones can be accommodated without any new work. Major Comments 1. The study highlights that the issue of poor exposure of instruments cannot be solved with photographs and metadata. Instead the data recorded at the sites needs to be considered as well. The authors make this point at the end in the conclusions, but I'd like this point to be made in the abstract as well. In particular there is the point that unless the data are looked at, the effect of inhomogeneities cannot be assumed as some of the results are counter intuitive. Possibly the authors are being a little defensive by saying that the adjustments for MMTS are somewhat inadequate, but they have looked at the data. 2. It should be clear in section 2 that not all sites in the USHCN have been assessed into these ratings. Perhaps the number at the present could be given, even if the exact number is somewhat difficult to ascertain. 3. Perhaps the implication of Vose and Menne (2004) could be more clearly stated around lines 123-125. The fact that a limited number of sites is able to reproduce the CONUS average clearly shows that the number of independent spatial degrees of freedom across the CONUS is significantly smaller than the full number of sites in the networks. Minor Comments 1. Not that keen on CONUS as an acronym, but it serves the purpose. 2. MMTS is not defined in the abstract. It is in Section 1 and maybe that is all that is needed. 3. There are lots of references to non-climatic artifacts and homogenization. I'd like to see a few more referred to in addition to Mitchell (1953), which is quite old now. Perhaps a reference could be made to a paper where homogeneity has been defined. 4. Line 136, add the 'also' in this sentence. 5. Perhaps there could be a more clear statement that exposure issues tend to have a greater impact on Tx as opposed to Tn. The effects are almost always opposite, so will cancel in the mean T and be amplified in DTR. 6. With Figure 5 (lines 178-181) I'd like to see reference to the figure in Menne et al. that shows the histograms of the adjustments. I think this is additional information to that provided in Figure 5. I'm not saying add this figure, just refer clearly to it. 7. Almost all the refs are in italics, but a few aren't - e.g. Hubbard and Lin (2006). 8. A map of the locations of the USCRN sites would be useful, or a direct reference to where this can be viewed. The fact that there are 114 stations at 107 locations is a little confusing. Also is there a need to mention precipitation. Presumably the USCRN sites are measuring many variables. 9. With Figure 6 there are only 5 points involved in these excellent r-squared values. A better plot might be the anomalies from all 60 months within the 5 years? 10. The final sentence could add in the clause - provided the raw data are adjusted according the methods details in Menne and Williams (2009) and Menne et al. (2009). 3252. 2009-09-19 12:28:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:28:41 +1200 from: "Mick Kelly" subject: RE: Luong Quang Huy to: "'Tim Osborn'" Hi Tim We all missed the implications of the three-month deadline, though had Huy not rushed into the revision process without consulting anyone then we'd have caught it. So it goes. That's amazing re Alan Kendall (always thought he was rather a loose cannon). And, no, he didn't contribute to 1A01 in my day - sure I'd have spotted had he done so! Who's convening 1A01 nowadays? I'd call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account - for the students' sake at least! Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture :) Good luck! Kind of ironic that I used to invoke academic freedom when criticised by ENV for 'promoting' concern about global warming and I suspect Alan might respond in a similar fashion. Thanks for sorting out Huy. Yes, better to have it in writing. I think Alex would want that too. Hope all else goes smoothly! Mick -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2009 2:42 To: Mick Kelly Subject: Re: Luong Quang Huy Hi Mick, as you suggested, I ran this by Elly informally first (by phone) and she just said: "that's fine, I'll make a note on his file and can you let Huy know; there's no need to send a letter or any form". So it seems that it is done already! However, because I'd like some more traceable record than just my phone call to Elly, what I'll do is to include the text you provided below in my email informing Huy that he has been granted the concession and I'll cc it to Elly. Then at least there'll be a record of the agreement and the dates involved. I didn't realise Huy's misunderstanding over supervisor involvement, I just assumed he would ask me for advice if he needed it. Sorry about that. On another note, do you know whether, when you were teaching ENV-1A01, Alan Kendall was giving a counter climate change lecture later in the module full of climate skeptic nonsense? It turns out that he has done so for the last year or two, and possibly before that, and is planning to do so again this year. His lecture slides are full of the usual stuff (CO2 absorption is already saturated, CO2 lags temperature, instrumental temperature is unreliable so it isn't warming and anyway it has cooled since 2001, etc.). Regards Tim At 21:43 17/09/2009, you wrote: >Hi Tim > >With your hat on as Huy's acting supervisor, can you steer a concession >request through the system. Not sure whether you're aware that Huy >picked up the impression that he should complete the thesis revision >process without consulting his supervisor(s) but that is largely why >we're only picking up on this now - though one of us should have >spotted this earlier, I suppose. > >This is the justification that you as supervisor include to support the >concession request and gives you the wording for the other bits of the >form. You might have to fax a copy to Huy for him to sign. > >"Luong Quang Huy would like to request a change in the timing of the >period over which he has to complete corrections to his PhD thesis due >to the absence of his primary supervisor, Irene Lorenzoni, on maternity >leave. He has now realised that her disciplinary expertise is essential >to the revision process. He has worked for one month to date on minor >corrections. As acting supervisor, I support the proposal that the >clock stops at this point and re-starts on November 16th 2009 shortly >after Irene Lorenzoni returns to work. The candidate understands that >he should do no further work on the thesis till then. The completion >date would be January 15th 2010. I understand that this is acceptable >with Irene Lorenzoni and with the internal examiner (to be confirmed)." > >If they agree, then Irene and Alex will confirm this arrangement with >you and you can delete the 'to be confirmed'. They've OK'ed this in >principle with me but best you have their formal OK on file. > >Huy would rather an earlier date for completion but I've told him that, >whatever he may reckon, I know he needs this time. You'll receive an >email from him asking you to arrange the concession request. > >I suggest you pass this by Elly informally first of all to check it's >likely to be approved and on the procedure. She's aware of the >background. > >Thanks for this! >Mick > >________________________________ > >Mick Kelly Tanelorn Associates >PO Box 4260 Kamo >Whangarei 0141 New Zealand >Tel: +64 (0)9 433 8220 >Email: mick.tiempo@gmail.com >Web: www.tiempocyberclimate.org ________________________________ 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 434. 2009-09-21 09:53:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:53:56 +0100 from: "Carver Rachel Miss (SCI)" subject: [Env.all] FW: Zero Carbon Conference - Monday 21 September to: "env.all@uea.ac.uk" Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D59077F742C63F4B87605F5383D0A345274DBCD6FCUEAEXCHMBXUEA_" Dear All, Please see below a reminder regarding the International Zero Carbon Conference today. Thank you Rachel ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: MARK CRUTCHLEY [mailto:mark_2c@btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:16 PM To: Larke Angela Miss (LCIC) Subject: Zero Carbon Conference - Monday 21 September International Zero Carbon Conference As part of the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference in December 2009 the Zero Carbon Caravan has organised a conference on climate change and associated issues. This is your opportunity to question leading authorities on the subject following a series of brief introductory remarks. Monday 21^st September in the LGMAC Room on floor 01 in ENV from 10 - 12. The panel consist of two speakers by teleconference: Clive Hamilton - Professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University and author of the book Growth Fetishism Fabrina Furtado of Jubilee South, an organisation concerned with debt relief in the emerging world And from UEA: Professor Neil Adger - Researcher into social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to environmental change; on justice and equity in decision-making; and the application of economics to global environmental change. Professor Tim Lenton - Whose research focuses on understanding the Earth as a whole system. Tim has carried out research into tipping points in the Earth system; and has also recently been involved in research into geo-engineering. Professor Teresa Belton - Researcher into the origins of values, attitudes and behaviours; the impact of emotions on behaviour and learning; children and imagination; and influences on pro-environmental behaviours. Alex Haxeltine - Deputy leader of the Tyndall Centre's International Policy research programme All welcome _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 2760. 2009-09-21 23:08:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: B.Trewin@bom.gov.au, "acre-discussion@met-acre.org" , "'Rob Allan'" , "Walter E. Baethgen" , "catharine@aol.com" , "C.W.Wilkinson@uea.ac.uk" , "'Dennis Wheeler'" , "D.J.Nash@bton.ac.uk" , "'J.G. Guzman'" date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:08:35 +0200 from: David_Bresch@swissre.com subject: Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) - shaping climate-resilient to: David_Bresch@swissre.com Dear colleagues - this might be of interest, so I took the liberty to send this to my ACRE contacts - please disregard, if not interested. It is my pleasure to inform you about the launch of the report on Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA), an important contribution to the debate in the run-up to Copenhagen. Societies need to understand how and where they must adapt to climate change. The ECA report introduces an approach and methodology to make this happen. Authored by the ECA working group, this report applies the methodology to 8 case studies (US-Florida, UK-City of Hull, India, Guyana, Tanzania, Mali, China and Samoa). In these locations studied, annualised losses of 1-12% of GDP result from existing climate patterns and are likely to rise to up to 19% of GDP by 2030. The report identifies significant potential for cost-effective adaptation measures. The methodology gives decision makers and their stakeholders the facts to design a climate adaptation strategy, combining risk avoidance, loss reduction, and risk transfer measures - following a pre-emptive approach to manage total climate risk. The ECA report found that, in order to foster climate-resilient development, one needs to apply a pre-emptive approach to manage total climate risk. 1. Despite much uncertainty, it is possible to provide a basis for decision-making, even in developing countries where historical climate data may be limited. 2. Market-based insurance solutions can contribute significantly and efficiently to locally adapt to a changing climate. 3. The methodology outlined in the report (and illustrated by the eight case studies) can be applied to other countries or regions to help develop concrete data for political decision-making on adaptation strategies and resource allocation. The project sponsor consortium consisted of Swiss Re, McKinsey, Global Environment Facility, European Commission, the Rockefeller Foundation, Climate Works, and Standard Chartered Bank. Swiss Re's role as a project partner was that of a lead contributor to the research, defining the assessment and risk modelling approach and providing overall risk assessment knowledge and tools. Please find the full study (pdf, 6 MB) and the executive summary here: [1]www.swissre.com/climatechange I am looking forward to learn about your thoughts on this - with best regards, David Bresch Dr. David N. Bresch | Director | Head Sustainability & Emerging Risk Management Swiss Reinsurance Company | Mythenquai 50/60, 8022 Zurich, Switzerland Direct: +41 43 285 6361 Fax: +41 43 282 6361 Mobile: +41 79 834 6959 E-mail: [2]David_Bresch@swissre.com [3]http://www.swissre.com Blair Trewin 21.09.2009 00:19 To "'J.G. Guzman'" , "Walter E. Baethgen" cc 'Dennis Wheeler' , "D.J.Nash@bton.ac.uk" , 'Rob Allan' , "acre-discussion@met-acre.org" , "C.W.Wilkinson@uea.ac.uk" , "catharine@aol.com" Subject RE: CHILEAN ACRE [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] It might be of interest to know that a paper by a number of South American authors on 'Latitudinal position of the subtropical anticyclone along the Chilean coast' was recently published in the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal ([4]http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2009/minetti_hres.pdf). This used century-long Chilean pressure records; further data might provide scope for this analysis to be extended further back into the 19th century. Blair Trewin National Climate Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology (also AMOJ editor) -----Original Message----- From: J.G. Guzman [[5]mailto:jgg29@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of J.G. Guzman Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2009 2:02 AM To: Walter E. Baethgen Cc: 'Dennis Wheeler'; D.J.Nash@bton.ac.uk; 'Rob Allan'; acre-discussion@met-acre.org; C.W.Wilkinson@uea.ac.uk; catharine@aol.com Subject: CHILEAN ACRE Dear colleagues, Many thanks indeed for your comments and your interest in supporting a Chilean chapter of ACRE. As mentioned in one of my previous emails, last April together with Rob, Julian, Catharine and Clive, we paid a visit to Santiago and Valparaiso. We met a number of Chilean agencies and services; all of them ensured their interest in establishing cooperation with ACRE. Very important is that all entities depending of the Ministry of Defence ensured us open access to the data. This never happened before. No Chilean nor foreign team have ever obtained such access. We talked about funding with the Board for Science and Technology (CONICYT) and with the Commission (now Ministry) of Environment (CONAMA). We even made a formal presentation to the Chilean Ambassador in London, but after six month in waiting, no news has arrived from Chile. Te reason: the elections of next December. In my view, we will not able to obtain any answer until next June or July, when the next government could be settle. In the meantime, and if we really want to take advantage of the access to the data we presently have, we should proceed without waiting any news from Chile. Just go there and start working. If we wait for the next government and this is, as the polls indicate, from the present opposition, I fear that then we will have to start once again with the bureaucratic via crucis We need funding. How much? Of course it depends of how much we want to do. As Catharine and Clive could explain in detail, just in logbooks we have more than 7000. In terms of meteo stations, we have more than 100. In terms of Navy stations in oceanic islands, we have many If we want to include a chapter in glaciology or do something with Chilean Antarctic data and then combine it this with British and Argentinean info, then even more. I you all agree, we could try to get together in Cambridge, Exeter or London. Then we can analyse the subject in detail and, probably, find the way to go on with a Chilean ACRE. Best regards to you all, Jorge Guzman SPRI-University of Cambridge On Sep 18 2009, Walter E. Baethgen wrote: >Dear all, > >I strongly agree with Jorge Guzman's comments regarding the great >potential that exists in Chile to reconstruct long-term climate data. >I also agree that the Center for Global Change Research is a great >partner to involve in this effort. > >Furthermore, in my opinion, if efforts will be made to reconstruct the >long-term climatologies in Chile, I would like to suggest that you try >to expand the geographical scope to include other regions of the >Southern Cone of South America (i.e., Argentina, Uruguay, south >Brazil). These are areas where there is also a great potential to >reconstruct climatologies, and where many ongoing research projects could be contacted to contribute. > >As the leader of the Latin American program of the IRI (International >Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, NY), I >would like to offer my help to identify these research groups and to >help connecting with them. > >I believe that the additional efforts needed to expand the geographical >scope are probably low. Once that funds are identified to start this >work in Chile, I believe that little more would be needed to expand the >efforts to neighbor regions (and ACRE would greatly benefit from this expansion). > >Best regards, > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: J.G. Guzman [[6]mailto:jgg29@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of J.G. >Guzman >Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:30 AM >To: Dennis Wheeler >Cc: D.J.Nash@bton.ac.uk; Rob Allan; acre-discussion@met-acre.org >Subject: Re: Research Fellow in Historical Climatology > >Dear Dennis, > >Many thanks for your comments. > >As you probably known from Rob, Clive and Catharine, the Chilean >records are really first class. > >A second relevant point is that we obtained access to the files, which >was > >not granted no anyone before. > >Thirdly, we found a partner in the Centre fro Global Change in >Santiago, certainly the best unit in Chile and probably in the region. > >What we need is funding. A couple of months ago I approached the Royal >Society and they said that, if there is another possible sponsor, they >could consider an application. > >Another possible funding could come from our Newton Fund, which is >something that our Director Julian Dowdeswell could consider to >sponsor, if we can match the requirements. > >If you need any specification on the kind of records available in >Chile, please let me know. > >Best regards, > > >Jorge Guzman >SPRI-University of Cambridge > >On Sep 18 2009, Dennis Wheeler wrote: > >>Hi All >> >>This is potentially such an important project that it cannot be >>allowed to slip by. I suggest that we discuss possible funding via >>Leverhulme Trust. I do not think that NERC are a useful source of >>funding for this sort of work, but maybe others have ideas also. >> >>regards >> >>Dennis >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "J.G. Guzman" >>Date: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:54 am >>Subject: Re: Research Fellow in Historical Climatology >> >>> Dear David, dear Georgina, As Rob can inform you, since last year we >>> try to obtain some funding to do implement a project using >>> historical Chilean records. >>> >>> Last April we paid a visit to Chile and found an enormous amount of >>> data, which, in some cases, even cover the Southern Pacific and the >>> Southern Ocean since early XVII century...... >>> >>> After many months in waiting, everything point to say that the >>> Chilean will not commit any money, despite they look interested in >>> the >>issue....... >>> >>> >>> If you of any source of funding that could be interested in doing >>> some historical climatology in South America, the South East pacific >>> and the American sector of the Southern and Antarctic Oceans, please >>> let us know. >>> >>> Many thanks and best regards, >>> >>> Jorge Guzman >>> SPRI-University of Cambridge >>> >>> On Sep 17 2009, D.J.Nash@bton.ac.uk wrote: >>> >>> >Dear ACRE Discussion List members >>> > >>> > We are currently advertising for a postdoctoral researcher to >>> work on our >>> > Leverhulme Trust funded project examining climate histories in >>> southern >>> > Africa (see below). If you know of any suitable candidates I >>> would be >>> > grateful if you could forward this email to them. >>> > >>> >Many thanks >>> > >>> >David Nash and Georgina Endfield >>> > >>> >*** >>> > >>> >University of Brighton >>> > >>> >Research Fellow in Historical Climatology >>> > >>> >from 31,513 to 37,651 per annum >>> > >>> > The School of Environment and Technology wishes to appoint a >>> > post-doctoral Research Fellow to support the Leverhulme Trust >>> funded >>> > project 'Societal responses to El Nino-related climate extremes >>> in >>> > southern Africa during the 19th century'. The project and post >>> run for 36 >>> > months, starting 1 January 2010. The Principal Investigator on >>> the >>> > project is Dr David Nash, with Co-Investigators Dr Georgina >>> Endfield >>> > (University of Nottingham), Dr Dominic Kniveton (University of >>> Sussex) >>> > and Dr Jorgen Klein (Hedmark University College, Norway). >>> > >>> > You will be involved in lengthy periods of residential archival >>> research >>> > in locations across the UK and overseas. You should have a good >>> (1 or >>> > 2:1) degree, preferably in a subject area such as geography, >>> history, >>> > archaeology, meteorology or a related discipline. You will have >>> > completed, or to be close to completing, research for a PhD. >>> Fluency in >>> > spoken and written German is essential, as is competency in the >>> use of IT >>> > for data entry, storage and management. Experience of working >>> with >>> > historical documents in archives would be advantageous. >>> > >>> > Informal enquiries can be made to the Principal Investigator, Dr >>> David >>> > Nash (telephone: +44 [0]1273 642423; email: >>> d.j.nash@brighton.ac.uk).> >>> > For further particulars and an application form, telephone +44 >>> (0)1273 >>> > 642849 (24 hours) or visit [7]http://www.brighton.ac.uk/personnel. >>> Please >>> > quote reference number SV4057. >>> > >>> > The closing date for applications is 6 October 2009. Interviews >>> will be >>> > held in Brighton during the week beginning 26 October 2009. >>> >>> >>> >> > > This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender. All incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are stored in the Swiss Re Electronic Message Repository. If you do not wish the retention of potentially private e-mails by Swiss Re, we strongly advise you not to use the Swiss Re e-mail account for any private, non-business related communications. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ECA Press Release_14Sept09.pdf" 2961. 2009-09-22 00:57:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, "tim Osborn" date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:57:21 -0400 from: alotsch@worldbank.org subject: Re: Fw: Need to draw the 1000 yr record on a World Bank cover asap to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim and Keith - thanks again for your help re: the paleo climate records. You can find now an artistic (but faithful) rendition of the data (together with the observed record and the projected IPCC scenarios) on the cover of the WDR2010 that we just launched last week. See Link below. Cheers, -alex _________________________ Alexander Lotsch "Development in a Changing Climate" [1]www.worldbank.org/wdr2010 The World Bank, MC2-631 phone +1-202-458-7801 fax +1-202-522-0056 [2]alotsch@worldbank.org skype: alotsch -----"Tim Osborn" wrote: ----- To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk From: "Tim Osborn" Date: 08/12/2009 05:52PM cc: alotsch@worldbank.org, "tim Osborn" Subject: Re: Fw: Need to draw the 1000 yr record on a World Bank cover asap Dear Alex, I've made available all the data used in the IPCC AR4 paleo chapter (at least the parts I was involved with) here: <[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/ipccar4.htm> There are smoothed and unsmoothed versions of all the series. Is that the kind of thing you want? I'm now going outside to see the Perseid meteors! Regards Tim On Wed, August 12, 2009 6:57 pm, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Alex > I am forwading this message to Tim Osborn , my colleague in CRU who will > be able to supply the data - he drew the Figures in the AR4 report and you > might usefully discuss the data and figures directly with him. I am away > from work for some time yet - good luck > Keith > >> >>

Dear Keith -
>>
>> I understand from Michael Mann (see exchange below) that you may be able >> to provide us the raw data of the 12 proxy temperature reconstructions >> for >> the past 1000 years that were used for the "Dire Predictions" >> book. As you will gather from the emails below, we need to quickly >> redesign the cover of the forthcoming World Development Report on >> Development and Climate Change - the cover graphic we had chosen >> appeared >> on a different report 2 weeks ago ... We are now working on a composite >> of >> historical (1000yr), instrumental (CRU), and projected (IPCC AR4) >> temperatures. We have nice set of spinning globes (showing ocean >> chlorophyll and NDVI) that are moving up the temperature curve. However, >> in order to do this it would be best if we could have the raw 1000yr >> proxy >> record to help the graphic designers to create a compelling an faithful >> figure.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> -alex
>>
>> _________________________
>> Alexander Lotsch
>> "Development in a Changing Climate"
>> www.worldbank.org/wdr2010
>> The World Bank, MC2-631
>> phone +1-202-458-7801
>> fax +1-202-522-0056
>> alotsch@worldbank.org
>> skype: alotsch
>>
>> From: Michael Mann >> > href="mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu">mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu> face="Tahoma">
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:11 >> PM
>> To: Bierbaum, Rosina> face="Tahoma">
>> Subject: Re: Need to draw the 1000 yr >> record on a World Bank cover asap
>>
>> Hi Rosina,
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up. I have to >> confess I'm a bit distracted right now, we've got a paper coming out in >> Nature tomorrow that deals with a coincidentally related theme (the >> record >> of Atlantic hurricanes over the past 1500 years).
>>
>> things are well here. We take a >> week >> vacation up in the Adirondacks next week (I've pre-emptively already put >> up the vacation message, which you can safely ignore), and trying to get >> as much off my plate before then as possible.
>>
>> I hope U. Mich is treating you >> well. >> That said, I hope Penn State crushes you guys this year ;)
>>
>> some responses/thoughts >> below,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:01 PM, >> Bierbaum, Rosina wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>> Hope all's well with you. I am finishing up a not particularly >> contemplative sabbatical at the World Bank, working on their World >> Development report. We are 2 weeks away from printing and the cover we >> were going to use just appeared on another book. Chaos and panic >> ensued.
>> yikes
>>
>>
>> I have gotten some lovely globe (land and sea productivity) images from >> NASA today and we want to portray the 1000 year temp record underneath >> them and then show the range of estimates of temp going forward for the >> coming 100 years. What do you suggest for the 1000 years? Redraw your >> figures? If so, are the data available? We will use the IPCC estimates >> for the next 100--would you suggest showing up to 6 degrees above >> pre-industrial as the range?
>> I think it would be good to show >> the >> a representative 'envelope' of records over the past 1000 years, rather >> than any 1 record, for the reasons discussed below, i.e. to avoid the >> controversy associated with using any one single estimate. That's the >> tack >> that was taken in AR4 (i.e. in chapter 6 of WG1) and I think it was a >> wise >> one. This is also what I've done in my book ("Dire Predictions: >> Understanding Global Warming"). So what I envision would be an >> envelope, rather than a single curve, going back 1000 years, with the >> instrumental global mean temperature curve shown for the past 150 years. >> Re what to show for the projections, will this is often as much art as >> science, but I think its reasonable to represent a range consistent with >> the lower end AR4 2100 projections under B1 to the upper end 2100 >> projections under A1F1, which gives about 1.3 to 6.5C relative to late >> 20th century (i.e. about 2 to 7C relative to pre-industrial), i.e. more >> or >> less what you describe. >>

>> ah--I should have read this more >> carefully before I answered above. we're thinking along the same lines. >> I >> have to confess that I took the easy way out for the graphic we produced >> for "Dire" (page 47). We just passed off the figure in >> question >> to the DK folks, and told them we wanted them to create a shaded >> envelope >> that represents the range among the 12 reconstructions at any given >> time, >> shown along w/ the the individual curves. I don't think they actually >> downloaded the raw data, but simply imported it into their graphics >> software and did it by brute force. I'm sure you could modify this for >> your purposes (might need to clear w/ DK first). Now, we didn't quite >> do >> what you describe, which is a reasonable alternative (i.e. rather than >> showing all 12 curves along w/ the spread, just show the average of the >> 12 >> and the spread). That would certainly require getting ahold of the raw >> data however. My guess is that you either Keith Briffa or Jonathan >> Overpeck could help out here (I'm pretty sure Keith was the point man on >> this part of the chapter). >>
    >>

      >> Unfortunately, I need to supply the artists with something in the next >> few >> days. Since you are the Man, I thought I'd ask your advice and hope you >> don't mind! Thanks so much!
    >>
>> I'm hoping that one of the options >> mentioned above will work. I bet Keith could generate what you need >> pretty >> easily, I bet he's already got the raw data behind the >> graphic.
>>
>> let me know if I can be of any >> further help. If you'd like me to contact Keith directly about this, I'd >> be happy to...
>>
>>
>> Best, Rosina
>> 734-649-6629
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bierbaum, Rosina
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:47 PM
>> To: David M. Anderson
>> Cc: Thomas R. Karl; Wahl, Eugene R
>> Subject: RE: Fw: If we wanted to put the 10,000 year record of Earth's >> avg >> temp on the cover of our World Bank Report....
>>
>> Dear David,
>> Wow, that was really fast. I had expected that using the 10,000 year >> record--during which I thought temperatures remained within a 1 degree >> range--would show how present and future climate change were quite >> anomalous. Attached is the graphic I first saw in this regard, shown by >> Bob Corell who ran the Arctic assessment. I thought the 10,000 record >> would be less controversial than simply showing the last 1000 years and >> wandering into the hockey stick controversy.
>>
>> What is your professional judgment on the best long-term temp record to >> show? I don't think we want to show the 160,000-850,000 record on the >> cover. We could also revert to the CO2 record, but since CO2 is not the >> same as CO2e and the y axis needs to climb much higher to show future >> CO2, >> and temps seems much more accessible to most people, I was trying to >> revert to temp.
>>
>> Thanks so much for your help, advice and very prompt response! Best, >> Rosina
>>
>> Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean
>> School of Natural Resources and Environment
>> 2046 Dana Building
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041
>> Phone: (734) 764-2550
>> Fax: (734) 763-8965
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David M. Anderson > href="mailto:David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov">> color="#0000FF" >> face="Times New >> Roman">mailto:David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov> face="Times New Roman">
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:58 PM
>> To: Bierbaum, Rosina
>> Cc: Thomas R. Karl; Wahl, Eugene R
>> Subject: Re: Fw: If we wanted to put the 10,000 year record of Earth's >> avg >> temp on the cover of our World Bank Report....
>>
>> Dear Rosina,
>> Tom Karl asked me to direct you towards some temperature data for the >> last >> 10,000 years. I have attached a plot and an excel file.
>>
>> This is a tough science question and subject to debate, which is why you >> don't see this plot often, and why you don't see this data on our >> site.
>> I composited Antarctic ice core temperature data (Petit, et al. 1999) >> with >> the longest and latest southern hemisphere multiproxy reonstruction from >> Mann, et al, 2008, to produce temperature changes for the past 10000 >> years.
>>
>> The graph shows three things, none helpful for your purposes, I >> believe.
>> 1. Temperature at a single site in Antarctica has varied alot over the >> past 10,000 years, even when smoothed.
>> 2. There was a warm period about 6,000 years ago. This is well >> known.
>> Whether warmer than today is still a research topic.
>> 3. For the past few centuries, the increase in co2 has outpaced the >> increase in temperature. This is also a research issue, but related to >> the >> hypothesis that the climate is no longer in equilibrium.
>>
>> There are many different ways and data sets to address this question, >> but >> I thought it would be best to give you this quick look.
>> Best,
>> Dave
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> 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: > href="mailto:mann@psu.edu">> color="#0000FF">mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> website: > href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html">> color="#0000FF">[5]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>> > href="http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html">> size="2" >> color="#0000FF">[6]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (See attached file: >> pastedGraphic.pdf)(See attached file: ATT00001.htm)
>> > > > -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ 118. 2009-09-22 13:20:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:20:56 -0400 from: Jason Smerdon subject: Re: invitation to be a co-author to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, I have had a chance to go over the paper and include some editorial comments in track changes mode of the attached document. They should all be self explanatory. Below is a list of some specific comments for further consideration. I of course defer to your judgement on whether or not you think the suggestions are worth addressing. Thanks again for including me on this and let me know if you need any further assistance (or clarifications on what I write below). Many greetings from Spain and Fidel, Jason ------------------------ Some Specifics 1. In Section 2 I have described the uncertainty calculations for the boreholes. The estimates I sent you were +/- 1 SE of the mean trends, but I seem to remember you mentioning a 2 SE estimate would be more in keeping with the 95% CI that are typically presented for other recons. I think we had some back and forth with Henry on this, but please adjust the text to what you have done for the plot, i.e. used either 1 or 2 SE. 2. I have included references where appropriate in the text, but the instrumental discussion needs to be clarified a bit. The Australian data were a collection of high-quality data that Henry acquired while down under. We cited them in Pollack et al. 2006 with two refs: Torok SJ, Nicholls N. (1996) A historical annual temperature dataset for Australia. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 45, 251260. Della-Marta PM, Collins DA, Braganza K. (2004) Updating Australias high-quality annual temperature dataset. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 53, 7593. You may want to simply cite Pollack et al. 2006 for these data or the above two refs. 3. The African data were actually from you when we were preparing the IPCC figures. I assume that they were derived from some version of gridded CRU data for southern Africa, but I don't think you sent specifics beyond that. Perhaps you have it in your records? 4. In the first paragraph of Section 3 you compare the SH and NH forcing series. Is it worth plotting the difference between these two series as an inset or additional panel? It might be a helpful complement to the descriptions you provide in writing, but I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. 5. Section 3, end of 4th paragraph. You mention the difference between Ricardo's recon using his station data calibration and the new CRUTEM3v record. You might qualify this a bit more. If the tree recons were calibrated on this new instrumental data they would of course match the record better. It is also worth pointing out how the station data estimate matched the old CRUTEM2v grid-box estimate, i.e. are the differences you report due to updates in CRUTEM3v or between the station data and the gridded estimates that would also have existed in the CRUTEM2v data? 6. Is it correct that the model uncertainties were estimated from the variability of the control run or has something else been done? If the latter, is it possible to provide uncertainty estimates for the NAT500 simulation? I think this would weaken the case somewhat (namely the degree to which the NAT500 and ALL500 sims can be said to be different), but it would perhaps be the most honest way of presenting the comparisons. 7. Section 3, middle of 6th paragraph. Sentence beginning "There are some periods..." I am not entirely clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that the proxy recons do not include full uncertainty estimates? This could be clarified. 8. I am a little concerned about the borehole referencing and the new CRUTEM3v series. You discuss in the last paragraph of Section 3 that the borehole recon sits predominantly above the simulation. But if the new instrumental series is significantly different from what we originally used, the borehole recon would need to be rereferenced to the new series. To my eye it looks like the borehole recon is sitting a bit above the trend in the instrumental time series and a rereferencing would bring the recon down to where it would agree with the simulation more. If you send me the raw instrumental time series and the borehole recons that you plotted, I could check this... 9. In Table 1 you report correlations between the borehole, model and instrumental series. Is this really meaningful, given that the borehole series are just interpolated trends? Would it make more sense just to compare the estimated borehole trends and those from the instrumental and model data during their period of overlap or say just for the 20th century? 10. In the Intro you mention wether we should include additional refs on uncertainty in recons. You could certainly expand this list with more of the usual suspects (Esper and Burger refs would certainly work). I also like to use some of Mike Evans' work for these kinds of things. This is a good paper that includes a lot of uncertainty discussion: [1]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000590.shtml Figure 10 is particularly relevant for discussions on how uncertainties are timescale dependent. I also like Mike's process-model paper as support for the need to understand the multivariate and non-linear impacts in tree-ring responses (and associated uncertainties): [2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JG000166.shtml Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\paleodata_model_sh_ver09_jes.doc" On Sep 14, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Jason, two weeks or so would be fine... my hint at a relatively quick turnaround was to avoid suggestions of major extra work (e.g. "why don't you include results from X other GCMs too?"). I'd like to submit by mid October. Not sure where yet; perhaps have a think about journal when you read it in detail? Unfortunately Keith has been off sick for 3 months, having had to have one of his kidneys removed. He seems to be on the mend, will probably be back at work in October. Other than that, I think we're all ok in CRU. Please say "hi" to Fidel from me. Tim On Mon, September 14, 2009 4:17 pm, Jason Smerdon wrote: Hi Tim, Wow. Thanks for including me on this. I would be happy to be on the paper (I can say that after only a quick scan!). I am also happy to get you comments ASAP. My only problem right now is that I am leaving for Spain on Thursday to spend much of the fall with Fidel G-R in Madrid. I therefore expect that this week and next will be quite busy. It is possible I can have it done earlier (I will have lots of time on the plane), but would two weeks be slow for a turn around time? Please feel free to be blunt if you had an earlier date in mind...I don't want to slow you up. Bottom line: thanks for including me on this and I will work to get you comments as fast as possible. It was nice to hear from you and I hope all is well with you and everyone else at CRU. Please send my regards to Keith and the others. All the best, Jason P.S. Did you have a target journal in mind? On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Jason, I've now finished drafting a palaeodata-model comparison paper using the HadCM3 ALL250/NAT500 runs, with a focus on Southern Hemisphere records. I've used the SH reconstructions that we showed in the Palaeoclimate chapter of IPCC AR4. These included borehole recons from Africa and Australia. It would be great if you would agree to being a co-author on the paper, since it makes extensive use of SH borehole recons, plus I'd value your comments on the manuscript as a whole and with some specific sections about the borehole records. I've taken the liberty of including your name on the complete draft that is attached. Of course if you'd prefer not to be an author, that is fine -- just let me know and I'll remove your name in that case. But hopefully you'll agree :-) If so, please send comments, edits etc. to me. It's fairly short. I haven't had any papers as first author since 2007(!) so I'm under some pressure to submit it soon... hopefully you won't suggest any major alterations! Best wishes and hope all's well with you, TimDr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [3]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason E. Smerdon Storke-Doherty Lecturer Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Columbia University 61 Route 9W, P.O. Box 1000, Palisades, NY 10964 Phone: (845) 365-8493 Email: [6]jsmerdon@ldeo.columbia.edu Web: [7]http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon Skype: jason_ldeo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK [8]www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ 5197. 2009-09-23 12:26:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Wed Sep 23 12:26:15 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" Dave, We should discuss this one on October 1 at 08.30. This person is threatening in his final sentence. He claims to be Deputy Head of Life Sciences, but it would seem he has done no research in his life. He is an active blogger on Climate Audit. By Oct 1 I might have more news from the Met Office. They are wanting to do as little as possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was 4M per year. Cheers Phil At 11:27 21/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Folks, NOW we have an appeal of this request and I will treat it as such. We have 28 days for the 'informal' answer which gives me a deadline of 19 October. He is disputing the rationale of our exceptions & is asking for 'evidence'.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [[1]mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:17 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[2]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 [3]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit [4]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications [5]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2840. 2009-09-23 14:25:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Wed Sep 23 14:25:10 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I agree with a lot of what you've said in your attachment - your annotated commentary. There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions. We went into discussions with the Met Services assuming these would exist. The world was a very different place in 1990 than it is now. What I sent GaTech was station data - not the gridded. I don't have this file, but I could recreate what was sent. It won't be exactly the same, unless I strip off the last couple of years. I would have done it in mid Jan 2009 - some back data fro 2007 and 2008 has come in recently. I've been talking with the Met Office. If they do send a letter around, then the normal 'allowed' time to respond is 12 months. I knew it was long, but didn't realise it was this long. Also, you don't chase up on non responders. To avoid much admin at their end, they are considering only releasing the data for countries which say yes. If some yes/but, no or don't respond then we don't release it. As an aside I'm attaching a paper I'd forgotten. This gives a comparison of the CRU and GHCN datasets (Figure 2) for the period from 1900 (the red and blue lines). There are no significant differences between the datasets! If only people would read the literature and realize this. This just shows that the requests are all politically motivated. Cheers Phil At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, Please note the document 'Appeal internal assessment' - what we have decided to do is immediately proceed to a review by JCF on this one as I don't think an 'informal review' will yield any results. Our meeting was to do some preliminary work on what that response will be... In my discussion with JCF, two questions of fact arose that I'd like your opinion on 1. Is it possible, knowing the parameters of what was sent to GaTech, to work back from the gridded data to what was sent? I'm sure you have told me this before in a meeting but with all the requests flying about, I simply can't remember 2. Do we have a copy of the dataset sent to GaTech still in existence? (I thought not but once again, couldn't remember - must take better notes at meetings!) I'll ensure that you all see a draft of the response when completed. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: FOIA meeting documentation Jonathan, A couple of things for our meeting 1. FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03 - Copy of referral letter sent to Mr. McIntyre - went 'late' but works to our advantage as it gives us/you more time & puts a response due after our meeting with Phil, Michael & Annie. If Mr. McIntyre wanted to be picky, he could maintain that our referral should have happened 2 weeks ago. However, I think he realises the limitations of FOIA and is probably playing a 'longer game'. 2. FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14 - Annotated response to Prof. Jones' assertions. I suspect we will get more of these so we should have our arguments at the ready! Cheers, Dave PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this is a new tack? ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 114. 2009-09-23 16:49:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:49:47 +0100 (BST) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: more from McIntyre to: "Darrell Kaufman" Darrell sorry to be out of loop - [[[redacted: health]]] - today I went in to university but will not be officially back til 1st Nov. I will try to respond in detail tomorrow - but I do not know the basic crux of the Yamal complaint - I suppose I must spend time on the Climate Audit website - but have been loathe to do so as many criticisms that have come to my attention seem crass or misguided. Please prompt again if you can point me to the specifics of the problem with Yamal - as for other long chronologies in Eurasia , I am aware of one further East than the area upon which we focussed in our Phil. Trans. paper - published I believe in a conference abstract only - the raw data are not , I believe, available until Malcolm Hughes releases them . The chronology that exists (produced by Russian colleagues) might be available and I will try to find out - you could ask Anders Moberg for the data directly - this would help me in the meantime - I need to know more specifics re Yamal. I do not believe there are long series other than those you used but will also have to check the 60 north criterion to be sure. Keith > Hi Keith: > I realize that you are out of the office and I'm sorry to bother you > about this again, but the recent Arctic warming paper seems to have > had a major impact. Because it's in the lime light, I think it's > important that we publish an erratum to correct my error in reversing > the Finnish lake-varve series. Two other authors also found minor > errors in their proxy time series and we will include these revisions > as well. None of the revisions change the conclusions, but we want to > be as accurate as possible. > > As we are preparing for to publish the erratum, it would be helpful if > you could double check that we have included all of the most current > tree-ring time series that meet the criteria of the study: > > - north of 60N > - at least 1000 years long > > In addition the the Gulf of Alaska, we included the three from your > 2008 Phil Trans paper: Fennoscandia, Yamal, and Avam-Timyr > > Did we miss any? It's important because we claim that our study > includes all of the published proxy data that meet these criteria. Is > there a published record from the Indigirka River region that we > neglected to include? > > Regarding the criticism that the new Yamal series looks so much > different than the earlier Polar Urals series, I assume that the RCS > approach that you used for the 2008 study supersedes and is superior > to any previous analyses. Is that a fair statement? > > Thanks. > > Darrell > > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:12 AM, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >> Darrell >> I do not read his blog - if YOU ask him for more detail of what he >> means >> (it can not be Grudd's work) then I will think about it. Will be >> back in >> touch before end of week on other stuff.Keith >> >>> Hi Keith: >>> this from McIntyre: >>> >>> Briffa's Yamal series, which has been a staple of these sorts of >>> studies for many years. It would be highly desirable for someone >>> to >>> do a detailed reconciliation of why the updated version of Polar >>> Urals >>> yields such different results to Briffa's Yamal series. >>> >>> I assume he's referring to Grud's (sp) recent work. Let me know if >>> you >>> have a quick explanation. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> > > 1892. 2009-09-24 13:45:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 24 13:45:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Climate Change to: juliusgoldthorpe@hotmail.com Julius, I'm too busy I'm afraid. You will likely find it too hard to get anybody good to go through questions. The key documents to read are the IPCC Reports particularly the Summaries for Policymakers. You need to talk to climatologists about this. Other scientists such as chemists, physicists, geologists etc may think they know what they are talking about, but they don't. I would not claim to be an expert in their fields, so they shouldn't in climate. So very important to determine what people think they are experts in. They need to have publications in climate journals. Also there are 3 areas of IPCC (science, impacts and mitigation)- and no-one can be an expert in all 3 working group fields. I only claim to be an expert in the first. So, if you're going to ask questions about adaptation and mitigation issues you have the wrong set of people if you've approached climate scientists. Cheers Phil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Julius Goldthorpe [[1]mailto:juliusgoldthorpe@hotmail.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:40 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Climate Change Dear Sir/Madam I am doing a MA in Science Journalism. I have chosen to do a project on Climate Change. I was wondering if you could be of any help to me? I need to interview experts in the field. The report will not be published and is only coursework based. I understand you are busy so i would ask you some questions at a time convenient for you. Best wishes, Julius Goldthorpe ___________________________________________________________________________________ Beyond Hotmail - see what else you can do with Windows Live. [2]Find out more. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3957. 2009-09-25 10:49:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:49:13 +0100 from: "John Walton-ONLINE" subject: RE: BBC News enquiry to: "Phil Jones" Thanks very much for your time Phil, that's a great help. All best, John ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 September 2009 10:36 To: John Walton-ONLINE Subject: Re: BBC News enquiry Jon, Go here [1] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html then get these ones.. You will need to figure out how to smooth these? Some might appear smoother than others. [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html (this is an updated one by Mann) This one has lots of files - go to one with CPS in title, then look at readme file - which say this I think you want the one called gb1000 This directory contains all of the CPS reconstructions presented in the text. All mat files have text versions with .csv extensions NH_had.mat: Northern hemisphere reconstructions vs. HAD dataset gbcps: full screened network gb1000: frozen AD 1000 network gbcpsi: full network vs. iHAD nd_gbcps: full network without tree-rings nl_gbcps: full network without Luterbacher inst: HAD instrument series erro: composite uncertainties for CPS reconstructions NH_land.mat: Northern hemisphere reconstructions vs. CRU dataset gbcps: full screened network gb1000: frozen AD 1000 network gbcpsi: full network vs. iCRU nd_gbcps: full network without tree-rings nl_gbcps: full network without Luterbacher inst: CRU instrument series erro: composite uncertainties for CPS reconstructions SH_had.mat: same as NH_had.mat but for the Southern Hemisphere SH_land.mat: same as NH_land.mat but for the Southern Hemisphere nhcru_cps_composite.mat: composite reconstruction and uncertainties for Northern Hemisphere CPS vs.CRU nhhad_cps_composite.mat: same as above but for CPS vs. HAD shcru_cps_composite.mat: same as above but for Southern Hemisphere CPS vs. CRU shhad_cps_composite.mat: same as above but for Southern Hemisphere CPS vs. HAD [3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html (this is Moberg) [4]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.txt (this is mine) For this and Moberg take the first number after the date (the year). [5] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/crowley_lowery2000_nht.txt this one is Crowley Cheers Phil At 09:53 25/09/2009, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones, I'm a journalist on the BBC News website, and I was wondering if you would have some time today or next week for me to pick your brain on a project I'm working on. I've read over some of your information sheets on the CRU website, and I have a couple of questions. Best regards, John Walton --------------------- John Walton BBC News Online Specials Team Tel: + 44 208 576 4149 Mob: 07725 045 649 [6]http://www.bbc.co.ukThis e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.Further communication will signify your consent to this. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [7]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. 2639. 2009-09-25 10:53:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Sep 25 10:53:32 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of to: santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley Ben, Tom, Seen this one - we picked it up several days ago. Michaels won't still have his 9 Track mag Tape with all the pressure data on! So much else wrong with this piece. CRU wasn't set up to develop the global temp record etc. I have stopped sending data out to anybody after the stupid comment on Climate Audit by Peter Webster. We've had over 60 FOI requests for data. They are varied - many can be answered by telling people to read the literature. We're refusing those for the data. We're going to send an email to all NMSs thru MOHC and then release those where countries are happy for us to do so. It is just a pain having to respond to them - someone else at UEA does this though. I did send one of the requests to Myles as it was from one of his fellow profs in Physics at Oxford! Myles knows him well and he has never talked about climate with Myles - or expressed any views. Myles can't understand why he's getting his climate education from Climate Audit and not from colleagues in his own dept! This annoys me too. I'd read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!! Alan is retiring at the end of this year....thankfully. Phil At 00:54 25/09/2009, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Tom, This is a vicious and unjustified attack - not only on Phil, but also on you and on CRU. Please let me know if there's any way I can help in responding to Michaels. I'll do anything I can. Cheers, Ben Tom Wigley wrote: See the item by Pat Michaels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of Extended Calm From: "Peiser, Benny" Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:26:30 +0100 To: "cambridge-conference" To: "cambridge-conference" CCNet 149/2009 24 September 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars > THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM ------------------------------------------------------- Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher impacts of space weather. --James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September 2009 Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme, the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the carbon emission quotas of both countries. --EurActiv, 23 September 2009 The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a severe blow yesterday when a European court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon prices and undermine efforts by the European Commission to curb carbon emissions further. The decision is expected to weaken prices in Europes troubled carbon market and undermine efforts by the Commission to impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters. --Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009 Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared. --Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009 Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping state power. Entirely for self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy platform. Environmentalism isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about economic containment. It's an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a repeat performance. A classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC. --William Kay, Environmentalism 400 BC (1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September 2009 (2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS Nancy Atkinson, Universe Today, 23 September 2009 (3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET EurActiv, 23 September 2009 (4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN) Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009 (5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING CUTS Tom Young, BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009 (6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE Stephen Power, WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009 (7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009 (8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009 (9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING Julian Parker (10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM William Kay (11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES Colin Hunt (12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD Mark Lawson (13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS Stephen Ashworth (14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS Robert Redelmeier (15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY Mark Duchamp (16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION DEMOCRATICCALLY Peter Salonius (17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL Richard Wakefield ============== (1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM Physics World, 23 September 2009 <[1]http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40456> James Dacey Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher impacts of space weather. Scientists have long known that the Sun's magnetic activity varies over a cycle of approximately 11 years. Greater magnetic activity leads to more "sunspots", or darker patches visible on the solar surface. These sunspots are regions where the magnetic field lines have become twisted due to differential rotation in the outer layers of the Sun. Particularly violent sunspots can result in the sudden release of magnetic energy in the form of solar flares, which cause the outpouring of protons and electrons into space. Some of these particles can reach the Van Allen radiation belt of Earth the outer region of Earth's own mmagnetic field where they are accelerated to speeds approaching the speed of light. During the solar maxima, when sunspot numbers are at their peak, the abundance of particles shooting around in the radiation belt can become a real hazard to the satellites that reside there. Extended calm We were expecting to reach the next solar maxima around 201120012. However, space weather experts have been surprised over the past few years to report very few signs that the number of sunspots has been picking up since the last solar minimum in 2006. This has prompted some space scientists to forecast that we are heading towards another prolonged spell of quiet sunspot activity, the last of which was observed between 1645 and 1715 in a period called the "Maunder Minimum". In this latest research, Sarah Gibson at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado and her colleagues focused on another process by which the Sun discharges energy. They looked at the lower-energy streams of plasma that carry protons and electrons towards the Earth at a steadier rate than the storms associated with sunspots. Scientists had previously thought that these streams largely disappeared during periods of quiet sunspot activity. The researchers found that the Sun's effect on the Van Allen radiation belt was three times greater in 2008 than the effect recorded in 1996 during the previous solar minimum. The result comes as a surprise given that the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum of the past 75 years. Strength a sign of weakness Gibson told physicsworld.com that it could be the current "weakness of the Sun" that could account for the strengthened solar streams. This is because during solar maxima, when sunspots appear in abundance, the strong solar magnetic field acts to contain the solar streams. However, when sunspot activity is very quiet, this is a sign that the field is significantly weakened and this can allow stronger solar streams to escape through "coronal holes". "The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots," she said. The particularly strong solar streams of 2008 could, according to Gibson, be another sign that the Sun is in an unusually weak state at the moment. The study also raises questions about how the streams may have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went through extended periods of low sunspot activity. Steven Schwartz, a space and atmospheric physicist at Imperial College in London agrees that space weather and climate models could benefit from an improved understanding of the Sun's magnetic activity and its impact on Earth. "This research shows that while we know a lot about the Sun and its impact on the Earth, there are still important elements we don't really understand yet," he said. In terms of day-to-day threats to satellites from space weather, these latest findings could be good news for satellite communication companies that feared that they may have "had it too good" in recent years. As the space weather conditions for satellites were assumed to be glorious, there had been little assurance that the technology could still function properly as conditions get harsher when we move towards the next solar maximum. "This technology managed to pull through the peak in this solar stream, which is now subsiding, so it should be okay as solar flare activity increases," said Doug Biesecker, a space weather scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Copyright 2009, physicsworld.com ========== (2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS Universe Today, 23 September 2009 <[2]http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/23/two-equinox-sunspots/> by Nancy Atkinson Two sunspots appeared on old Sol yesterday just as Earth's orbit ushered in the Autumnal Equinox. Two sunspots showing up at once hasn't happened in more than a year, and over 80% of the days in 2009 have been "sunspotless" during this deepest solar minimum in a century. Spaceweather.com had a great picture, below, of the first sunspot that appeared, #1026, taken by astrophotographer Peter Lawrence. Lawrence said there was a lot going on around the new sunspot. "The spot's dark core is surrounded by active fibrils and a swirling magnetic filament that gives the region a nice 3D appearance." Check out [3]www.Spaceweather.com for more (and new images) of the new sunspots. =========== (3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET EurActiv, 23 September 2009 <[4]http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/court-decision-threatens-unravel-europe-ca rbon-market/article-185715?Ref=RSS> Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme, the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the carbon emission quotas of both countries. The court said setting carbon limits is a matter for member states rather than the EU. The ruling could force the European Commission to review its quotas and undermine the fledgling carbon market. Estonia and Poland have been fighting for more generous national caps on industrial carbon emissions, arguing that their industry would be hamstrung under the EU scheme. A Commission spokesperson said the EU executive would consider appealing the decision, which was described as "extremely disappointing". An appeal process could take more than a year. Under the scheme countries get a certain allowance of carbon emissions rights which they apply to industry, such as power plants and steel mills. "The Commission exceeded its powers" by imposing a ceiling on carbon emissions, said the EU Court of First Instance, Europe's second highest court, in its statement. Poland, Estonia and other East European countries argued that the Commission had unfairly trimmed their quotas, or national allocation plans (NAPs), under the second trading phase of the scheme from 2008-12. Concern for future of carbon market The news sparked concern among EU carbon market participants that the ruling, if upheld, could cause an unravelling of the market, which depends on a tight cap on emissions. If their cap is raised, as Poland and Estonia want, the price of EU allowances (EUAs) could tumble. In addition, several more countries have objected to their quotas, including Czech, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. "It is certainly a big issue as far as other outstanding national allocation plan decisions are concerned," said Graham Stuart, partner at the law firm Baker & McKenzie. Prices for EUAs were down 3.9% at 13.20 euros ($19.54) a tonnee in the wake of the decisison. "It's bearish news. It sets a precedent for other countries," Reuters quotes one trader as saying. The Commission had cut by 27% Poland's original request for 284.6 million tonnes of EUAs annually from 2008-12, and had cut Estonia's requested quota by 48%. EU member states alone had the power to take final decisions fixing the quota, the court said on Wednesday. The Commission only had powers to review the quotas, and was wrong to dismiss these solely on the grounds of unreliable data, it added. Copyright 2009, EurActiv =========== (4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN) The Times, 24 September 2009 <[5]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece> Carl Mortished, World Business Editor The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a severe blow yesterday when a European court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon prices and undermine efforts by the European Commission to curb carbon emissions further. In a landmark decision, the European Court of First Instance ruled in favour of an appeal by Poland and Estonia for the right to be more generous in granting carbon emission allowances. In its surprise annulment of a Commission decision to cut the carbon quotas of the two countries, the court said: The Commission exceeded its powers. The decision is expected to weaken prices in Europes troubled carbon market and undermine efforts by the Commission to impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters. The court said that the Commission had no right to impose a lower cap on the emissions of Estonia and Poland when it rejected the national allocation plans (NAPs) submitted by the two countries. Under Europes Emissions Trading System (ETS), each state submits a plan setting out how many carbon allowances (EUAs) it will issue to industry each year. The courts ruling astounded carbon traders in Europe yesterday and the price of EUAs traded on the ETS fell 60 cents a tonne before recovering to 13.40 a tonne. > Carbon traders said that there was a risk of a further 50 million tonnes in EUAs coming on to the market as the two countries exploited the courts ruling against the Commissions authority. It means two things possibly more allowances in the market and more uncertainty, Emmanuel Fages, a carbon analyst with Société Générale, the investment bank, said. Its another blow because people will say the market doesnt work. FULL STORY at <[6]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece> ============ (5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING CUTS BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009 <[7]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc s> Tom Young, The carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry has expressed grave concerns at reports the government is considering scaling back its £10bn plan to fund a series of CCS demonstration plants in the UK as part of its efforts to restore health to the public finances. The Guardian reported yesterday that Treasury officials have warned that the government plan to fund the development of up to four CCS plants could be cut as a result of renewed spending constraints. Luke Warren, International Policy Executive at the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, warned that any such cuts could jeopardise both the UK carbon emission targets and the health of the country's emerging CCS industry. "If these report are true they make for dismal reading," he said. "The UK government has been a leader on CCS but it is now in danger of falling behind the pack in the race to develop this crucial technology." The government is officially committed to funding one plant entirely through its CCS competition an award expected to be worth around £1bn. In addition, earlier this year climate change secretary Ed Miliband said the government would fund between one and three further CCS plants and that no coal power plant would be given the go-ahead in the UK without CCS attached. A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change attempted to dopwnplay the reports insistig there had been no official change to the government's CCS funding plans. "The UK has set out bold proposals for coal and CCS they are a world first and our ambitions remain firm," she said. "We're determined to drive the development of CCS as part of the transition to a low carbon economy." However, industry sources noted that the government had never officially committed to funding all four proposed plants and that as a result it could cut the number of demonstration plants back to two without technically reneging on its promises. FULL STORY at <[8]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc s> ======== (6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009 <[9]http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/23/awkward-senators-move-to-rein-i n-epa-as-obama-talks-tough-on-climate/> By Stephen Power Hows this for awkward timing? Even as President Obama tries to persuade other countries gathered at the U.N. climate confab and upcoming G-20 meeting that the U.S. will take action on climate change, senators from both parties are moving to limit what his administration can do to fight climate change. At issue are two amendments to a huge government spending bill nearing a vote in the Senate that would pare the Environmental Protection Agencys authority to regulate various industries greenhouse-gas emissions. One amendment, drafted by Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and backed by ethanol companies, would limit how the EPA could measure the global-warming impact of growing corn and other crops for fuel. It would prohibit the agency from considering the emissions that are said to result when farmers overseas clear grasslands and cut down forests in response to higher food prices. What do those farmers decisions have to do with ethanol production in the U.S.? Well, according to some researchers, there are some nasty ripple effects when farmers in the U.S. convert their farmland to growing corn for fuel. Still, why would the EPA want to go down this road, given the U.S. governments traditional support for ethanol? Because a 2007 energy law says it has to! More about this debate here and here. Another amendment, being circulated by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), would prohibit the EPA for one year from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, factories and small businesses. Sen. Murkowski says shes worried about the economic toll of any regulations that EPA might set; environmental groups say her measure would render the EPA toothless and undermine U.S. efforts to convince other countries to reduce their emissions. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration is speaking out against Sen. Murkowskis proposal. We dont think trying to legislate on an appropriations bill is a good idea, Carol Browner, the Presidents assistant on energy and climate change issues, tells WSJs Jonathan Weisman. So does that mean President Obama would veto the entire spending bill if Ms. Murkowski succeeds in attaching her amendment to the final bill? Ms. Browner said shes not in a position to comment. Our sources predict a close vote in the Senate, possibly as early as Thursday afternoon. Stay tuned > Copyright 2009, WSJ ======== (7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009 <[10]http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2009/09/23/study-refutes-connection-of-glo bal-warming-and-storm-intensity/> by Tom Hayes Over the past 70 years, hurricane frequency in the Atlantic basin is up, but the strength of the storms have remained relatively constant. Those are the conclusions of a new study conducted by Clemson University researchers. Clemson Professor of Mathematical Sciences Robert Lund participated in the study that looked at changes in the tropical cycle record in the North Atlanticbetween 1851 and 2008. Lund says he knows global warming is a hot button issue and many researchers have maintained that warming waters of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased. We took a look at the record from 1851 to 2008 and we did find a lot of changes besides recent changes. For instance, we found that around 1935 the count radically increased and that was probably do to aircraft reconnaissance, being able to fly out into the ocean and see these storms. Also participating in the study were Michael Robbins and Colin Gallagher of Clemson along with Mississippi State University Mathematics professor Dr. QIQi Lu. Lund says the increase in the frequency of hurricanes and some measurable increase in strength of the storms was first observed from data from the beginning of the 20th century. Lund attributes the observations from better and more sophisticated technological devices used to monitor the storms. We saw them from about 1900 which makes sense because most of the data recorded before 1900 was guesstimated and not very consistent. We also found small changes in the strength of the storms around 1960 which coincides with the onset of satellites. Lund says in a number of studies involving the analysis of years and years of data, the study of probabilities is best conducted by mathematicians. We have to play by the rules of probability and the laws of random chance. As statisticians and probabilists, we are not allowed to distort the conclusion nor are we invested in any particular outcome or inference from the data. Were just going to crunch the numbers as best we can with rigorous probability assessments and tell you what we find. Lund says the study he and his colleagues just concluded opens up avenues for more questions yet to answered. Are the storms changing in terms of duration in terms of how long they last? Are they occurring in more northern latitudes? There are a lot of small issues that still need to be tied down, but we sort of felt that at least given the data that weve seen recently that this pretty much answers the question of are changes happening? Copyright, SCN ============= (8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING National Review Online, 23 September 2009 <[11]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=> By Patrick J. Michaels Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared. Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they arent talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense. In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdoms University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the worlds first comprehensive history of surface temperature. Its known in the trade as the Jones and Wigley record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a discernible human influence on global climate. Putting together such a record isnt at all easy. Weather stations werent really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorados Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded. So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming arent the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, werent specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/ 0.2°C in the 20th century. Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that +/ came from, so he politely wrote PPhil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Joness response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to try and find something wrong. The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong. Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Techs Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldnt have the data because he wasnt an academic. So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too. Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were confidentiality agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyres blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language. Its worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise). Enter the dog that ate global warming. Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded: Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data. The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979. If we are to believe Joness note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why? All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection AAgency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which cant be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, theres no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above. Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studiies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Dont Want You to Know. Copyright 2009, NRO ========== e-mails to the editor ====== (9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING Julian Parker Dear Benny, I am not an environmental scientist and I normally reserve my pondering for astrobiology and paleoenvironmental discussions but I have recently taken an interest in the CO2 debate. I am especially interested in the ice core data and how temperature and CO2 appear to be interrelated as this seems to be used as a common argument in support of AGW. I was thinking that in order to understand how temperatures and CO2 may increase in line with each other during warming periods then it is worth considering what mechanisms that exist that may explain how CO2 can reduce during a cooling period as the inverse effect may be present in warming periods. One that comes to mind is the relationship between CO2 in seawater and the mineral contents. As CO2 can be removed from the system by the formation of marine shells and skeletons which are deposited on the ocean floor does there exist a mechanism that can elevate CO2 storage on the seabed during a cooling period? As temperatures drop, glaciers grow and commence grinding the bedrock into a fine mineral flour which eventually flows in part to the sea in outwash or is deposited at the marine glacial front or is transported into the wider ocean within icebergs. This material will contain magnesium and calcium which provides the potential for carbonate creation, which in turn should, provided there is enough nutrients, allow for the biological removal of CO2 and its deposition as carbonate. As ice ties up more and more water the sea level will drop and even outside the influence of the ice-sheets mature rivers steepen in profile and erosion rates + sediment transport power increases. Back at the glaciated areas the ice thickens and the erosion rates increase as the power of the glacier increases. This continues to feed the oceans with more and more mineral potential which can facilitate the removal of CO2 from the ocean system. Also the carbonate or Calcite Compensation Depth, the depth in the ocean below which carbonates will re-dissolve back into the sea, changes with temperature, salinity and pressure and during a deep glacial period is ~1000m deeper than the present day, so we have a thicker carbonate exoskeleton formation zone and more sea floor above the CCD to store the new Carbonate on. This, coupled with already shallower oceans, means that more carbonate can be permanently stored on the ocean floor. Does this increased CO2 storage potential drop CO2 levels during a cooling period? Eventually, as shown by the ice cores, the temperature trends in the opposite direction and the ice starts to retreat. During stable glaciation the ice-sheets carry a massive load but this is deposited and replenished. With a retreating sheet some of the load is dumped in-situ as dense immobile clays and damming moraines, and glacial-marine sedimentation reduces. Less CO2 can be removed as sediment input to the ocean reduces and the oceans CO2 level rises along with the atmospheric CO2. Ocean levels rise, waters warm, CCD shallows, sedimentation levels drop and the CO2 removal system rebalances to match the ocean removal potential based on Mg+ and Ca+ levels. Its just a ponder but Id be interested in any feedback. Julian Parker ================== (10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM William Kay Dr Peiser, I take it from your broadcast that you are a fan of Karl Popper. This piece was inspired by his "Plato" essay published 40 years ago. If you are not familiar with that work you may find the following jarring and germane. Environmentalism 400 BC <[12]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html> Decent word-pictures of environmentalism won't be had from those embroiled in the coil over the latest eco-imbroglio. Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping state power. Entirely for self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy platform. Environmentalism isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about economic containment. It's an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a repeat performance. A classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC. Table of Contents The Stage: Greece 431 BC The Protagonist: Athens' Democracy Movement Climax: The Peloponnesian War Exit Socrates Enter Plato Epilogue: Fast Forward 2400 Years for the Same Old Same Old thank you William Walter Kay [...] Platos program involved strengthening aristocrats solidarity and will to rule. Ruling class degeneration was reversible through eugenics and education. Their agenda should be: arrest all social change and return as far as possible to the monarchical state. Change came through two events: defeat by a foreign power or Change in the constitution originates, without exception, in the ruling class itself, and only when this class itself becomes the seat of dissension. This dissension was caused by the growth of industry, inter-state commerce, and colonization. Population growth also caused instability. Platos ideal city-state was self-reliant and agrarian. It needed no harbour or merchant fleet. Entrepreneurialism would be suppressed. Common citizens would have no means for travel. Currency would consist of tokens having no intrinsic value. Only the state elite would possess precious metal. An astrology-based system of religious dogmas and rituals would be crafted to prevent social change. No variation in scripture or ritual would be tolerated. Atheists and doubters would be eliminated. The ideal government was an entirely unaccountable philosopher-king, but at minimum governance should be the preserve of entrenched experts drawn from the elders of the aristocracy. [..] Platos oligarchic authoritarianism has been reincarnated many times. Once called fascism it is now environmentalism. Despite enormous sums spent repackaging this endeavour as something new, it remains the same old ensemble of socioeconomic actors reading the same old script. Platos ideas can be seen in environmentalisms utopian longing for a steady-state land-based and self-reliant economy and in its promotion of the hundred-mile diet where politically correct food consumers shop locally and organically. The anti-globalization pan-flash was an oligarchic sponsored anti-trade blitz. Platos theory of divine forms lives on in the Naturalist axiom that wilderness degenerates upon human contact. Restoring land to its original divine form is now a widely held, and utterly loony, political objective. Environmentalists affinity with paganism and spiritualism would have pleased Plato, as would their willingness to treasonously sacrifice their homelands in order to marginalize their domestic adversaries. Platos nostalgic dream appeals to denizens of the charmed circle yearning for a low-maintenance social order where one can enjoy the life of banquets above the turbulence always threatening to tip over the ambrosia buffet. FULL ESSAY at <[13]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html> ========== (11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES Colin Hunt Benny, There is a fundamental legal error in item 8, Kivalina vs. Exxon-Mobil (CCNet, 23 September 2009). I'm astonished that any court would even entertain such a suit. A plaintiff cannot sue for damages which have not yet occurred. Colin Hunt Canadian Nuclear Association ========= (12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD Mark Lawson Benny reluctant though I am to be involved in the debate on limits to oil resources with such distinquished participants, I should draw your attention to an essay in the September issue of the American Economics Association's Journal of Economic Perspectives by James Smith, a distinquished oil and gas economist. The article has drawn favourable comments and for most observers will kill the debate on peak oil. Here is the link. <[14]http://www.scribd.com/doc/19401722/World-Oil-Market-or-Mayhem-by-James-Smith> Smith says a careful analysis suggests that the recent oil price peak was due to nothing more than good old fashioned supply and demand problems in an area where both supply and demand react only slowly to circumstances. He also says that although the recent competition between analysts to pick an oil peak is entertaining it is essentially irrelevent to policy makers, as a peak - if and when it is reached - could have almost any results in the market. I won't attempt to summarise his arguments on that point. More importantly for peak oil proponents, he points to another, authorative analysis of oil reserves by two senior economists Adelman and Watkins - "Reserve Prices and Mineral Resource Theory", the Energy Journal 2008. Its available online (as part of a special issue to acknowledge Watkin's death), <[15]http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_212_WC.pdf> The article is very uncomplementary to efforts to forecast the end of oil reserves, saying that it is impossible to do so. It also produces material (reproduced in graphic form in Smith's paper) that proven reserves have been growing for decades, not falling. I think peak oil is dead. Mark Lawson Journalist/Reports Editor The Australian Financial Review mlawson@afr.com.au [16]http://afr.com.au ============== (13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS Stephen Ashworth Dear Benny, According to Richard Wakefield (CCNet 148/2009 - 23 September 2009): "2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The closest star is 4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and accelerated at 1G (the body can't handle more for long periods) it would take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there. Actually much longer since you would have to start to decelerate half way there." According to my own calculations, if a spacecraft were to accelerate at only one-tenth of a g, it would attain a speed of 3 x 10^7 m/s after one year, i.e. one-tenth of the speed of light. At this speed, it would make the crossing to Alpha Centauri in about 46 years, including deceleration at the same rate at its target. The British Interplanetary Society is well-known for its detailed technical study in the 1970s of a robotic interstellar probe, called Daedalus, designed to reach Barnard's star in about 50 years flight time using plausible near-future technologies. The Society will be holding a follow-up meeting on the subject at the end of this month. Best wishes, Stephen Ashworth Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society 23 September 2009 ============= (14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS Robert Redelmeier Richard Wakefield wrote (CCNet, 23 September 2009) 2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The closest star is 4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and accelerated at 1G (the body can't handle more for long periods) it would take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there. Actually much longer since you would have to start to decelerate half way there. (and we don't even know if there are planets there that can sustain us) Forget worm holes. Stick to what is know for a fact, not fantasy that is unproven to exist. Plus Relativity forces time dilation between those who accelerate and those who sit still (the Twin Paradox). Thus those who space travel will have their time slowed relative to those on earth. Earth will have aged millions of years compared to decades for the space travelers (as they accelerate faster). Richard should check his sums: 312 _days_ of normal 1 gee acceleration gives 90% of lightspeed. Acceleration is not the limit. The Twin Paradox is irrelevant to the survival of the human species. What breaks if you come back (why?) and meet your great-great-...grandson? Human growth requires estrangement, and societies fail when they cannot tolerate or incorporate it. Many science fiction authors have explored time-slew multigenerational scenarios. Orson Scott Card, for one. -- Robert Redelmeier HOUSTON TX USA =========== (15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY Mark Duchamp Dear Benny, No one can possibly disagree that Norman Borlaug is a modern hero: he actually saved millions of lives. However, as he proved the Neo-Malthusians to be wrong, he permitted population explosion to continue unabated. Only History will be able to balance it all out: the millions saved today against (who is to know?) the millions starved or massacred tomorrow. When pitted against any extremist ideology (the green one for example), it is normal behavior to grab any argument to defend oneself against it. I am equally guilty on that account, I am sure, and would welcome any justified criticism. So yes, it is true that another agricultural revolution would allow us to feed a few more billion people. But is this the purpose of life on earth: reproduce without restraint till people starve to death by the million? Then we´ll have reached the limit. Then we´ll know for sure we have to stop. Then we´ll pass some law against reproducing at a rate of, say, 2,2 per family (to account for unmarried, childless people). So, what we are doing now is procrastinating till we have no choice but to adopt such laws. - Is that smart ? I would say not, for while we procrastinate, we are forgoing what makes life bearable: elbow room, open spaces, soul-lifting natural landscapes - in a nutshell : quality of life. And what would happen to the Amazon? What would happen to wildlife? These may appear to be elitist considerations, as feeding the hungry is, and should be, the only objective. But how smart is it to open the floodgates wider while one is trying to contain the water? And is it worth giving up wildlife in the world so that Mexico City can house 50 million people instead of 25? Nairobi 25 instead of 3 (that's the projection)? And London 20 instead of 14? What good would that do? I may be a pessimist, a doom-monger, but I fail to see why we should all want to see Los Angeles increase its population - or London, or Paris, or New York... Yes, merchants will have more consumers for their goods, and politicians more taxpayers to milk. But is that what should be our goal? Should we let politicians dictate us: you must have more babies so as to service the huge debt we have wrecklessly contracted in your name? Or should we tell them: cut down on the Pork, and become more responsible? Mark Duchamp EDITORS NOTE: Mark: Your Malthusian anxiety is quite understandable - in the same way that the angst of many half-informed people about global warming Thermageddon is quite understandable. There is little that I can say in a view words that would ease your apprehension. One recommendation I can make, however, is to encourage you to read up on current demographic research and debates in order to develop a more balanced view of a highly complex problem. What you will discover is that the challenges of global population growth are far less apocalyptic, and potentially far more manageable, than the doom-mongers claim. One book in particular would make a good start for a better understanding: Jacqueline Kasun's "The war against population: the economics and ideology of world population" <[17]http://books.google.com/books?id=sPNP4_POjc8C&dq=The+War+Against+Population&printse c=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=kze7St33JdGrjAfv5ZzBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res num=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false> Let me know what you make of it. BJP ========== (16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION DEMOCRATICCALLY Peter Salonius Dear Benny In a CCNet post September 21, 2009 entitled MISANTHROPY AND POPULATION ANXIETY, John A. wrote: your guesstimate is simply wrong because your key assumptions are your wrong. There is no such thing as a "carrying capacity" for human beings. In THEOILDRUM essay I offered (CCNet, September 18, 2009), I referenced Sustainability or Collapse? edited by Robert Costanza et al., featuring contributions by interdisciplinary teams at a workshop on Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (IHOPE), most of which suggest --- that IF, as John A. asserts, the human species is able to create new food sources, improve food sources (thanks for example to the work of people like Norman Borlaug), create new living environments in formerly inhospitable places, have many more people fed, clothed and housed than ever before, and protect more species and natural environments than ever before. --- then it will be the first time in our history that a civilization has not overshot the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystem. John A. also wrote There is no such thing as a voluntary reduction of no or one-parent-family behavior without fundamental denial of human rights. There never has been. For a fellow who lauds the creativity of the human species, John A. has given rather short shrift to our ability to craft and launch educational campaigns, explaining why we think that resource scarcity warrants global population reduction, in advance of democratically orchestrated plebiscites/referenda in which we hope that the majority will approve the adoption of policies leading to the institution of financial grant and taxation programs that would reward reproductive behavior that institutionalizes a population reduction trajectory that would play itself out over a very long period of time. We already have considerable experience with the employment of financial incentives and taxation penalties designed to alter various human behaviors. These incentives and penalties can be increased over time as necessary, by adaptive management, to achieve No or One Child Per Family reproductive behavior by the majority of couples, as public policy increasin gly renders this behavior desirable in the interests of the public good. Human numbers could be halved within the coming century by such programs. John A. also wrote: Who are the "us" and the "we" that "require the 'voluntary' adoption of no or one-child-per-family behavior to orchestrate the Rapid Population Decline that is necessary now"? I'm willing to be bet that those people would have nothing to do with any democratic process. The paragraph above, with reference to the democratic process we have in mind, should counter John A.s negative comments regarding our commitment to attempting to achieve majority support for population reduction. Peter Salonius ========= (17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL Richard Wakefield Dear Benny: Let's be clear. I really hope you are right. I would like nothing more than for my grandchildren to have a prosperous and safe life. You are also correct that oppressive governments (communists, dictatorships and elected leftists) are a bane on civilization, which begs the question, how do we eliminate them? Militarily? Just look at the outcry in getting Iraq cleaned up. We have been in Afghanistan for 8 years now and a recent report by a general in the field claims the situation is worse, not better. Plus the Canadian public is itching for our troops to get out of there and EU countries are not eager to put their own troops in harmsway. (BTW I support both actions). However, we do nothing in Darfur. We do nothing to stop China from securing oil fields in Africa paid for with AK47's. I am above all a realist. Our civilization is a very diverse and complex place. We here in the west claim we see things clearly because our decisions are based on science and logic, but in reality, there are cultures who's entire existence is based on myth and religious doctrine, in some cases, hell bent on eliminating other cultures by force. The UN is completely impotent, and I would not in any way support any kind of one world government. So it may be a nice dream to wish for a Utopia, the likelihood of such coming any time is near zero, based on past human history. Resource depletion is a fact. The article you reposted is arguing from geological peak. It's irrelevant. Seems those who hope there is lots of oil yet to be found completely ignore the two fundamental limiting factors for oil extraction. Flow rates and ERoEI. I would love to hear from anyone who can show me how, through technology, we can overcome the problem of the energy required to extract the oil from places like Brazil, Bakken and the Tar Sands. Once it takes more energy to get the oil than we get out of it, I fail to see how we have not physically run out of oil. Not one of the rebuttals here, or elsewhere, has addressed those two critical limits to oil extraction. The article you posted most definitely did not address the issue of flow rates from these new finds. We are entering into a time never before seen. Super giant fields (100bb+) are all in terminal decline around the world. This has never happened before on a world wide scale. The US saw it happen in the 1970's causing real economic pain. We need to find HUNDREDS of Tibers in the next few years just to keep up with decline from aging fields like Cantarell. Or does no one here believe that Cantarell is in a 41% decline rate. The loss of flow rate is 2 million barrels per day just from that one field. Would numerous Tibers be able to replace that flow rate? Not a chance. Or that North Sea is in decline. Or that Indonesia is in decline. Are they or are they not in decline? Skeptics of peak oil have to explain the November IEA report too. And it's not just oil. Potash extraction is in decline (China just signed a contract with Canada to pay 3 times the going rate for our potash). Rare earth element scarcity is a serious limit for mass production of electric vehicles. If you look at the ore concentrations of copper that has been mined over the past 100 years you will see a trend to ever smaller percents being mined (which requires a larger energy requirement to extract and refine). Uranium, natural gas and even coal falls into resources that are depleting. I know I sound just like the AGW dogmatists, which for me is very frustrating, but the difference is I rely on evidence. As yet, no one here has provided any evidence that resource depletion is not happening. Instead the arguments are hope faith-based speculations that technology and free markets will solve the problem, any problem, we face. I really do hope you are right, I'll leave it in the hands of those who wish to try, and good luck to them. Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worse, and hope for the best. I would love nothing more than to be wrong. Lastly, I'm also going to take a swipe at the comment: "we're the only species that is on its way of being in full charge of this planet, its environment and its future." A tad arrogant if you ask me. It's comments like that that allow others to think they can do what ever they want, destroying in their wake. I look at other life forms having some degree of sentient beings. They are individuals in their heads just as much as you are in yours. That's not anthropomorphism, that's measured fact. Pushing them aside just for us is just as much a genocide as any elimination of humans. In our past, advanced humans eliminate less advanced humans in the name of expansion. Now we are doing it to the rest of the biota. Richard Wakefield London, Ont. EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard. OK: Natural resource depletion is a fact. So what? Will we be unable to fertilize our soils once we begin to see Potash extraction in decline some time in the future? Don't you think there are good chances for synthetic fertilizers and other substitutes? The same holds true for oil. Once it becomes too expensive, we will use more coal and gas, build more nuclear power plants and develop all sorts of new and yet unknown forms of energy generation. So what's your problem? The fact that we are in the process of taking full charge of our planet and its environment comes with responsibilities, obviously. Anyone who wishes to protect endangered species, as I do, should foster democratic reform and economic development - because only free and developed nations are willing and can afford to protect their environment. No wonder that the rapidly growing middle classes in India and China, hundreds of millions of them, are beginning to be concerned about clean water, air quality and the protection of their environments. Unfortunately, it's often green campaigners that are attempting to stifle economic growth, thus contributing to societal stagnation and environmental degradation in much of the developing world. BJP ---------------- CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor. <[18]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/> -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5180. 2009-09-25 11:59:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:59:53 -0400 from: "Joseph, Renu" subject: RE: Can I get a paragraph from you ASAP. to: "Phil Jones" Thanks Phil, Will go through this and notify my boss when I send him the weekly. BTW, will you be responding to the skeptic? This is really very helpful. -Renu ******************************************************** Renu R. Joseph Ph.D Program Manager Climate Change and Prediction Program Climate and Environmental Sciences Division SC-23.1 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 Ph: 301-903-9237 Fax: 301-903-8519 renu.joseph@science.doe.gov For Courier Services: Alan Jenkins/ Renu Joseph US Department of Energy SC-23.1 19901 Germantown Rd MD 20874-1290 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:57 AM To: Joseph, Renu Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: RE: Can I get a paragraph from you ASAP. Renu, The first of the summaries I sent you - for a paper which is online in J. Climate - has been picked up by one of the skeptic web sites. It seems that someone has gone through and tried to explain the paper, and to say how we got many things wrong! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper -hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/ Just thought I'd let you know in case it gets picked up elsewhere. Have a good weekend. Phil At 15:53 25/09/2009, Joseph, Renu wrote: > >Thanks a ton for them. > >-Renu > >******************************************************** >Renu R. Joseph Ph.D >Program Manager >Climate Change and Prediction Program >Climate and Environmental Sciences Division >SC-23.1 Germantown Building >US Department of Energy >1000 Independence Avenue SW >Washington DC 20585-1290 >Ph: 301-903-9237 >Fax: 301-903-8519 >renu.joseph@science.doe.gov > >For Courier Services: >Alan Jenkins/ Renu Joseph >US Department of Energy SC-23.1 >19901 Germantown Rd >MD 20874-1290 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:10 AM >To: Joseph, Renu >Cc: Bamzai, Anjuli >Subject: RE: Can I get a paragraph from you ASAP. > > > > Renu, > > I'm attaching a word file about 4 papers to come out soon, > > None are yet out in their final pdf version, but 3 can be downloaded >from the links I've given you. The first two are accepted by J. Climate. >They are listed in the journal's online section. #3 will be out in JGR >within the next two months. #4 is available on the online page of >Climate Change. > > I'll let you know in the next few weeks when the first 3 come out. > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 2841. 2009-09-25 13:52:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:52:37 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: NERC Consortium grant to: "Rosanne D'Arrigo" , Edward Cook , Phil Jones , gondwanadendro@gmail.com, Sandy Tudhope Hi Ed, Rosanne and Jonathan, Earlier this week we had our first consortium meeting to bash out a more clear vision for the consortium proposal. A schematic of what was decided is attached along with the original 2 pager. Whether this is clearer than the 2 pager, I am not so sure. Anyway, Phil is leading the Observational/Proxy Workpackage, although this is divided into different obs/proxy sub-sets lead by different specialists in each relevant field. I am supposed to be in charge of the Trees!! The project, although with still a focus on the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere also has a full global focus as well. The main phenomena that will be studied are ENSO, ITCZ movements, SAM, Monsoon and the Little Ice Age. The latter LIA focus being driven by carbon cycle issues that Peter Cox wants to push. We have until October 19th to draft some initial text for each work package and so this e-mail is essentially a heads up for us to start discussion about what possible things would be feasible/desirable from a dendro point of view. As this is a Consortium bid and we will have many project partners, we need to ensure that the project is integrated between work packages and groups. As I see it: 1. ENSO - driven from coral records (old and new) and TEXMEX trees, although if new tree-ring records (mainland Oz, New Zealand, Indonesia, South Amercia etc) could help, then it is may be possible to write in for funds for sampling new areas. 2. ITCZ - corals and non-annual lake sediment work. I doubt trees will help with this. 3. SAM - trees from South America, New Zealand and Tassy, along with ice core data (old and new). 4. Monsoon - I guess you guys are the specialists in this already. Did you have a modelling component in your NSF project already? If not, then this would be one area where the NERC proposal could be mutually beneficial. 5. LIA - essentially, we are looking at yet another large scale temperature reconstruction. Peter Cox used the Moberg recon for his analysis, but we need to be careful as Dave Frank's ensemble recon paper may make this analysis defunct. Keith and Tom are already funded through NERC to re-process NH tree-ring data and this could be expanded to cover all relevant data around the world. We are also not restricting ourselves to just temperature, so study hydroclimatic changes during the LIA and after will also be important and so the drought atlas (US, EURO etc) work will also be important here as well. anyway - focusing on the above, I wonder if we could bounce around ideas about what would be needed to expand the current data-sets to enable us to better reconstruct/understand these phenomena. I will e-mail Ricardo and Antonio separately, but focusing on New Zealand and Australia and the Indo-Pacific region, what obviously improvements can be made? Ultimately, we want to derive 500-yr long climatically sensitive tree-ring chronologies for as many locations in the tropics and southern hemisphere as possible. Length should not be too much of a problem, but currently, the parameter of choice is ring-width. Is it worth considering other parameters like MXD or blue intensity that could help boost r2 values. Is this an opportunity to update networks to present in some regions (e.g. Tasmania?) Notice also on the right side of the figure we have Tom Melvin's name against tree modelling. This essentially is focussing on forward mechanistic modelling of trees. This might not be so important for those chronologies that show a reasonable linear relationships with climate, but for those species with a more complex response with climate (i.e. non Huon pine species in Tasmania), such growth modelling may allow us to invert such models to recreate tree-growth using climate model output etc etc. This e-mail is getting rather long, so I will hold off for now. However, any ideas and feedback would be very welcome at this pre-writing stage. Remember, that we are looking for work for both post-docs and post-grads regards to all 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NERC-New model.ppt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2009 08 24 Consortium_Concept_TASOC_submitted2.doc" 2175. 2009-09-25 19:32:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:32:35 -0700 from: Darrell Kaufman subject: Re: more from McIntyre to: Tom Melvin Tom: Thank you for the detailed explanation in reply to the comments that were circulating in the Climateaudit blog. I agree that there is no need to move forward on the data from Sidorova until your group has had a chance to review them. I will keep your letter in my files and use it only in the event that we receive a letter to the editor from SCIENCE. If that happens, I will use it to help formulate a reply, which I would then forward back to you for additional comment and approval. In the mean time, it helps me to know the history of the different versions of the Polar Urals series. Thank you again, Darrell Darrell S. Kaufman, Professor School of Earth Sciences & Environmental Sustainability Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192 [1]http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/ On Sep 25, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Tom Melvin wrote: Darrell, Attached is a letter from Keith re the Climate Audit comments. Keith asked me to send it to you. It was typed from some rough notes and he has not been able to check that it is OK. If you need more information please ask. Tom 2640. 2009-09-28 04:22:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:22:50 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: 1940s to: Phil Jones Thanks Phil. Re increase after 1949, I should have remembered this. It has the same effect, but better. I'll send you some ENSO out results later -- I do it as in my GRL paper, ENSO and volcs out together iteratively, and 252-month (maybe 251) running removals. This makes a difference. Re the ppt, which is NH and which is SH? Also, what is the gray "uncorrected" line in the other plot? This is the raw data? Can I use the data in your ppts? Just for the globe. I'm thinking that the new values will be out before my work is done, and it will really help to get a head start. Do you have numbers? Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: > > Tom, > A few thoughts > > http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/preprint/2009/pdf/10.1175_2009JCLI3089.1.pdf > > > This is a link to the longer Thompson et al paper. It isn't yet out in > final form - Nov09 maybe? > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/ > > > is a link to wattsupwiththat - not looked through this apart from a > quick scan. Dave Thompson just emailed me this over the weekend and said > someone had been busy! They seemed to have not fully understood what > was done. > > Have looked at the plots. I'm told that the HadSST3 paper is fairly > near to being submitted, but I've still yet to see a copy. More SST data > have been added for the WW2 and WW1 periods, but according to John > Kennedy they have not made much difference to these periods. > > Here's the two ppts I think I showed in Boulder in June. These were > from April 09, so don't know what these would look like now. SH is on > the left and adjustment there seems larger, for some reason - probably > just British ships there? > > Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments > won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 > period, just raise the 10 years after Aug 45. > > I expect MOHC are looking at the NH minus SH series re the aerosols. > My view is that a cooler temps later in the 1950s and 1960s it is easier > to explain. > > Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH. > > One other thing - MOHC are also revising the 1961-90 normals. This will > likely have more effect in the SH. > > With the SH around 1910s there is the issue of exposure problems in > Australia - see Neville's paper. > This shouldn't be an issue in NZ - except maybe before 1880, but could > be in southern South America. New work in Spain suggest screens got > renewed about 1900, so maybe this happened in Chile and Argentina, but > Mossmann was head of the Argentine NMS so he may have got them to use > Stevenson screens early. > > Neville has never been successful getting any OZ funding to sort out > pre-1910 temps everywhere except Qld. > > Here's a paper in CC on European exposure problems. There is also one > on Spanish series. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: >> Phil, >> >> Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly >> explain the 1940s warming blip. >> >> If you look at the attached plot you will see that the >> land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). >> >> So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, >> then this would be significant for the global mean -- but >> we'd still have to explain the land blip. >> >> I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an >> ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of >> ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common >> forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of >> these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are >> 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity >> plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things >> consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. >> >> Removing ENSO does not affect this. >> >> It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, >> but we are still left with "why the blip". >> >> Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol >> effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced >> ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling >> in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. >> >> The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from >> MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can >> get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal >> solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 >> (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s >> makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it >> currently is not) -- but not really enough. >> >> So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? >> (SH/NH data also attached.) >> >> This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd >> appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. >> >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4743. 2009-09-28 14:45:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Mann , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "J. Salinger" , James Annan , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:45:18 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter to: Grant Foster Hi all About time. Incidentally i gave a copy to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this. That means no extras unless it really makes sense. And removal of a few unnecessary words like "absolutely". In the abstract, we have a number of such adjectives that could be removed: I agree with Rev 3 in this. "greatly overstates" could be just "overstates" as it is reinforced better later. "severely overestimates" could be just "overestimates" "faulty analysis" maybe "flawed analysis"? "extremely high" maybe "very high" or "unduly high" I would leave last sentence alone though as the main comment. A few more comments embedded below. Grant Foster wrote: > From: [1]jgr-atmospheres@agu.org > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000 > To: [2]tamino_9@hotmail.com > Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter > CC: [3]twistor9@gmail.com > > Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960 > Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Reviewer Comments > > Reviewer #1 (Comments): > > This paper does an excellent job of showing the errors in the analytical methods used by McLean et al. and why their conclusions > about the influence of ENSO on global air temperature is incorrect. > I have only a couple of suggestions to help clarify their analysis of the methods. First, a little more explanation of the comment about the time derivative reduced to an additive constant would help. Second, in the analysis of the artificial time series I think it would be interesting to show the results of both steps of filtering (running mean and derivative) as separate time series. This would help the reader understand why the filtering creates false correlations. The only other suggestion is to find a better adjective than "faulty" in the abstract to characterize the analysis. > It is not so easy to see the result from the derivative owing to the phase shift. The spectrum actually does a better job. I would address this comment in this way and change "faulty". > > Reviewer #2 (Comments): > > I think this comment on McLean et al can be published more or less as is. > > I have two comments > > First, in the abstract (page 3, line 15), I'm not sure that "inflating" is quite the right verb - the paper itself does not make the point that the filter constructed by McLean et al inflates power in the 2-6 year window. Perhaps "isolating" would be a better verb. Yes it should not be in abstract if not in text. Need to point out that the response function in Fig. 1 is greater than unity and does "inflate". So adjust the text. > > Secondly, I think the points that are being made with Figures 4 and 5 could be strengthened by adding to the right of each plot of a pair of time series, a scatter plot of the pairs of values available at each time. Such a scatter plot would help to clearly illustrate the absence (upper panels) or presence (lower panels) of correlation between red and black values. I don't think this helps. There is nothing to be gained from a scatter plot that a correlation or regression value does not summarize. > > > Reviewer #3 (Comments): > > Accept pending major changes (mainly in style not scientific comment) > > The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings. > > So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted. Someone needs to address the science in the McLean et al paper in the peer-reviewed literature. But the current paper could be - and should be - done better. That's why I am suggesting major changes before the paper is accepted. All of my suggestions have to do more with the tone and framing of the current paper, rather than its content. > > 1. As noted above, I agree McLean et al is problematic. But as it is written, the current paper almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature. For examples.... > - In the abstract: Do you really need all of these adjectives?...'greatly overstates'; 'severely overestimates'; 'faulty analysis'; 'extremely high'. Agree, see above > - In the introduction... 'Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error..." strikes me as overly subjective. Better to say: 'We will demonstrate that their conclusions are strongly dependent on ....' or something like that... Don't go that far. Could drop "seriously" but they are "in error" > - Page X-6: 'tell us absolutely nothing'. Surely it's enough to state 'tell us nothing'. agree > - Page X-9: 'it is misleading...' That's a strong word. It may be true. But I think we should rise above such accusations. misleading is OK. I did a search (not sure I have latest) and found "grossly misleading" and the "grossly" could be removed. > > Anyway, I'm sure the lead author gets my point. I think the current paper will have a much greater impact (and can claim the high road) if it is rewritten in a more objective manner. > > 2. Similarly, instead of framing the paper as "Taking down McLean et al.", why not focus more on interesting aspects of the science, such as the frequency dependence between ENSO and global-mean temperature (perhaps cross-correlation analysis would be useful); the importance of not extrapolating results from one timescale to another timescale; or the lack of trends in ENSO. That way, the current paper contributes to the peer-reviewed literature while also doing a service by highlighting the problems with McLean et al. I think I tried to emphasize that this should be a teaching moment. Even more important given the time lapse. > > 3. In general, the current paper is sloppy and needs tightening. I don't think the lead author needs 10 pages of text to make the main points. > > So over to you to generate the next draft. Thanks Kevin **************** 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 2743. 2009-09-28 22:33:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:33:06 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: attacks against Keith to: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn Phil, Tim, I only learned of Keith's recent health issues when I was talking w/ Malcolm today. Please pass along to him my wishes for a speedy recovery. We need him! Meanwhile, I suspect you've both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response---if any---is necessary and appropriate. So far, we've simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate. any insights and/or advice you can provide would be extremely helpful. If you're uncomfortable doing this by email, I can be reached most of the day at my cell phone 814-777-3136. Will be in a meeting most of the day, but can run out of the room as necessary. I would think it is probably best not to bother Keith with any of this. He just needs to get well, and I suspect it would be better for his wellness not to even know about this, we expect lots more attacks like this over the next several weeks as the U.S. senate debates cap & trade legislation. thanks for any help w/ this. mike -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [3]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 4564. 2009-09-29 08:31:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Michael Mann date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:31:20 -0400 (EDT) from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn I agree with Mike. This is not a peer review issue - this is a propaganda issue. And right now the good guys have conceded the field. The key observation is that 99% of the people cheerleading have absolutely no idea what McIntyre has done - they are just happy with the meme. Thus any response can't only be a technical one, it has to be one that demonstrates the integrity of the process - and that requires some degree of further info that only you guys can supply. The good news is that once something is out there, people will counter with links to that without themselves worrying about the detail. We are of course happy to help in any way. Gavin PS. Minor issue, but is Keith's sick leave status being broadcast via a vacation message on his email or website? I'm wondering if McI knew about this ahead of time. ============= Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 678 5627 Email: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Michael Mann wrote: > thanks Phil, Keith, > > I don't think the peer-reviewed literature is an acceptable response to this. > They don't bother publishing there anyway. They know they can do more damage > by just circumventing the process entirely, since they have immediate access > to the right-wing media. Look at today's Telegraph, the lie is already out > there in the public domain. > > I think we ought to get some sort of comment out there, perhaps through > "RealClimate", though its worth some discussion as far as the best form that > would take, perhaps in the form of an "editorial" (i.e. group post). > > Interested to hear Gavin's thoughts. got to run off to a meeting now, > > mike > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, Gavin, >> As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in >> soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November. >> I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the >> threads on CA. As you're fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre >> has done is going to be difficult. It would be so much easier if they >> followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and submitted it to a >> journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of >> what he's done. My suspicion is that he's brought in other tree ring series >> from more distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two >> chronologies that have been used - one called the Polar Urals and one >> called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site with density as well as ring >> width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology, but a >> regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring >> width series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area >> some distance (at least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov >> and Shiyatov and was poorly standardized - corridor method. I also don't >> think McIntyre understands the RCS method even though he claims to have a >> program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are crucial in all >> this, but I think he just throws series in. >> >> I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are >> getting worse. Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many >> saying they see no need to submit the results to a journal! They have >> proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job done. Difficult to know how >> to respond to this. They ignore journal comments anyway - just as they will >> with Grant Foster's. >> >> Hadn't thought of Senate debates. I'd put this down to the build up to >> Copenhagen, which is sort of the same. >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/ >> >> is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson's paper which is in press in J. >> Climate (online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong >> assumptions, but someone has put a lot of work into it. ENSO influences are >> probably slightly non-linear, but this didn't stop Mclean et al. >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-weather-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/ >> >> This one is a complete red herring - nothing wrong with De Bilt >> measurements. This is what it is about according to someone at KNMI >> >> The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even >> MP's asking questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about >> the observational series (nothing strange is going on), but more related to >> the "Law on KNMI" and the division of tasks between commercial providers >> and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: >>> Hi Mike and Gavin, >>> >>> thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. >>> >>> I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. >>> He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another >>> month (barring a couple of lectures that he's keen to do in October as >>> part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll be properly back in November. >>> >>> Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- >>> other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was >>> hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's >>> integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I'm sure you >>> know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks). >>> Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I >>> think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently >>> been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a >>> co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to >>> the criticisms). >>> >>> Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could >>> shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather >>> loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this (also he >>> wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has >>> been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently been >>> working towards that uses these -- and more -- data). >>> >>> Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already >>> considering a response. >>> >>> Off to lecture for a couple of hours now... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >>> >>> e-mail: 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -- > Michael E. Mann > 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html > "Dire Predictions" book site: > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5263. 2009-09-29 08:46:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:46:09 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Michael Mann ,Gavin Schmidt Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll be properly back in November. Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms). Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data). Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a response. Off to lecture for a couple of hours now... Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: 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 1901. 2009-09-29 15:35:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 29 15:35:53 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: South American Temp. reconstruction paper draft to: Raphael Neukom Ralphi, Jones, P.D., Raper, S.C.B., Cherry, B.S.G., Goodess, C.M. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1986: A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Technical Report TR027, 73 pp. I'm not saying you should use these, but they might do better than those in GHCN. Hopefully it won't take long to check. I suspect there will be little in it, so you might be able to use what you already have. I'm fully aware of how sensitive a PCR program can be to the addition/deletion of one site! Cheers Phil At 15:11 29/09/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, Thanks a lot! - Thanks for sending the CRU station data. so you recommend using these instead of the GHCN stations for our verification analysis (table 4)? how would I cite the data? - The issue of the importance of the proxies is indeed complex. I made a lot of tests. For instance I am aware that CAN 11 first lets the skills drop but over the entire period the skill is better if I take it. Also, often the REs of the mean and the fraction of locations with positive REs react in opposite direction by adding/removing one proxy. The influence of each proxy changes with every new proxy combination. (that is also the reason why I started now working with ensembles instead of just using one "optimized" proxy set). - I'll make a compilation of my proxy records and send it to you. and I'll send you the contacts for the confidential material. Cheers Raphi Phil Jones schrieb: Dear Raphael, Thanks for the quick reply. Here are a few extra thoughts within your reply. Looking forward to reading the paper later in the week. Cheers Phil At 12:47 29/09/2009, Raphael Neukom wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id n8TBl8IL029484 Dear Phil, Thank you for your comments/questions. - CLARIS-LPB. No problem, we can send them the submitted version. OK - UK bid on SH proxies: Sounds interesting! The raw data will generally be available except some of the series that I reveived from the authors confidentially, so I can not distribute them. most of the data are, however, already on the NOAA paleo DB. - I do have the raw tree ring cores from all sites (I detrended all series again using the same method). Again, the raw and detrended data will be available except a couple of confidental records. OK - you finish your thesis! When you've more time then perhaps I can get the series then. Or you could send them when you have some time. Maybe package all up in a zip file. If you then let me know the people who asked you not to pass them on then I can contact them. -"1. Can you send the data (monthly averages) for the series in Table 4?" The monthly data are attached in the csv file (directly imported from the GHCN server). Any longer or better data would of course be very welcome. Here's a file attached of the CRU data. They seem similar on a few spot checks. we have made alterations to the following Rio before 1940 We don't use Sao Paolo Punta Arenas before 1963 Asuncion before 1964 Salta several periods of change Ignore station 2 for Cordoba - 87344 - use other one Buenos Aires before 1955 Bahia Blanca before 1930 I could only find these ones quickly. Alterations are small and probably won't affect the year-to-year changes that much. I recall some of the others having many gaps. I presume your using the GHCN data after the NCDC homogenization checks. -"2. Can you also send the daily series for the 4 long Argentinean daily series from Vargas and Naumann (2008) if that is possible?" I just asked the authors to be sure they are ok with that, but probably I can send them to you, soon. Thanks - hopefully! -3. "regression weights for each location...". To be honest I have never than that and I am am not sure if I understand how I can do that after transforming the pc's back. just by doing a multiple regression at each location? Maybe Jrg can help me. or do you have an example script? Worth talking to Juerg about this as I'll mention this again when I read more carefully later in the week. You are doing regressions of one set of PCs (the predictors) on the other set PCs (the predictands). It is possible to transform all back to equations the left hand side as a function of the right hand side Don't worry about this. Juerg knows that for his European pressure reconstructions depend a lot on having Paris and Uppsala pressure in the earliest years. You can sort of see what your reconstructions depend on by looking at the jumps in your Figure 8. If you compare the start years with the jumps. Cariaco basin improves things when it starts, but this falls back when CAN 11 starts. If you plot some vertical lines on Fig 8 at the start years of the two sets of predictors. -"If we were to change CRU TS 3.0 how long would it take you to rerun things?" Well for temperature it would take a week with all plots etc. I guess. I would suggest only do it if the changes are excepted to be significant. I now also started to reconstruct precip (using an ensemble approach, bootstrapping different proxy sets and parameter settings) and I think an update version could improve things a lot for precip. However I have to hand in the thesis at the end of the year, so I have to run the reconstructions within the next few weeks... I don't think things will change that much, so ignore this thought. Agree you have to finish. Thanks again and if you need more (proxy) data just ask. Cheers Raphi Phil Jones schrieb: Raphael, I will try and look at this over the weekend and get some comments back to you. It all looks quite interesting. I have a few questions now though. I'm involved in an EU project called CLARIS-LPB. Would it be possible to send a later draft to some of the people in that group? There is a paleo group looking at Pampean Lakes. I'm not involved in this group, but in an instrumental WP within the project. I'm thinking of a version once submitted or sent around more widely. Second I'm putting together a large UK bid on SH proxies - for Dec 1. Maybe I can mention this paper and the EU project and NCCR funding? We won't hear about that bid till next April and then it wouldn't start till 2011. The point I'd like to mention is that you've got an excellent dataset together. So the question is will the raw data be available once your paper is submitted/published? Related to this, do you have all the individual tree cores for each tree-ring site, or do you just have the chronologies? The text from a very quick reading seems to suggest that you have some of the cores? Again would these be available to other projects in the future? Now 3 points about the paper. 1. Can you send the data (monthly averages) for the series in Table 4? I'd like to get someone here to look through the CRU archives to see if we can extend some of them and/.or check that we've not made adjustments to any of them. I know we have adjusted Punta Arenas, and have longer data for Ushuaia. I'm thinking mainly of the data pre-1901 data here. 2. Can you also send the daily series for the 4 long Argentinean daily series from Vargas and Naumann (2008) if that is possible? 3. Finally, in your PCR technique you should know the regression weights for each location, so by adding these up across the SSA grid you will know which are the important proxies. This might be worth mentioning in some way, provided you have the information. In the CRU program which is doing similar things, we can get the regression weights once everything is transformed back to real-world variables (i.e. not in PC mode). We are still working on CRUTS3.0. Things are not going very quickly as the people have other things to do. If you're not using any data post-2000 then things are unlikely to change. I have a question. If we were to change CRU TS 3.0 how long would it take you to rerun things? I don't think we will, but we may have to for precipitation. Again - it looks like a good paper. I'm sure when I read it in detail I will have some more questions. Cheers Phil At 12:53 28/09/2009, Raphael Neukom wrote: Dear Coauthors, please find attached the draft of our new paper dealing with climate field reconstructions from southern South America. Any comments, suggestions and corrections from your side are most welcome. If possible, please send them to me as track changes within the next 10 days. Thank you very much and cheers Raphael -- Raphael Neukom Climatology & Meteorology (Klimet) Institute of Geography University of Bern Hallerstrasse 12 CH-3012 Bern Switzerland Tel.: +41 31 631 8868 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Raphael Neukom Climatology & Meteorology (Klimet) Institute of Geography University of Bern Hallerstrasse 12 CH-3012 Bern Switzerland Tel.: +41 31 631 8868 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Raphael Neukom Climatology & Meteorology (Klimet) Institute of Geography University of Bern Hallerstrasse 12 CH-3012 Bern Switzerland Tel.: +41 31 631 8868 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4373. 2009-09-29 17:27:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: mcintyre's latest.... to: Andrew Revkin HI Andy, Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks. Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted. mike On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote: thanks heaps. tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon. just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ? I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions made over at climateaudit.org..... I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks. peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree? p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for further details, in Keith's absence, mike On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Andy, I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus. It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context. So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith's absence. if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review. Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right? mike I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is no On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote: needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct? -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 1610. 2009-09-29 17:36:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:36:11 -0300 from: BigCity Lib subject: The McIntyre Silliness to: I am told that Mr. Briffa is sick and correspondence might be directed to you. I assume the short answer to this: [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 is that legitimate proxies must match the modern record of warming as shown by the observational record? Anyway, if you would like to respond I write for The Mark News [2]http://www.themarknews.com/ and blog here: [3]http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/ usually about politics but also quite frequently about AGW issues. I can see that your response is fairly broadly circulated. Cheers, BCL M.J.Murphy ______________________________________________________________________________________ Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live Messenger. [4]Check it out ______________________________________________________________________________________ Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live Messenger. [5]Check it out 1511. 2009-09-30 09:40:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 30 09:40:40 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Instrumental/Proxy to: Rob Wilson Rob, Don't worry too much about access to the South American tree ring data. I think I can get it all quite easily from someone at Bern. I should be able to get - cores as well, for all but the pers comm/unpublished sites. Seems as though there are less than 5 of these. We can write to those if the bid is successful. Quick count shows about 50 series. Ricardo Villalba and Juan Carlos Aravena have sent them loads of sites. There seem more than 50 in some of the maps. It might be that the ~50 is only those with a temperature signal. I've been sent a paper and they want me to be on it as it is using CRU TS 3 as the predictand. Quite handy really - it seems loads of work getting things together has been done! The paper needs a lot of work - an awful lot. Ice core work from Thompson and also Ant Penin stuff there also. Still useful to have Ed and Rosanne on board as all this is basically just South American data. Not sure why stuff from further afield is in - this is why the paper needs work. We'll need the NZ and any Australian trees in addition to Tas. If the paper is in better shape by end of November we could refer to it. We could also get someone from the Bern group to send a letter of support as well. I'll bring what I have or a later version to our next meeting. Cheers Phil At 07:45 30/09/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Phil, finally had a chance to read your initial text through. I have not yet heard from any of the dendros, except Rosanne/Ed. This might be a problem if we want to get letters of support out of them. I will chase them up again next week. As we are not specifically looking to sample new tree-ring sites, then we are essentially looking for data access only so hopefully there will not be a problem. There certainly seems to be a wealth of dendro data from South America that has been generated through the IAI and related projects. I wonder if any comparison with the Thompson ice core data has been undertaken? A lot of work has also recently been done in New Zealand so again plenty of data there. Tasmania might be the only place where the tree-ring data stop in the early-mid 1990s, but I will check with Ed about that. One area I am interested in is the moisture (and ENSO) sensitive TR chronologies that Lamont are developing in Australia and there might be a really nice project to compare the terrestrial and marine (GBR corals) records in this region. Possible PhD project?? Rob Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Spent an hour or so putting together some outlining text for our 2pp for TASOC. Also added in a few references that may or may not be relevant. Apart from the intro, it's just a few thoughts on trees/corals and ice cores plus a little more on early instrumental/documentary. I worked on this text being the science. This could include the links to other work we know is going on, but that might come in another section with the WP detail/links. Rob W has sent some emails getting more tree-ring worker contacts. Also there will be a section on tree-growth models elsewhere in the bid. Also there wll be something about the SAM - to go along with ENSO, ITCZ and monsoons. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4033. 2009-09-30 12:41:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:41:44 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Tim Osborn Tim, Phil, thanks for the clarification on this. the points are well taken. I'm fairly certain MBH98 and Mann et al PNAS are entirely independent of this particular (Briffa et al RCS version) of the Urals/Yamal data, at least Malcolm believes that to be the case. It sounds as if Mann and Jones is not. Meanwhile, Darrell Kaufman is re-rerunning their analysis w/out Yamal to establish the result isn't sensitive to it (he's pretty confident its the case). I don't know about the Hegerl/Crowley/Juckes et al analyses--do you know which of any used this series, but interested if you have any insights into that yourself. we're trying to get a tally on the number of studies that are completely independent of this particular series, or have been shown to give largely similar conclusions w/out it (I think that is true for Osborn and Briffa still, is it not?) There are at least three issues we need to deal with here, 1) is the specific criticism of Keith's particular rendition of the Yamal series legitimate (probably not--we hope this can be established), 2) Which of the existing hemispheric reconstructions are specifically affected (we know that many are not), 3) does this undermine the broader conclusions of e.g. the IPCC on the key issue, i.e. anomalous nature of recent hemispheric warmth (no, because many of the estimates are entirely independent of this series; the Mann et al PNAS result was even shown to be independent of using tree-ring data at all). thanks for your continued help w/ this, miike On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Tim Osborn wrote: At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?). Mike, yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's attached. I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14! :-)). But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than MWP. So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions. And as you've pointed out before, if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for that season/region, is that right?). So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B (2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive. Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [6]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 333. 2009-09-30 15:30:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn ,mann@psu.edu date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:30:14 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Michael Mann ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov Mike, Gavin, The short note may not say much. As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately. Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode. Science ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you've said all these things before. We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used. Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far too much into his off ill message. Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have been the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must have gone through. Cheers Phil At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc. mike On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote: of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and maybe quote from it directly. ============= Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 678 5627 Email: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: [1]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike and Gavin, Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong. Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate? Cheers Tim At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Tim, Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from either Tom or Keith. Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by later today. thanks in advance for any help you can offer, mike On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll be properly back in November. Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms). Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data). Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a response. Off to lecture for a couple of hours now... Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: <[2]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >[3]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: <[4] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >[5] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: <[6] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >[7] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann 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]mailto:mann@psu.edu >[9]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: <[10] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html >[11] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: <[12] http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html >[13] http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [14]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [15]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann 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 website: [18]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [19]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2056. 2009-09-30 16:53:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:53:55 -0400 from: jarmour@nas.edu subject: Final Decision made for PNAS MS#2009-09401 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12543440352625311" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.024 (F2.74; T1.27; A2.04; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:53:55 -0400 Message-Id: <62125434403547@ejpweb15> September 30, 2009 Title: "Improving Spatial Temperature Estimation of Global Climate Change - The Case of China" Tracking #: 2009-09401 Authors: Jin-Feng wang (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Mao-Gui Hu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) George Christakos (San Diego State University) Cheng-Sheng Jiang (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Yan-Sha Guo (Chinese Academy of Sciences) Ai-Hua Ma (Beijing Normal University) Dear Dr. Jones, Thank you for reviewing the manuscript by wang et al. [MS# 2009-09401]. We appreciate your generosity in contributing your time, expertise and judgment to maintaining the standards of PNAS in particular and science in general. On the basis of your opinion and that of the other reviewer, Michael Mann has decided to Reject the manuscript. Sincerely yours, Josiah Armour PNAS Editorial Office (p) 202.334.2679 (f) 202.334.2739 (e) jarmour@nas.edu ----------------------------- PDF for Review (or manuscript file when applicable): [1]Merged PDF Resubmission Cover Letter (when available): Reviewer #1's Review for 2009-09401: Suitable Quality?: No Sufficient General Interest?: No Conclusions Justified?: No Clearly Written?: No Procedures Described?: No Supplemental Material Warranted?: Not Applicable Willingness to Re-review?: No Comments (Required): This is a very short but disjointed paper that I found very hard to comprehend. It appears to propose another method to optimize temperature interpolation for area averaging, but I couldn't understand what is proposed or why it is unique. Also the paper sections appear to be out of order. This problem has been analyzed by many researchers over the years and from what I can gather this really doesn't provide an improved method, at least not by the evidence in the paper. Reviewer #2's Review for 2009-09401: Suitable Quality?: No Sufficient General Interest?: No Conclusions Justified?: No Clearly Written?: No Procedures Described?: No Supplemental Material Warranted?: No Willingness to Re-review?: Yes Comments (Required): Review of Wang et al General This paper looks on a very quick read as if it has already been submitted to another journal (e.g. Nature as there is a short Methods section at the end). I don't think it is appropriate for PNAS, as the authors (who come from the climate impacts field) seem unaware of much of the climatic literature. Even the papers that are referenced have not been that well read. I can fully understand why the paper was rejected earlier and it should be rejected again. If a paper like this makes the claims that it does, then it should have much more detail with the results fully justified. I'd recommend the authors write up a paper with about ten times the detail. A simple way of showing that their unintelligible method is better would be to give full details and show that it is working by leaving out some data. With 637 sites in the Chinese network it would be quite easy to do this. As the paper is poor, I'm only going to make a few points. 1. Much of the abstract is a set of unjustified statements. Efforts are being made to use more data, but it should also be realised that much of the additional data are correlated to data already available. Just because more stations are being used doesn't mean the results are any more accurate. To assess accuracy there has to an understanding of the number of spatial degrees of freedom - which is discussed in reference 25. More station data doesn't always mean greater accuracy. 2. It is unclear what the standard deviation of the annually averaged temperature predictions is, as well as having any idea what the standard error deviation is. These two terms need to be defined with formulae. In particular, I've no idea what the second is - that plotted in the right-hand plots in Figures 2 and 3. Also I cannot understand why the data are plotted only from 1996 as Chinese temperature data in this network extend back to the 1950s. 3. None of the explanations in refs 2-15 is the correct one for the global temperature series. Many are impacts, so can't be the cause. I'd suggest the authors read Ch 9 of the 2007 IPCC Report - WG1. 4. The authors use the term predictions a few times. None of the observed station temperature data are predictions. Meaningful predictions are something quite separate from the accuracy of the global temperature record. 5. The authors should look at Ch 3 of the 2007 IPCC Report (WG1) to see what the inhomogeneities are that affected land and marine temperature records. Ref 18 appears to look at the future. What is needed to be known is changes that have occurred with site moves and local and environmental changes. 6. In the analysis of temperature data, two aspects need to be realised - absolute temperatures and temperature anomalies. It has been shown in countless papers that these are best analyzed separately. I suspect you have got the result you have because you are including the absolute temperatures in your analysis. 7. There are numerous techniques for spatial interpolation and averaging. As I've stated earlier, to show that yours is better requires a full and complete analysis in a specialized journal. 8. Which Chinese dataset of 637 stations is this? Ref 21 gives some details about different Chinese networks. It is unclear what your one is based upon. Has it been homogenized for example? 9. Your proposed title for your technique 'Nonhomogeneity' is unfortunate. I'd suggest you find another name and also read Peterson et al (1998) for some of the methods that have been used. 10. Finally, as stated earlier, the method as given in the final section is unintelligible. Papers like this need to be 10 times larger with complete details. This is just too brief to be able to understand. It is not clear whether you are producing a gridded dataset across China, or just a new Chinese average? References not in the reviewed paper Peterson, T.C., T.R. Karl, P.F. Jamason, R. Knight and D.R. Easterling, The first difference method: Maximizing station density for the calculation of long-term global temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 25967-25974, 1988. 5059. 2009-09-30 17:08:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Wed Sep 30 17:08:02 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Michael Mann , Phil Jones At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?). Mike, figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's attached. I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty discussed on the final page of the supplementary information in the link between the proxy records and the instrumental temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies [ I'm still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14! :-) ]) 5116. 2009-10-01 10:27:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:27:13 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: Hack et al proposal to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, Relevant info and forms: 1. The FY 09 Lab Solicitation [1]http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/LAB09_06.html 2. Attachment 1: Conflict of interest form 3. Attachment 2: Evaluation Form 4. Pdf of the proposal If you have an electronic signature, sending the evaluation and conflict-of-interest form as attachments will work. If not, you need to mail or fax. If you plan to mail, you need to Fedex to the Germantown address below. I'll send you a reminder mid-November. Thanks. Anjuli Anjuli S. Bamzai Ph.D. Program Manager Climate Change Prediction Program Climate and Environmental Sciences Division SC-23.1 Germantown Building US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20585-1290 (301) 903 0294 (voice) (301) 903 8519 (fax) For Courier Services: K. Leslie Runion /Anjuli Bamzai US Department of Energy SC-23.1 19901 Germantown Rd MD 20874-1290 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\conflict.hack.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EVAL FORM.hack.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\HackFinalPackageRev93009.pdf" 782. 2009-10-01 13:00:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:00:47 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: paper indicating a link between tree growth and global cosmic to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk >X-Authentication-Warning: >ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f >Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:14:57 +0100 >From: John Grace >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) >To: Luyssaert Sebastiaan , > "Smith, Professor Pete" , > dschulze@bgc-jena.mpg.de, > "ciais@lsce.saclay.cea.fr" , > Philippe.ciais@cea.fr, annette.freibauer@vti.bund.de, > Janssens Ivan , > jean-francois.soussana@clermont.inra.fr, > martin.heimann@bgc-jena.mpg.de, Ingeborg.Levin@iup.uni-heidelberg.de, > han.dolman@geo.falw.vu.nl, jhg@ceh.ac.uk, > Achim Grelle , A.M.Blyth@ed.ac.uk, > a.rashki@ibimet.cnr.it, Alan M Blyth , > Alessandro Badalotti , > Alex Krusche , alistair.manning@metoffice.com, > Anders Lindroth , > Andr Granier , > "Andrew D. Friend" , > Andrew Curtis , > Andrew Manning , > Andy McLeod , > "Bardgett, Richard" , > "Berninger, Frank" > , Bev.law@oregonstate.edu, > "'Betts, Richard'" , > bmedlyn@bio.mq.edu.au, bob.harwood@blueyonder.co.uk, > Brian Huntley , > "Broadmeadow, Mark" , > Bryne Ngwenya > , c.ozanne@roehampton.ac.uk, > Cao Min , Caroline > Nichol , > Casey Ryan , > Ceulemans Reinhart > , Ch.Koerner@unibas.ch, > Chris Huntingford , > Chris Jeffree , > Chris Merchant , > Christian Wirth , > Colin Prentice , > "d.malcolm" , > Dalibor Janou , > Dave Bowling , > Dario Papale , > David Robinson , > David Whitehead , > david.fowler@ceh.ac.uk, Denis Loustau , > Dennis Baldocchi , > Derek Eamus , > Dirk Kroon , > Dolman Han , > Dr Richard Lucas , > "Dr. Bryne Ngwenya" , > Ebba Dellwik , eddy.moors@wur.nl, > Eero Nikinmaa , > Emanuel Gloor , > Eric Dufrne > , > euan nisbet , > Federico Magnani , > Fiona Carswell , > Franco Miglietta , > Frank Berninger , > Gabi Hegerl , > GANESHRAM R , > Geoffrey Boulton , Gert-Jan.Nabuurs@efi.int, > Giorgio Matteucci , > Graham Farquhar , > Heimann Martin , > Heiko Balzter , > Humberto Ribeiro da Rocha , > Hutjes Ronald , > "I.H.Woodhouse" , > J G Farmer , > Janssens Ivan , Jari.Liski@efi.fi, > Jean-Yves Pontailler , > Jerome Chave , > Joao Santos Pereira , > Joe Berry , > John Tenhunen > , John.Finnigan@csiro.au, > Jukka Pumpanen , > Keith Briffa , > Keith McNaughton , L.wingate@ed.ac.uk, > Levin Ingeborg , > Luyssaert Sebastiaan , > Lynton Incoll , > "m.swaine" , > Manuela Chaves , > Marco Borghetti , Margaretsjarvis@aol.com, > Maria Chamberlain , > Mark A Sutton , Mark Rayment , > Markus Reichstein , > Marko Scholze , > Martina Mund , > mary elliot , > Mat Disney , > Mat Williams , Matt Saunders , > MEIR P , > Metcalfe Sarah , > Michael Bird , > Michael Morecroft , > Michael Zimmermann , > "Michal V. Marek" , > Mike Dixon , > Mike Clearwater , > Mike Perks , mike.jones@tcd.ie, > "Nagy, Laszlo" , > Oliver Phillips , > P J Grubb , Pasi Kolari , > Paul Palmer , Paul Stoy , > Pedro Aphalo , perrti.hari@helsinki.fi, > Pete Smith , Peter Cox , > Philip Ineson , > Philippe Peylin , Ray.Leuning@csiro.au, > Riccardo Valentini , > Richard Essery , > Richard Harding , > Richard Tipper , > Rob Wilson , > Roy Thompson , > Ruth Doherty , > Sandra Patino , > Sandra Patio > , > Sandy Tudhope , > Schulze Ernst-Detlef , > "Sellers, Piers J. (JSC-CB)" , > Sha Liqing , SIEGERT Martin , > Steve Long , Tarja Lehto , > Thomas.Crowley@ed.ac.uk, Tim Hill , > tom.denmead@csiro.au, > Torben Christensen , > "Veenendaal, Elmar" , > Werner Eugster , > Yadvinder Malhi , > Yit Arn Teh , Jon Lloyd , > Jennifer Pannell , > Achim Grelle , > Otmar Urban >CC: DENGEL S >Subject: paper indicating a link between tree >growth and global cosmic radiation >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 139.222.131.184 >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, f023) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from >UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 31866708 - d7d55eb9668d >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=31866708&m=d7d55eb9668d&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=31866708&m=d7d55eb9668d&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=31866708&m=d7d55eb9668d&c=s > >Dear Colleagues > >We have found a correlation between tree rings and galactic cosmic radiation: > >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122597017/abstract > >This is an unexpected result, for which we don't >yet have a good explanation. I hope doesn't >result in scientific excommunication! > >I thought it would be good idea to circulate >this reference to relevant scientific friends- so here it is. > >We have one other data set for a different >species, but spanning many more years. We'll be investigating this case. > >Best wishes > >John Grace > >-- >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 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2956. 2009-10-01 14:14:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 1 14:14:40 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: The McIntyre Silliness to: BigCity Lib Dear BCL / M.J. Murphy, yes, unfortunately Keith Briffa is currently on sick leave. A brief response has just been put together, focussing first on the allegation of deliberate data selection/exclusion. Consideration of other aspects (e.g. what is the most defensible selection of data to use) will have to await further analysis of McIntyre's claims. The brief response is linked to (as of about 5 minutes ago) from the NEWS section of our main webpage: <[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/> Thanks for you email, Tim At 14:52 30/09/2009, you wrote: I am told that Mr. Briffa is sick and correspondence might be directed to you. I assume the short answer to this: [2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 is that legitimate proxies must match the modern record of warming as shown by the observational record? Anyway, if you would like to respond I write for The Mark News [3]http://www.themarknews.com/ and blog here: [4]http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/ usually about politics but also quite frequently about AGW issues. I can see that your response is fairly broadly circulated. Cheers, BCL M.J.Murphy ___________________________________________________________________________________ Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live Messenger. [5]Check it out ___________________________________________________________________________________ Create a cool, new character for your Windows Live Messenger. [6]Check it out ___________________________________________________________________________________ Internet Explorer 8 makes surfing easier. [7]Get it now! 3920. 2009-10-02 09:57:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 2 09:57:30 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: getting unadjusted temperatures to: "Don McNeil" Don, Not quite clear what you've done - maybe a map of your 86 zones would make it clearer. Here are a few thoughts - I'd also be happy to look through some of your plots if you want to send them. In the papers that we refer to on the page where you've got HadCRUT3 from you should be able to see that some of the 86 regions will be composed of much more observed data than others. Your region 83 for example isn't composed of much data as that part of the Antarctic has hardly any stations. Similarly some parts of the Southern Oceans don't have much data (45-65S for example). You might also see this in variance changes through time as some periods have more data than others. For 1961-2008 you may not see much of this. The important point is that when doing linear trends for a common period like 1961-2008 you should determine how many years of missing data in each regional average you will accept. It is your choice, but a thought is that missing data in the earliest and latest years has a greater influence than missing data in the middle. As for the absolute temperatures here is what I would do. You said you are using annual (calendar year) averages from HadCRUT3. This is fine, as you'll have had to deal with the missing data boxes to get correct results. So rather than add the absolute to HadCRUT3 the simplest thing for you is to calculate the averages for each of your 86 regions from the absolute temps. Your same program could be modified for this to give you 12 monthly and one annual absolute value for each region. Then all you need do is to add the absolute value for region N to the time series for region N. It should be as simple as this. Remember that a temperature value is the average (the absolute) plus the anomaly (from HadCRUT3). One final thought - when calculating your regions you are using reasonably sized latitude bands that encompass 20 degrees of latitude. When we do this we use a weighted average as boxes near the equator are larger than those nearer the poles. Weights are the cosine of the central latitude band - so for 20-25 north it would be the cos of 22.5. When averaging the boxes for each month you weight them by this cos and then divide by the sum of the weights. You're already having to calculate the number of boxes within each area to not use missing values. I doubt this step will alter things much, but it is technically correct to do it. One final point - if you look at the Reviews of Geophysics paper from 1999, you'll see that the anomalies over the ocean are from SST data, but when you add back the absolute over the ocean you are adding back a marine air temperature absolute. Cheers Phil At 03:17 02/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil: My Thai students (in our graduate program in Research Methodology) and I have now done a statistical analysis of the HadCRUT3 data from your website for full years from 1961 to 2008 inclusive. Since the seasonal effects vary with latitude we've used annual means, and to simplify the analysis we've also taken means over all grid-boxes within 86 larger zones of approximately equal areas in 8 latitude bands of widths 25, 20, 20, 25, 25, 20, 20 and 25 degrees, respectively from pole to pole, with these bands containing 4, 9, 12, 18, 18, 12, 9 and 4 regions, respectively. We've done a simple multivariate linear regression analysis, using the 48 (years) by 86 (regions) data matrix as the response variables and year (ranging from 1961 to 2008 inclusive) as the single independent variable, taking account of correlations between data in different regions (but not years). This analysis assumes that the overall trend in each region is linear, but allows the intercepts and slopes vary with region. The results show that the temperature anomaly increased in every region except 14 (25-45 degrees N, 180-150 degrees W) and 83 (65-90 degrees S, 180-135 degrees W) where there is no evidence of a change, and 78 (45-65 degrees S, 20 degrees W to 20 degrees E) where the temperature anomaly was negative. Since our model fits a different constant (intercept) term for each region as well as a slope, we would prefer to use absolute temperatures rather than temperature anomalies, because these constants will then show how the temperature varies over the Earth's surface, rather than how they vary with respect to the 1961-1990 baseline average. If we download the absolute temperatures from your website and simply add them to the HadCRUT3 data, will that give us absolute temperatures for every grid-box for the whole period? I would also appreciate your thoughts on what we have done. We'd like to publish our method and results in an appropriate journal, because this methodology is easily extended to include other possibly relevant determinants such as atmospheric CO2, geologic activity, solar activity, etc. Sincerely....Don >>> 09/14/09 4:33 PM >>> Don, In Geneva this week. I can send you some pdfs when I get back, or I might be able to find one on my laptop. Basically the analysis is done monthly, so we have averages for all sites for 1961-90 for each of the 12 months. Attached one paper - hopefully this says more. Email me again with papers you'd like - I think I have most as pdfs. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2203. 2009-10-02 10:33:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:33:37 +0100 from: "Keiller, Donald" subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology to: Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers. As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular; 1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed 2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies 3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate 4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner. Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science. There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required. Yours sincerely, Dr. Don Keiller. -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems 3922. 2009-10-02 11:42:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 2 11:42:32 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Here is the email he sent me on Aug 14. I seem to have deleted others he sent, or maybe they are in something Dave Palmer sent. Below he says Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Perhaps you could reply briefly saying you'll respond to comments on specific things in papers you've written - then send him a few. He is emailing you because of a blog site, not a peer-review paper. I reckon a blog is hearsay! Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f Subject: Freedom of Information Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA== Priority: Urgent From: "Keiller, Donald" To: , Cc: X-ARU-HELO: CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL X-ARU-sender-host: cambe02.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL) [193.63.55.173]:52733 X-ARU-Mailhub: yes X-ARU-Exchange: yes X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned X-Spam-Status: no Reply-to: Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk 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: 28247697 - c260ea255a6a (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=28247697&m=c260ea255a6a&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Mrs Palmer, I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" ([4]http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU. The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void. Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry. Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn. Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I currently work in an academic institution. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General right of access to information held by public authorities" In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference to such a request which- (a) is in writing, (b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and (c) describes the information requested. For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request- (a) is transmitted by electronic means, (b) is received in legible form, and (c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hereby request: 1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller. Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit [5]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - [6]www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 576. 2009-10-02 12:43:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:43:21 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: URGENT to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk >Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:43:50 +0200 >From: Anders Moberg >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080720) >To: Keith Briffa >Subject: Re: URGENT >X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.202 tagged_above=-99 required=7 tests=[AWL=0.110, > BAYES_00=-2.312] >X-Spam-Level: >X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from >UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32039918 - 2186b9c79b71 >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32039918&m=2186b9c79b71&c=s >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 > >Yes, of course! It is attached here. As you might perhaps imagine, >the little corrigendum in Nature 2006 which led me to produce this >data file was a consequence of requests from McIntyre to get the data. > >Actually, Phil has already got the data from me (but he might have >forgotten it). I don't have any raw data, just the data sent here. > >cheers, >Anders > > > >Keith Briffa skrev: >>Anders >>now I must ask a favour - could you send me the data for the long >>Russian chronology that was produced by Sidorova et al. >>At the very least I need the numbers representing their final >>chonology straight away - I need to include them in a reworking of >>a recent science paper (rather than trying to digitise them from a >>scan). I would also like the raw data but understand if you are not able >>to release these . >>thanks >>Keith >> >>14:56 01/10/2009, you wrote: >>>Dear Keith, >>> >>>Thanks for the support letter. It is perfect for our case! >>> >>>Anders >> >>-- >>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >-- > >Anders Moberg >Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research >Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology >Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden > >Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814, Fax: +46 (0)8 164818 >anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se >www.ink.su.se www.bbcc.su.se >http://people.su.se/~amobe > > > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\indigirka_moberg05.dat" 2740. 2009-10-02 13:03:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Manola Brunet date: Fri Oct 2 13:03:09 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: INTERVIEW FROM TORTOSA to: Silvia Berbs Silvia, I will give you some answers to those that I think I have some expertise on. Answers below each of the questions Best Regards Phil At 11:35 02/10/2009, Silvia Berbs wrote: Dear professor Jones. I'm a journalist from Tortosa, my name is Slvia Berbs, and I'm very interested in asking you some qestions to publish because of the inauguration of the Center in Climate Change next eight of october. I talked with Manola Brunet and she gave me your email. Do you think I can get your answers in 6 of october, please?? We close our next edition this day... Thanks for all and excuse me for my bad english. 1.- The forecasts of affectation of the climatic change for the Ebros Delta establish that in year 2100 the increase of the level of the sea will place among half a meter and a meter so the threat is near and evident. Do you think that this forecast is excessive? I don't know who has produced this forecast, but they should have taken into account the rise of the sea level (globally, so from increases in water temperature - thermal expansion, and also from melting sea ice) The IPCC sea level forecast for 2100 is within the 0.5 to 1.0m range. The big unknown is how much will melt from Greenland and the Antarctic and the speed at which it will occur. There is also an issue of whether the Ebro Delta region is sinking relative to the present sea level. So, the forecast doesn't sound excessive. 2.- Do you believe you can put into practice measures that avoid any kind of damage or there is someone that its unavoidable? With respect to sea level, even if we get everyone agreeing in Copenhagen to massive emissions reductions (say 80% reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050) it will not make much difference to the sea level rise. 3.- Why the average temperature increase of 06 degrees that has experiment the planet in the last century is focused especially in the Poles? It isn't. There has been a large increase in the tropics. The increase is about 0.75 deg C over the last 100 years. It is more in polar regions than the tropics, but not that much more. In terms of the change, the increase is more significant in the tropics because temperatures vary less from year to year than in the polar regions. 4.- Why the Mediterranean is one of the areas that its most vulnerable because of the level sea increase? I'm not sure it is more vulnerable than other regions. Any region with very small tidal ranges will be more vulnerable, as the projected increase is large compared to what normally happens. In the UK we have a large tidal range (up to 10m in some places), so 0.5 to 1.0m increase is less of a problem. What will impact the UK is storm surges along the east coast of the UK. The Med are is probably more affected in the eastern Med, particularly the Nile Delta. 5.- In a global way, do we still the chance to correct this tendency? How many time do we have to act in that way? For sea level it is probably too late. For large temperature increases, we still have a chance. 6.- Reduce the emissions means to change our standard of living and economical. Do you think that people is really aware of it? No they aren't. I'm coming to the meeting by Ryanair to Reus. The flight costs 70 return. This is a few pounds less than the return rail fare between Norwich and London. This is wrong. It isn't just about standard of living, it is getting our priorities right. 7.- One of your speciality is paleoclimatology. It is necessary to study the dinosaur age to be able to predict the near future or which is the most outstanding period for studying? No! The only recent period that is relevant for the future is the last 2000 years. For earlier periods back to the dinosaurs, the boundary conditions were different. The amount of day hours at different latitudes changes enough prior to 2000 years ago. Back with the dinosaurs the continents were in different positions. 8.- How can you study the climate in periods when there werent reliable instruments? We develop reconstructions from proxy records - trees, ice cores, corals and documentary records. These are for the last 2000 years. There are other proxies as well for longer periods. 9.- From which global increase of temperatures there is a real biological risk? Yes. As the ocean temperature increases, it is also becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2. Animals that make shells will no longer be able to make their shells if the pH becomes more negative. With higher temperatures there will be more coral bleaching events. 10.- Do you believe that some of the actual illnesses already have any relationship with temperature increase? Not sure what you mean. If you mean human illnesses, then this is quite difficult to prove. There are some studies suggesting that human-induced climate change has affected the areas influenced by malaria. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Disfruta antes que nadie del nuevo [1]Windows Live Messenger Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1734. 2009-10-02 14:16:54 ______________________________________________________ date: 02 Oct 2009 14:16:54 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: thanks and one question to: Phil Jones thanks for the background. Gavin PS. In case anyone back in the UK is in a litigious mood, this is clearly libellous: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml and the spectator has deep pockets. :-) On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 03:43, Phil Jones wrote: > Gavin, > Possibly the Russians should or could have put the data up from > their 2002 paper. At the time they probably just never thought of doing it. > Keith published the paper in Phil Trans in 2008 and Mc wrote to > the Royal Soc asking for the data. This was put up after some > delay. A person at Phil Trans did request that Keith do this towards > the end of last year. They didn't follow this up with additional > emails. By the time Keith got around to it he then had the kidney > issue - which might have been cancerous until the operation. > Tim's told me that Mc did ask for the data after the 2006 Science > paper. Rob Wilson was on a tree-ring paper with Gordon Jacoby and > Rosanne D'Arrigo and they asked Rob for the data. Rob said he > couldn't put it up as it was LDEO data. They criticised Gordon and > Rosanne but not Rob. Rob used to occasionally go on CA. > > A year or two back we got a few more modern sites for the Yamal > region from the Russians. Tom Melvin and Keith are using this in > their longer response, so they should put that up when they put this > longer response up. Some of these and another of Schweingruber's show > growth increases. It seems that Mc has chosen the one with the least > increase. By early next week they are hoping to put more up. > > We're trying to get the new site details from the Russians - more > than what we have in the location info. Those with little increase > appear to be more close canopy forests, but those with an increase > seem to be more open stand forests where the trees are further apart > and don't close off the canopy. It's all near the tree line and you > get spots of closed (possibly due to being less exposed or slightly > better soil) and open canopy. It all depends on where the relic would > came from - in northern Sweden and Finland it is the more open stands. > > You've made clear that the chronology is built first - then we > look at the climate response. A few dendro types have been caught > only putting in individual cores that agree with the instrumental but > this isn't the way we've ever worked. > > In most dendro work more cores are taken in the field than are > read. This is just good practice as you're in the field and you take > advantage of having got their. You might not read them all due to > time. Cores get rejected because of a number of breaks, compression > wood and a number of other factors. All done though before any > climate data enter the fray. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 19:33 01/10/2009, you wrote: > >so the commenters are out in force this morning....! Thanks for your > >input into the piece. > > > >One question, what is the back story behind the idea that Keith refused > >to put the raw data online? Surely this fell to the Russians to do? > > > >(As usual, it is access and transparency issues which motivate people to > >get all hot and bothered rather than methodological choices for > >standardisation.... ;) ). > > > >gavin > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 4748. 2009-10-02 14:40:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 2 14:40:37 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: # stations in HadCRU to: Gerard van der Schrier Gerard, I've been trying not very successfully this week to write a paper for a talk I agreed to give in Berlin in April next year on Climate Change in Europe. David and Dimitrios are doing loads of plots for me. My mistake was not reading the small print which said, we'd like a 20 page paper as well! As they are paying me a not insignificant amount in Euros (which is now much more in pounds) I'm trying to get the paper done for their deadline. Anyway the reason for telling you is that I've put in a good plug for ECA&D real-time extreme monitoring. The web site looks good and the few series I looked at worked well. I'm referring to a report which has you and Albert on, with Aryan as first author. I'm also going to add in a bit on PDSI across Europe. Do you have a European average time series of the areas with PDSI > 2 and 4 and -2 and -4? Is this in one of your papers? I've looked at all I can think of and can't see it. Hopefully PDSI is scPDSI and with Penman. Europe can be defined anyway you want. I told Dimitrios 30W to 60E and 30-70N for some maps he's doing. If you've something to hand for a smaller Europe then that would be fine. Cheers Phil PS Have you submitted the paper about Penman/Thornethwaite scPDSI or are you Dutch-skepticked out? PPS I presume some Dutch skeptics have their minds made up, whatever you say. At 14:23 02/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, That's o.k., I can imagine that you are getting fed-up with these comments and emails. We don't envy you. Cheers, Gerard Gerard, I probably got carried away earlier! Possibly this relates to the issues with Keith and Yamal currently doing the rounds. I've been getting lots of snide comments via email for the past couple of weeks. People have no idea of the literature and they get their info from skeptic web sites. It just appals me how people believe the rubbish on climate audit. People think they have discovered something new, but it's been known for years. We weren't the first to show some of these things. Koeppen realized about spatial degrees of freedom. Cheers Phil At 14:12 02/10/2009, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Dear Phil, Many thanks for the lecture. Usually, I try to get as far away as I can from skeptics....... Cheers, Gerard Gerard, Philip has answered your points for the skeptics and clearly stated that the overall count of stations is not that important. It is where they are. We could increase the number of sites in the US and Australia, but it is a matter of putting effort into where it does most good. We will get more in at some stage. Related to this - the papers talk about WMO 10-year books. When the one for 2001-2010 gets done we will add that in as soon as available, as it will make a difference. It won't be a real book, but a dataset from NCDC. It won't be available till about 2012. Several years ago I got all my old papers as pdfs from AMS and AGU. I've attached a couple of these. I know these skeptics don't read the literature, but you could point out that even in the first paper on this that we did we showed a plot (for land only) that is essentially the same as one of Philip's. This is just to point out that if they went back and looked at the literature they would see that we have thought of these things before. We just don't put them all in every paper. The second from 1994 shows that you can reproduce the hemispheric averages from land data with just 5% of the data. Figure 8 and the text around it are the key here. This got extended to a paper in 1997 where the concept of spatial degrees of freedom got introduced. I've been meaning for the last couple of years to do this again, but it's never got to the top of my pile as I know the answer! This is that I could take several sets of 100 different stations (each set well spaced across the world) and when averaged they would all look much the same. We all know this, but it seems that many of the skeptics don't. Another way of looking at this is - does any skeptic consider why MBH or any other hemispheric reconstruction works when there are only between 50 and 100 proxies? If they did they might then realize that 50-100 perfect proxies (i.e. thermometers) would do even better than 50-100 imperfect proxies. This is also shown in 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, 455-471. Here endeth the lesson Go forth my child and convert the skeptic world Phil At 10:03 02/10/2009, Brohan, Philip wrote: Hi Gerard. I enclose figures showing the fractional coverage of HadCRUT3 and the number of stations that go into the land component (CRUTEM3), together with data files so you can replot the figures if you want. Feel free to use these in correspondence with sceptics. The data files I made these from are on the web at [1]www.hadobs.org. HadCRUT3 is a blended land and sea dataset, and the basic records that go into the two components are different, the land component (CRUTEM3) is made from monthly average station records, and the sea component (HadSST2) is made from instantaneous ship and buoy observations. So it's not really meaningful to talk about the number of stations in HadCRUT3 - you have to look at the two components separately. I think what I was trying to say about the number of stations is that the change in the number of stations is not directly useful as an indication of the value of the resulting dataset. We are less worried than we might be about the large reduction in the number of stations in recent years, because many of the stations we lost were in North America, where coverage is still good even without them - we worry more about loss of stations where there are few to start with. I've copied this message to Phil Jones, who might be able to put this better. Regards, Philip -----Original Message----- From: Gerard van der Schrier [ [2]mailto:schrier@knmi.nl] Sent: 01 October 2009 07:16 To: Brohan, Philip Subject: # stations in HadCRU Dear Philip, It was very nice chatting with you during the ACRE workshop - sorry for getting back at you this late. During one of the coffee breaks, we discussed the number of stations that went in the HadCRU global temperature record. In that discussion, you mentioned that Phil Jones tries hard to keep the number of stations above a critical level, but can't afford to spend much time to keep the number of stations much higher than this critical level. This has had the affect that the number of stations used in HadCRU increases until the 1970s, and then decreases again. Would you have a graph of that curve? In your presentation, you also had a graph with the percentage of 5x5 degree gridboxes which had at least one "station" vs. time. Could we use both figures in our correspondence with the Dutch climate sceptics? Cheers, Gerard -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [3]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [4]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [6]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [7]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4087. 2009-10-04 18:25:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:25:15 +0600 from: Rashit subject: Re: Climate Audit to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom, files with living trees data attached, that I use to update Yamal chronology (these data have been used among many others in Esper et al. 2009: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122374111/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). First letters in ID means river (valley): TNL - Tanlova-yakha; HDT, M, X - Khadyta-yakha; POR - Porza-yakha; all others - Yadayakhodyyakha (you can see the map of this area in Holocene, 2002, V. 12, N 6 (ADVANCE-10k issue), fig 1, page 718). In Excel file - the same data but with age of rings (from central ring). As to photo - did you mean landscape photographs (old and recent)? Unfortunately no photos there are for Yamal. Stepan Shiyatov has published recently book with comparative photos in Polar Urals. Two examples from this book are attached. If you mean this kind of photographs I ask Stepan to find more impressive pictures. Best regards Rashit Hantemirov Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru 3 1025. 2009-10-05 10:43:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Mon Oct 5 10:43:22 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Climate Audit to: Rashit Rashit, Thank you for the data and pictures. They will help considerably. Keith is being criticised for how the trees used in the recent end of the Yamal chronology were selected from the larger quantities of trees available. For the two JAH tree used we have the rest of the chronology (25 cores in all). The 5 POR trees were selected from12 cores. For the 5 YAD trees used there would appear to be missing numbers. Do you have the other series which were left out? Attached are correlation reports for the JAH and POR sites. We need to be able to explain that the selection was based on a few trees from each site, tree were selected that clearly show the common high-frequency tree growth signal, and the longer series were selected to achieve a better overlap with the sub-fossil series and also to increase the preservation of low-frequency variance when using the corridor standardisation. We must show that the selection of trees was not made to support global warming. The YAD data shows an increase in tree growth and we need to show that all the trees from which we could have selected also show this increase. Thanks Tom At 13:25 04/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Tom, files with living trees data attached, that I use to update Yamal chronology (these data have been used among many others in Esper et al. 2009: [1]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122374111/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). First letters in ID means river (valley): TNL - Tanlova-yakha; HDT, M, X - Khadyta-yakha; POR - Porza-yakha; all others - Yadayakhodyyakha (you can see the map of this area in Holocene, 2002, V. 12, N 6 (ADVANCE-10k issue), fig 1, page 718). In Excel file - the same data but with age of rings (from central ring). As to photo - did you mean landscape photographs (old and recent)? Unfortunately no photos there are for Yamal. Stepan Shiyatov has published recently book with comparative photos in Polar Urals. Two examples from this book are attached. If you mean this kind of photographs I ask Stepan to find more impressive pictures. Best regards Rashit Hantemirov Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru 3 4833. 2009-10-05 13:16:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 5 13:16:07 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: help please to: Tom Wigley Tom, I don't think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get the pdf of the chapter from here [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html . This amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers - mainly Ben's. The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino? Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out ENSO and volcanoes might help in isolating this. [2]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/thompson.php where there is a link to the paper and also the data [3]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/ It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit. Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well. A thought might be to take Dave Thompson's ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small issue of base periods to sort out and assume there is no lag. Need to do this with NCDC surface as well - have to use Dave T's numbers here. This can't do the 20N-20S - just the globe. It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong. A couple of minor things in the paper - the amplification should work for a cooling as well - not just warming trends? In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO. This is in Fig 4 as well. By the way - meant to add this to the earlier email. NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2 won't equal the global average that NCDC calculate. I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the previous month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back data and they don't get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of the following month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus some in Africa. I'll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I'll ask him about their cut offs. I think they don't change a month later. This won't lose you much data though. It was Tom who told me about the data they can't use. Cheers Phil At 05:25 04/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Hi Phil, I'm writing a report for EPRI where I have to discuss the instrumental temperature record. What they are particularly concerned with is/are the criticisms that have been leveled at the surface record, especially differences from MSU data. I think CCSP 1.1 does a good job on this -- not sure about AR4 (which I need to re-check). But things have changed since CCSP 1.1 and AR4, and I think I can make a better case against UAH than either of these reports. Could you please look at the attached and give me your opinion and comments (tracked if that makes it easier)? In my view, the evidence that the UAH data are flawed is overwhelming -- but I want to make the case in a logical and balanced way. Have I succeeded? The audience level for this is IPCC report level, perhaps a bit lower. So I need to be relatively simple, but authoritative. The MSU issue also comes up later in my report where I discuss the IJOC Santer et al. paper -- which is only mentioned briefly in the attached extract. One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the warmest year in the GISS record -- do you trust GISS? I've not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest? Thanks for your help. By the way, this report was due to EPRI last week. I'm hoping to get it to them by Friday (9 Oct.) Best wishes, Tom Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3372. 2009-10-05 17:32:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:32:29 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: update to: Phil Jones , Ben Santer Here is an update of the temperature bit from my EPRI report. Tom. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wigley-TempBit-v2.doc" 1548. 2009-10-05 20:49:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 20:49:41 +0600 from: Rashit subject: Re[2]: Climate Audit to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom, attached are yad series. Unfortunately after rather long search I didn't find data for two trees: yad05 and yad11. According my records yad11 begin from 1950, i.e. very short series, yad05 was old (from about 1750-1800), however first approx. 100 rings were very narrow and didn't crossdated. Today I receive letter from some finnish journalist and understood why you ask for data. I have prepared short answer (see below). How do you and Keith think, is it appropriate to answer? ("urgent work" is true. I'm very busy now) ------------------------------ Dear Martti Backman, I was not informed about McIntyres new findings. Thank you for notification. But Keith Briffa asked me for some explanations because he is being criticized by somebody for his using of recent data and some anonymous asked me for raw data. Unfortunately, Im full out with urgent work during nearest three weeks and cant comment in details all the accusations (especially because writing in English is to hard for me, excuse). I had a look to McIntyres post and can superficially comment some sentence. >A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement >data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of >effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa >(2000). Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand. >The following graphic (H and S Figure 6) shows the core count by year >for the 241 series selected into the H and S chronology: Figure 2. >Series Counts in H and S Chronology 2002 (fig 6 from our paper) Replication is shown on the next figure in our paper (fig. 7). Fig. 6 total number of dated subfossil samples (without living trees) total number of dated samles was more than 241 at that time. Low number of used for reconstruction subfossil series is explained by standardization method. We selected the longest series. The same concerns to living trees. It is not much old living trees in this area (in contrast to Polar Urals), therefore we used only 17 (not 12). At that time we had close collaboration and I had sent to Keith Briffa these raw data. As to reliability of recent increase in tree growth we have updated our data using many additional subfossil and living trees and using RCS-method. I.e. we used not only long series, therefore many (120) living trees have been used. Finally, we have almost the Briffas result. These results not published yet. Im going to prepare paper at the end of this beginning next year. Some preliminary data you can find in some kind of report in Russian http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf fig 2 sample replication, fig 5 temperature reconstruction (smoothed by three filters 50-, 100- and 200-year) > Dear Dr. Rashit M. Hantemirov, > I am working as an investigative journalist for the Finnish Broadcasting > Company, Helsinki Finland. Just now I am preparing a TV-documentary about > climate chance. The very hot current topic of the climate theme today is > the Yamal chronology, collected and developed by you and your colleague, > Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov. > As you sure know, Mr. Steve McIntyre in Toronto has paid critical attention > to the way, how professor Keith Briffa has used your raw data when > constructing his 2 000 year climate history . > As far as I understand, the question is not whether Briffa made "cherry > picking", in other words purposeful selecting with the trees. The real > question is, why he in general decided to use the Yamal data where the > amount of living trees (12 pieces) was very low for his use, even too low ? > When assesing his behaviour it would be essental to know, how much did he > have Yamal-data collected by you in his possession, in addition to that > part which he used for his chronology. > Could you please be kind enough to tell me, which part of your data did > you give to Dr Briffa in the year 2000, or later ? > Could it be possible for you to deliver (e-mail) the whole Yamal raw data > to me ? > With Kind Regards,, > Martti Backman > Journalist > Finnish Broadcasting Company, TV1 > Helsinki 5 ??????? 2009 ?., 15:43:22: > Rashit, > Thank you for the data and pictures. They will help considerably. > Keith is being criticised for how the trees used > in the recent end of the Yamal chronology were > selected from the larger quantities of trees available. > For the two JAH tree used we have the rest of the chronology (25 cores in all). > The 5 POR trees were selected from12 cores. > For the 5 YAD trees used there would appear to be > missing numbers. Do you have the other series which were left out? > Attached are correlation reports for the JAH and > POR sites. We need to be able to explain that the > selection was based on a few trees from each > site, tree were selected that clearly show the > common high-frequency tree growth signal, and the > longer series were selected to achieve a better > overlap with the sub-fossil series and also to > increase the preservation of low-frequency > variance when using the corridor standardisation. > We must show that the selection of trees was not > made to support global warming. The YAD data > shows an increase in tree growth and we need to > show that all the trees from which we could have > selected also show this increase. > Thanks > Tom > At 13:25 04/10/2009, you wrote: >>Dear Tom, >> >>files with living trees data attached, that I use to update Yamal >>chronology >>(these data have been used among many others in Esper et al. 2009: >>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122374111/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). >> >>First letters in ID means river (valley): >>TNL - Tanlova-yakha; >>HDT, M, X - Khadyta-yakha; >>POR - Porza-yakha; >>all others - Yadayakhodyyakha >>(you can see the map of this area in Holocene, 2002, V. 12, N 6 >>(ADVANCE-10k issue), fig 1, page 718). >> >>In Excel file - the same data but with age of rings (from >>central ring). >> >>As to photo - did you mean landscape photographs (old and recent)? >>Unfortunately no photos there are for Yamal. >>Stepan Shiyatov has published recently book with comparative photos >>in Polar Urals. >>Two examples from this book are attached. >>If you mean this kind of photographs I ask Stepan to find more >>impressive pictures. >> >>Best regards >> >>Rashit Hantemirov >> >>Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology >>8 Marta St., 202 >>Ekaterinburg, 620144 >>Russia >>Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 >>Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 >>E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru >> >> >> 3 5159. 2009-10-06 10:30:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:30:37 +0100 from: C G Kilsby subject: RE: FW: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of to: "'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'" Hull Uni may be interested to know what their "Reader Emeritus" is up to... >-----Original Message----- >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 04 October 2009 10:55 >To: Roger Street >Cc: C G Kilsby >Subject: Re: FW: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of >scientific 'fraud' by CRU and Met Office > > > Roger, > We are aware of all this. You perhaps could reply by saying that >you'll >only consider it if the allegations are masde in the peer-review >literature. These are allegations that have been made on blog sites, >which have not been peer-reviewed. We are looking into the latest one >made on Keith Briffa. > As you're aware also, we only work on the WG with Newcastle. We use >UK >station data to fit the WG to. There is no paleo data involved, no data >other than British data. > I think this is a scurrilous attack and should be treated accordingly. > You should also contact Kathryn. > > Thanks for sending this on - I am going to go further with this! > > Cheers > Phil > >> We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are >aware >> of this person, including those copied on the message. >> >> If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple >> sources of supporting evidence and that we continue to place our >> confidence in the international scientific assessment process. This >> confidence has proven to be well placed. >> >> Roger >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen >> Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00 >> To: Stephanie Ferguson >> Cc: "Peiser, Benny" , Patrick David >Henderson >> , Christopher Monckton > >> Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations >of >> scientific 'fraud' by CRU and Met Office >> >> >> >> >> Dear Stephanie >> >> I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data >provided by >> CRU (as does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). >> Some of this, very fundamentally, would now seem to be open to >scientific >> challenge, and may even face future legal enquiries. It may be in the >> interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and become a little >more >> 'uncertain' about its policy advice. >> >> Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations >made on >> to the relevant people. >> >> It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they >would fit >> into my perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy >> policy debate. I know several of the people involved personally and >have >> no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour as scientists, though I >am >> also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy positions. >> >> I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross >> McKitrick. Ross McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business >> School and who is fully informed about the relevant issues. He >recently >> addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Sonja B-C >> >> Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen >> Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography >> Hull University >> Editor, Energy&Environment >> Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk) >> HULL HU6 7RX >> Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385 >> Fax: (0044) 1482 466340 >> >> >> TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy >> >> a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN >> >> " Jennifer Marohasy >> >> Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer >Marohasy >> < >> scientists-> >> http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate- >scientists- >> must-explain-or-resign/> >> >> MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various >> reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year >of >> the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over >the >> last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to >data >> used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea >that >> there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last >> hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph. >> >> Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for >since >> 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of >the >> United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small >> subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years >have >> been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is >> used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears >> completely. [1] >> >> Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics >behind >> the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in >> particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the >upswing >> in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of >> the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same >> scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently >they >> were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they >> published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a >> journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data >> archiving which it >> enforces. >> >> This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated >with the >> UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and >> suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for >> anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the >> methodology is laid bare. >> >> This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is >archived >> at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that >> spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while >> complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from >> scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre. >> >> It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research >Centre >> associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre >is >> in error or resign. >> >> [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September >2009 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 >> >> Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD >> >> >> >> b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009 >> > ODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>By >> Patrick J. Michaels >> >> >> Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface >temperature. >> Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific >> basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical >> footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session >> talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in >> Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because >the >> data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have >> disappeared. >> >> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from >some >> discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, >and >> they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no >sense. >> In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of >Energy, >> scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia >established >> the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's first >> comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the trade >as >> the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom >Wigley, >> and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was >this >> record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence >on >> global climate." >> Putting together such a record isn't at all easy. Weather stations >> weren't really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones >> were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow >into >> cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees >grow >> up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, >as >> documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr., many of >the >> stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots >or >> near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be >> recorded. >> So the weather data that go into the historical climate records >that are >> required to verify models of global warming aren't the original >records >> at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what was >done >> to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to >> the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century. >> >> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, >wondered >> where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early >> 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow >> scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or >so >> invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, >when >> your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" >> Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti- >scientific >> thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find >> something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so >> well that, indeed, nothing is wrong. >> >> Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster >told >> Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, >and >> Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of >> Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited >by >> the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial >> temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because >he >> wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at >> the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too. >> Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them >all, >> saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data >> between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog >readers >> then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a >handful >> turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in >> very vague language. >> It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers >demonstrating >> that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming >trend >> estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those >> records to independent data from satellites) may have been >overestimated >> by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies >> linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have >found >> otherwise). >> Enter the dog that ate global warming. >> >> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies >at the >> University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones >> responded: >> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into >existing >> series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations >> within a particular country or if all of an individual record should >be >> freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we >> were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the >> station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, >do >> not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality >> controlled and homogenized) data. >> The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the >records >> from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original >data >> could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I >had >> all of the world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape >in >> 1979. >> If we are to believe Jones's note to the younger Pielke, CRU >adjusted the >> original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. >The >> letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, >Peter >> Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: >> What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why? >> >> All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears >likely >> that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from >its >> docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency >is >> going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. >> Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a >> regulation can. If there are no data, there's no science. U.S. >taxpayers >> deserve to know the answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J. >> Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato >> Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science >They >> Don't Want You to Know.) " >> >> >> >> >> > ****************************************************************** >*********************** >> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go >to >> >> http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html >> > ****************************************************************** >*********************** >> >> >> > 2710. 2009-10-06 13:35:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 6 13:35:34 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: help please to: Tom Wigley , Ben Santer Tom, Agreed that NCDC must have some data gaps - but this isn't very clear from the web site. GISS is inferior - not just because it doesn't use back data. They also impose some urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don't think is very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year variability - when I last looked. I assume NCDC should add the back data in - although there isn't the need if infilling is going on OK. I've never looked to see if NCDC changes from year to year. I think you can say that GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3. In Ch 3 of AR4 I put the station number counts in. GISS and NCDC have more, but almost all of this is more data in the US. Their non-use of a base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use very short series that we can't (as they don't have base periods) but with short series it is impossible to assess for homogeneity. So some of their extra series may be very short ones as well. As you know the more important thing is where the stations are (and in time). The paper I sent you by Adrian Simmons shows great agreement with CRUTEM3 when subsampled according to CRU grid boxes. Also shows that ERA-INTERIM is very good. ERA-INTERIM's absolute is also within 0.2 deg C of the CRU 14 deg C value. It would give about 13.8 for 1961-90. Sometime I should write this up as more and more people seem to be using 15 deg C. Away from tomorrow till next Tuesday. Cheers Phil At 23:23 05/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Phil, Thanks again. Re ENSO/volcs, it was me who did this first ... Wigley, T.M.L., 2000: ENSO, volcanoes and record breaking temperatures. Geophysical Research Letters 27, 41014104. Then in a paper with Ben (with you as a co-author) ... Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059. I think my iterative method is better than Thompson's method. He has some weird volcano results. Removing the dynamic bit is not much use in my view. So I have all these series with volc and ENSO removed (or just ENSO removed, but accounting for volcano obfuscation). I also use running approx. 20-year regressions usually -- as you know, the ENSO-globalT link breaks down in the 1930s, so using a relationship that comes from a (e.g.) 100-year regression would impose a spurious anti-ENSO signal on the data in the 1930s. I think this is important -- ignored by Thompson. The reason for this breakdown is obscure, but I think it is because, for some reason, the N34/SOI link (i.e., really the SST/Walker circulation link) weakens in the 1930s. We need to look at this more fully in models. I also have these series for different regions of the globe. I need to revise and update these. It is tricky to get the regional volc signal because of SNR problems at the smaller spatial scale. I wrote all this up more than 10 years ago, but have not got around to finalizing it to submit for publication. (I have a number of other papers like this. Once I get done with an issue to a certain level I get sidetracked on other issues.) The amplification *does* work for warming and cooling. Theory says about +30% for TLT/surface. This works for overall variability, and for RSS trend. But oddly the ENSO and volc amplification seems to be greater than this. I've asked Ben for his thoughts on why. Re NCDC, it seems that there *must* be data gaps. This is the only way that global can differ from (N+S)/2. It also seems that the NCDC data must be ERSST3b. But their web site is not clear on this. perhaps Ben knows. Thanks for the GISS info. So this means that their series does not change from year to year, whereas HadCRU does (albiet by only small amounts). Does NCDC change each year? The GISS thing means that it must be inferior to HadCRU and NCDC. Should I say this in my report to EPRI? Tom. +++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Tom, I don't think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get the pdf of the chapter from here [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html . This amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers - mainly Ben's. The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino? Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out ENSO and volcanoes might help in isolating this. [2]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/thompson.php where there is a link to the paper and also the data [3]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/ It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit. Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well. A thought might be to take Dave Thompson's ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small issue of base periods to sort out and assume there is no lag. Need to do this with NCDC surface as well - have to use Dave T's numbers here. This can't do the 20N-20S - just the globe. It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong. A couple of minor things in the paper - the amplification should work for a cooling as well - not just warming trends? In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO. This is in Fig 4 as well. By the way - meant to add this to the earlier email. NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2 won't equal the global average that NCDC calculate. I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the previous month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back data and they don't get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of the following month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus some in Africa. I'll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I'll ask him about their cut offs. I think they don't change a month later. This won't lose you much data though. It was Tom who told me about the data they can't use. Cheers Phil At 05:25 04/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Hi Phil, I'm writing a report for EPRI where I have to discuss the instrumental temperature record. What they are particularly concerned with is/are the criticisms that have been leveled at the surface record, especially differences from MSU data. I think CCSP 1.1 does a good job on this -- not sure about AR4 (which I need to re-check). But things have changed since CCSP 1.1 and AR4, and I think I can make a better case against UAH than either of these reports. Could you please look at the attached and give me your opinion and comments (tracked if that makes it easier)? In my view, the evidence that the UAH data are flawed is overwhelming -- but I want to make the case in a logical and balanced way. Have I succeeded? The audience level for this is IPCC report level, perhaps a bit lower. So I need to be relatively simple, but authoritative. The MSU issue also comes up later in my report where I discuss the IJOC Santer et al. paper -- which is only mentioned briefly in the attached extract. One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the warmest year in the GISS record -- do you trust GISS? I've not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest? Thanks for your help. By the way, this report was due to EPRI last week. I'm hoping to get it to them by Friday (9 Oct.) Best wishes, Tom Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4981. 2009-10-06 16:07:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 6 16:07:05 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re[2]: Climate Audit to: Rashit Rashit, Keith is happy for you to reply to the journalist. Please could you send us a copy without telling journalist. Do you have a grid reference for the YAD trees? If you are reconstructing climate using the new data set there are a few problems (RCS bias) that could cause problems. If you wish for any suggestions or help from us please ask. Tom At 15:49 05/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Tom, attached are yad series. Unfortunately after rather long search I didn't find data for two trees: yad05 and yad11. According my records yad11 begin from 1950, i.e. very short series, yad05 was old (from about 1750-1800), however first approx. 100 rings were very narrow and didn't crossdated. Today I receive letter from some finnish journalist and understood why you ask for data. I have prepared short answer (see below). How do you and Keith think, is it appropriate to answer? ("urgent work" is true. I'm very busy now) ------------------------------ Dear Martti Backman, I was not informed about McIntyres new findings. Thank you for notification. But Keith Briffa asked me for some explanations because he is being criticized by somebody for his using of recent data and some anonymous asked me for raw data. Unfortunately, Im full out with urgent work during nearest three weeks and cant comment in details all the accusations (especially because writing in English is to hard for me, excuse). I had a look to McIntyres post and can superficially comment some sentence. >A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement >data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of >effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa >(2000). Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand. >The following graphic (H and S Figure 6) shows the core count by year >for the 241 series selected into the H and S chronology: Figure 2. >Series Counts in H and S Chronology 2002 (fig 6 from our paper) Replication is shown on the next figure in our paper (fig. 7). Fig. 6 total number of dated subfossil samples (without living trees) total number of dated samles was more than 241 at that time. Low number of used for reconstruction subfossil series is explained by standardization method. We selected the longest series. The same concerns to living trees. It is not much old living trees in this area (in contrast to Polar Urals), therefore we used only 17 (not 12). At that time we had close collaboration and I had sent to Keith Briffa these raw data. As to reliability of recent increase in tree growth we have updated our data using many additional subfossil and living trees and using RCS-method. I.e. we used not only long series, therefore many (120) living trees have been used. Finally, we have almost the Briffas result. These results not published yet. Im going to prepare paper at the end of this beginning next year. Some preliminary data you can find in some kind of report in Russian [1]http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KH antemirovRM.pdf fig 2 sample replication, fig 5 temperature reconstruction (smoothed by three filters 50-, 100- and 200-year) > Dear Dr. Rashit M. Hantemirov, > I am working as an investigative journalist for the Finnish Broadcasting > Company, Helsinki Finland. Just now I am preparing a TV-documentary about > climate chance. The very hot current topic of the climate theme today is > the Yamal chronology, collected and developed by you and your colleague, > Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov. > As you sure know, Mr. Steve McIntyre in Toronto has paid critical attention > to the way, how professor Keith Briffa has used your raw data when > constructing his 2 000 year climate history . > As far as I understand, the question is not whether Briffa made "cherry > picking", in other words purposeful selecting with the trees. The real > question is, why he in general decided to use the Yamal data where the > amount of living trees (12 pieces) was very low for his use, even too low ? > When assesing his behaviour it would be essental to know, how much did he > have Yamal-data collected by you in his possession, in addition to that > part which he used for his chronology. > Could you please be kind enough to tell me, which part of your data did > you give to Dr Briffa in the year 2000, or later ? > Could it be possible for you to deliver (e-mail) the whole Yamal raw data > to me ? > With Kind Regards,, > Martti Backman > Journalist > Finnish Broadcasting Company, TV1 > Helsinki 5 ??????? 2009 ?., 15:43:22: > Rashit, > Thank you for the data and pictures. They will help considerably. > Keith is being criticised for how the trees used > in the recent end of the Yamal chronology were > selected from the larger quantities of trees available. > For the two JAH tree used we have the rest of the chronology (25 cores in all). > The 5 POR trees were selected from12 cores. > For the 5 YAD trees used there would appear to be > missing numbers. Do you have the other series which were left out? > Attached are correlation reports for the JAH and > POR sites. We need to be able to explain that the > selection was based on a few trees from each > site, tree were selected that clearly show the > common high-frequency tree growth signal, and the > longer series were selected to achieve a better > overlap with the sub-fossil series and also to > increase the preservation of low-frequency > variance when using the corridor standardisation. > We must show that the selection of trees was not > made to support global warming. The YAD data > shows an increase in tree growth and we need to > show that all the trees from which we could have > selected also show this increase. > Thanks > Tom > At 13:25 04/10/2009, you wrote: >>Dear Tom, >> >>files with living trees data attached, that I use to update Yamal >>chronology >>(these data have been used among many others in Esper et al. 2009: >>[2]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122374111/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). >> >>First letters in ID means river (valley): >>TNL - Tanlova-yakha; >>HDT, M, X - Khadyta-yakha; >>POR - Porza-yakha; >>all others - Yadayakhodyyakha >>(you can see the map of this area in Holocene, 2002, V. 12, N 6 >>(ADVANCE-10k issue), fig 1, page 718). >> >>In Excel file - the same data but with age of rings (from >>central ring). >> >>As to photo - did you mean landscape photographs (old and recent)? >>Unfortunately no photos there are for Yamal. >>Stepan Shiyatov has published recently book with comparative photos >>in Polar Urals. >>Two examples from this book are attached. >>If you mean this kind of photographs I ask Stepan to find more >>impressive pictures. >> >>Best regards >> >>Rashit Hantemirov >> >>Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology >>8 Marta St., 202 >>Ekaterinburg, 620144 >>Russia >>Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 >>Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 >>E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru >> >> >> 3 2144. 2009-10-06 18:25:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:25:45 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: RE: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Finally looks like Sci Fin is doing something sensible! Will make it much easier for anyone involved in IPCC. Clare >From: "Morrell Elaine Mrs (SCI)" >To: "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" >Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 17:30:35 +0100 >Subject: RE: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess >Thread-Topic: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess >Thread-Index: AcpDdf3lqwAFC3qzSqO4rRWWT/TXjQC9+AagAAzxgIA= >Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2009 16:30:36.0897 >(UTC) FILETIME=[55A47D10:01CA46A2] > >Dear Clare > >Provided you can send me documentation stating >DECC's intention to pay, I can set up an account >code so that you can either have an advance or >book flights etc via the UEA and charge them to >that code. You will need to get Carrie or >Alastair to sign any orders as the school will >have to bear the charge if DECC do not pay. > >Regards >Elaine > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) > >Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:15 AM > >To: Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) > >Cc: Morrell Elaine Mrs (SCI) > >Subject: RE: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess > > > >Clare > > > >I am passing your query to SCI Finance for response. > > > >Regards > > > >Elly > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > >>Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 4:36 PM > >>To: Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) > >>Subject: Fwd: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess > >> > >>Dear Elly > >> > >>I've been appointed as a lead author on a special report > >being produced > >>by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. My travel expenses > >>should be eventually reclaimable by me from the Department of Energy > >>and Climate Change - but this is likely to be some considerable time > >>after the event. The meeting is in Panama and cost will be in > >the order > >>of 1500 - which is a lot for my credit card etc. Is there any > >>possibility of the money being advanced to me by UEA once DECC have > >>issued an official letter of support? > >> > >>Best wishes, Clare > >> > >> > >>>Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:27:28 +0100 > >>>To: "Hayes, Lucy (DECC - CESA)" > >>>From: Clare Goodess > >>>Subject: RE: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess > >>> > >>>Dear Lucy > >>> > >>>Please find attached an estimate of expenses for the Panama meeting. > >>>This is an upper estimate and the sooner I can book flights etc, > >>>hopefully the cheaper it will be. > >>> > >>>Best wishes, Clare > >>> > >>>At 17:54 01/10/2009, you wrote: > >>>>Dear Claire > >>>> > >>>> You will need to send us a breakdown with your cost estimates > >>>> (including food, if you > >>>> can) and we will then consider support. If this is passed, we will > >>>> send you an official letter of support to that amount. You > >>would then > >>>> need to send us your receipts after the event for us to > >>reimburse you. > >>>> > >>>>Ola - please can you check if we have Claire on our system > >>and forward > >>>>her the relevant forms if not? > >>>> > >>>>Many thanks, > >>>> > >>>>Lucy. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > >>>>Sent: 28 September 2009 10:29 > >>>>To: Hayes, Lucy (DECC - CESA) > >>>>Subject: Fwd: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess > >>>> > >>>>Dear Lucy > >>>> > >>>>I have been appointed as a lead author on Chapter > >>>>3 of the IPCC Special Report on 'Managing the Risks of > >>Extreme Events > >>>>and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation'. The > >>first meeting > >>>>is in Panama 9-12 November, with a briefing meeting for first time > >>>>IPCC participants like myself on 8 November. > >>>> > >>>>My colleague Phil Jones has suggested that I contact you concerning > >>>>financial support and reimbursement. > >>>> > >>>> From a first look, I estimate the flights will be in the order of > >>>> 700-800. > >>>> Accommodation will likely be 560. Plus meals and local travel. > >>>> > >>>>Best wishes, Clare > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT) > >>>> >Subject: SREX Letter of Appointment: Goodess > >>>> >From: "Chris Field and Vicente Barros" > >>>> >To: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk > >>>> >Cc: ddokken@ipcc-wg2.gov > >>>> >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13-1.3.9 > >>>> >X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 > >>>> >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f034) > >>>> >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] RM_fw_FromIsPhras2,SPF(none,0) > >>>> >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f034 (inherits from > >>>> >UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) > >>>> >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 30251252 - 770a59a839ad > >>>> >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: > >>>> >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: > >>>> >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: > >>>> >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on > >139.222.131.184 > >>>> > > >>>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>>> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to > >>>> >quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n8AJicnn031356 > >>>> > > >>>> >Dear Dr. Goodess - > >>>> > > >>>> >We are pleased to inform you that the nominations process for the > >>>> >IPCC Special Report on "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and > >>>> >Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation" has been > >>completed. > >>>> >Refer to the attached PDFs for your official appointment > >>letter and > >>>> >supporting information. > >>>> > > >>>> >Please send an e-mail to > >>no later > >>>> >than > >>>> >23 September 2009, confirming that you accept your > >identified role > >>>> >in the assessment. > >>>> > > >>>> >Thanks for your interest, and we look forward to our > >>2-year collaboration. > >>>> > > >>>> >Vicente Barros and Christopher Field IPCC Working Group II > >>Co-Chairs > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >c/o IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit 260 > >Panama Street > >>>> >Stanford, CA 94305 USA tel. +1 650 462 1047 fax > >+1 650 462 > >>>> >5968 www.ipcc-wg2.gov > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>>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 > >>> > >> > >>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 4535. 2009-10-07 08:42:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 7 08:42:57 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Re: [Env.all] Climate change scepticism gone madder. to: "Goulden Marisa Dr (ODG)" Another youtube click (a bit longer) from the "other side" of the debate Tim X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:39:30 +0100 To: "Sear Emily Miss (ENV)" , "env.all@uea.ac.uk" From: Andrew Manning Subject: Re: [Env.all] Climate change scepticism gone madder. X-BeenThere: env.all@uea.ac.uk X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Email list for all in ENV List-Unsubscribe: <[1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/options/env.all>, <[2]mailto:env.all-request@uea.ac.uk?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <[3]mailto:env.all@uea.ac.uk> List-Help: <[4]mailto:env.all-request@uea.ac.uk?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <[5]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all>, <[6]mailto:env.all-request@uea.ac.uk?subject=subscribe> Sender: env.all-bounces@uea.ac.uk Hi All, fortunately, there are some counters, such as this 4 min German short film: [7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWfb0VMCQHE&feature=related Andrew At 06/10/2009 12:59, Sear Emily Miss (ENV) wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D59077F742C63F4B87605F5383D0A345274DD11B4FUEAEXCHMBXUEA_" Apologies for clogging up your e-mail boxes but this is so outrageous it needs to be shared. Prepare to be shocked. [8]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/co2-is-green-tv-advert Emily Sear Trainee Technician Room 01.16 School of Environmental Science University of East Anglia e.sear@uea.ac.uk 01603 593397 _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk [9]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk [10]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 4326. 2009-10-07 20:06:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:06:26 +0100 from: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" subject: RE: FW: Reporter inquiry re: destroyed data set to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Hello Phil. Just to clarify: do we still have ALL the raw data or not? Not clear from what you say here... and by 'gridded products' you just mean the gridded datasets? Thanks, Annie ________________________________________ From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:32 PM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Press Office Subject: Re: FW: Reporter inquiry re: destroyed data set Annie, Make the point also that we have not destroyed or lost any data. We have all the raw data that we use in our gridded products. As you say we are making sure that we can release these station data by contacting the Met Services of the world. This is about a right wing institute in DC. I see that the CRU web site picked up a link to this. If you contact Mike Salmon he can send you the link. Cheers Phil > Dear Phil, > Just rang you at home in case I could catch you but I understand you are > en route for Stansted. Ruth says you will be picking up email. I will > explain that you are away - but think a statement would be useful - for > this and for any further queries we receive. Can you confirm that you are > happy with the following or please send any amends as soon as possible. > Best, Annie > > > > The Climatic Research Unit has made available full gridded datasets of > surface temperature data and averages since 1982 (on its website since the > late 1990s). These are compiled from raw data provided from stations > around the world, using a methodology explained in many published > scientific papers by CRU researchers. > > This data is given to us by meteorological services for this specific use, > but we are working with the Hadley Centre to secure permission from the > providers of the raw data to make more of it publicly available in future. > > Computer storage facilities have improved dramatically since the 1970s and > early 1980s. Storage space at that time was limited and expensive and we > were not in a position to keep all the raw data we received. > > > ------------------------------- > Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, > University of East Anglia, > Norwich, NR4 7TJ. > Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 > www.uea.ac.uk/comm > ............................................ > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Robin Bravender [mailto:rbravender@eenews.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:18 PM > To: Press Office > Subject: Reporter inquiry re: destroyed data set > > Hello, > > I am a reporter with Greenwire in Washington, D.C. I am working on a story > for Wednesday, Oct. 7 about a U.S. advocacy group's concerns that pending > federal regulations rely on raw data from CRU that has been destroyed. > > The Competitive Enterprise Institute said in the attached petition that > the destruction of CRU's raw data for its global surface temperature data > set undercuts the credibility of major international climate studies that > were based on that data. > > I wonder if there is someone that I could speak to on Wednesday morning > before 10:30 EST (15:30 BST) about the data set and the studies that were > based on it. I have attached the group's petition to the U.S. > Environmental Protection Agency. I will be out of the office tomorrow > morning, but will be able to check my e-mail all day, so please respond to > me by e-mail if possible. > > Thanks very much for your help. > > Best, > > Robin Bravender > Reporter > Greenwire * E&E Daily * E&ENews PM * ClimateWire * Land Letter > 122 C St., NW, Ste. 722 > Washington, D.C. 20001 > 202-446-0458 > 202-427-6277 (c) > www.eenews.net > > 3487. 2009-10-08 19:27:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:27:04 -0400 from: Mike MacCracken subject: FW: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding to: Phil Jones Hi Phil--In case you have not seen the latest charge of the Skeptics (I'm not sure how the Briffa dust-up is related), but indeed, as the US gets closer to Congressional action, the anti's are making as much commotion as they can. Are you all putting something out on these things? If not over there, someone over here will likely have to do. Best, Mike ------ Forwarded Message From: "Rick Piltz (Web-based)" <[1]piltz@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:47:50 -0400 To: Tom Wigley <[2]wigley@ucar.edu>, Tom Karl <[3]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Jim Hansen <[4]jeh1@columbia.edu> Cc: Bob Watson <[5]Robert.Watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk>, Ben Santer <[6]santer1@llnl.gov>, Mike MacCracken <[7]mmaccrac@comcast.net> Subject: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record Gentlemen-- I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment" finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels. The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below). They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical response to their allegations. Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community? Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has some collective coherence. I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will someone please explain this to me? Best regrads, Rick 1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009) Robin Bravender, E&E reporter A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to finalize its "endangerment finding" -- petitioned <[8]http://www.eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable. At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. According to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used when drafting its endangerment proposal. According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the endangerment finding into question. "EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said. "If EPA doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face." In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote. Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book, "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money from the utility industry ( Greenwire <[9]http://eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9> , Sept. 27, 2007). Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were not available to comment on the CEI petition. EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition. "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon," Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval." The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the endangerment proposal. Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document underlying the finding. EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's technical support document. "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully vets its data. Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by challenging the IPCC data. "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with the mainstream science community." Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the scientific merit of the research data. "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA of relying upon flawed data. "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available scientific information." Rick Piltz Director, Climate Science Watch 301-807-2472 www.climatesciencewatch.org <[10]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/> Climate Science Watch is a sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington, DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate science and related research effectively and with integrity in responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption. The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. --Albert Einstein ------ End of Forwarded Message Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CEI-endangerment-petition-re-UKdata1.pdf" 5348. 2009-10-09 09:18:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:18:18 +0100 (BST) from: "Agatha de Boer" subject: [Oceanography] seminar and lunch with Herbert Huppert. to: "Oceanography " , lgmac.all@uea.ac.uk Hi all, Our met-ocean speaker for today (1pm Zicer) is Herbert Huppert from Cambridge and his title is: "The grounding line problem: where ice meets the polar ocean". We will meet at 12 in ENV reception for lunch. All are welcome to join. If you are late, you should be able to find us in the Sainsbury centre. Regards, Agatha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Agatha M. De Boer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1603 59 3762 http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/e099 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________________________________ Oceanography mailing list Oceanography@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/oceanography 1690. 2009-10-09 18:29:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:29:33 +0600 from: Rashit subject: Re[3]: Climate Audit to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom, in addition to Stepan's information: site coordinates: pictures have been made from the point at about 6651'N 6533'E on Agust 3, 1962 and July 6, 2004. Outermost right part of 110 correspond to outermost left part of 111. One more picture is attached: 80: 6651'N 6536' on Agust 5, 1962 and July 5, 2004. Best regards Rashit Hantemirov Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru below is answer of finnish journalist to my message for information -------------------------- October 7 Dear Rashit M. Hantemirov Thank you for your fast and kind reply. To be clear, I would like to say, that nobody has accused you personally of anything. Mr. McIntyre has only raised the question, if Keith Briffa has used your material in an inappropriate way concerning the extent of the sample extracted from your original data. Concerning fig 5 in your preliminary report, could you please still provide me the not-smoothed, numerical version of the data ? Yours, Martti Backman -------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\80.jpg" 1192. 2009-10-11 18:03:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Ben Santer" date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:03:13 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Your comments on the latest CEI/Michaels gambit to: "Rick Piltz" Rick, What you've put together seems fine from a quick read. I'm in Lecce in the heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK by Wednesday. The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of time though. I may get around to it some time. As you've said, the documentation of what we've done is all in the literature. I think if it hadn't been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up something else! Cheers Phil > Phil and Ben-- > > Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you're saying. > > I'm going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate > Science Watch Web site. I'm sure others will weigh in on it in > various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record > quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant > scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as > part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on, > and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as > they do with everything. No way to prevent that. But I would like to > expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the > record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective. > > I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and > adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the > hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions > you might care to make, we could post your comments. This requires > no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to > provide context. Please take a look at this and RSVP: > > Ben's comment: > > As I see it, there are two key issues here. > > First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels > are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic > Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully, > intentionally, and suspiciously "destroyed" some of the raw surface > temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface > temperature datasets. > > Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface > temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible > human influence" conclusions. > > Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no > intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, > over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw > station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and > Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts > by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based > estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In > fact, a key point here is that other groups -- primarily at the NCDC > [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] and at GISS [NASA Goddard > Institute for Space Studies], but also in Russia -- WERE able to > replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. > The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely > independently. They made different choices in the complex process of > choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known > inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in > instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding > procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface > temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results. > > The second argument -- that "discernible human influence" findings > are like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational > dataset -- is also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) > considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale > near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data > alone - as is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which > shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes. > > As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR > and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science > Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in > the lower atmosphere: steps for understanding and reconciling > differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate > Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical fingerprint > studies have now been performed with a whole range of climate > variables -- and not with surface temperature only. Examples include > variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor, surface > specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level pressure > patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature, tropopause > height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic sea-ice > extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is that > natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes we > have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an > internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and > reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational > dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim. > > I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the > antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and > Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom > Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers > to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the > HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and > transparent manner -- examining sensitivities to different gridding > algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use > of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in > spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and > comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices. > They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community -- > and to the planet -- by making gridded surface temperature datasets > available for scientific research. They deserve medals -- not the > kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving from Pat > Michaels and the CEI. > > > Phil's comment: > > No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up on the CRU web page. > These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have > done. > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ > > Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as > in the GHCN archive [Global Historical Climatology Network, used by > the NOAA National Climate Data Center]. > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html > > If we have lost any data it is the following: > > 1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be > affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were > either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series > in the region. > > 2. The original data for sites that we adjusted the temperature data > [Phil: for known inhomogeneities, or what?] in the 1980s. We still > have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other > sites that didn't need adjusting. > > 3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and NMSs [National Meteorological > Services] have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, > then we replaced the data we had with the better series. > http://www.wmo.int/pages/members/index_en.html > > In the papers, I've always said that homogeneity adjustments are best > produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie Vincent > in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the 200+ sites > she sorted out. > > The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and GISS [NASA > Goddard Institute for Space Studies] data for the same domains. > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ > > Apart from a figure in the IPCC AR4 [Fourth Assessment Report, 2007] > showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research > Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot. > [Vose et al paper] > > All best, > Rick > > > Rick Piltz > Director, Climate Science Watch > 301-807-2472 > www.climatesciencewatch.org > > Climate Science Watch is a sponsored project of the Government > Accountability Project, Washington, DC, dedicated to holding public > officials accountable for using climate science and related research > effectively and with integrity in responding to the challenges posed > by global climate disruption. > > The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not > conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. > --Albert Einstein > 3939. 2009-10-12 12:07:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Mon Oct 12 12:07:03 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Keith Email to: Mike Mike, For Keith's Email : 1. Copied the full C:\Eudora directory to my portable. 2. Deleted the 12000 temporay .gif files from C:\Eudora\Embedded. 3. Copied 3.5 gig of attachments (1 year or older) from C:\Eudora\Attach to C:\OldAttach - this will need to be copied back to his PC 4. He is left with a 1.5 gig C:\Eudora directory on my portable which can be copied back to his PC and readily be moved from PC to portable etc. 5. When using my portable (via yellow cable (in office) or various WiFi networks) Keith logs in to VPN. Tom PS. I need to take my portable to a conference w/c 26th Oct. 3284. 2009-10-12 16:08:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:53 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] - to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, I'm back! I have to get a draft response to Prof. Jones to JCF for review - we have an issue with whether one would be able to work back from what is available currently to what was sent to GaTech - in our original response we stated that the request was 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the fact that "the requested data is a subset of data already available from other sources; namely the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the Climate Research Unit already makes requested information available on it's website in a gridded format". I believe that the request for the data falls on other grounds but if the requester can't 'go back' from what is available currently, it makes this particular argument very shaky. We also have the additional problem of the requester not having any idea of how to define what was sent to GaTech. Ergo - is there any way in which we can still maintain that the GaTech data is available to the requester? Given your comments below, we can legitimately state that we no longer hold the data set and are under no obligation to 'create' information that no longer exists. However, as a policy matter, are you comfortable with this statement going out and being circulated publicly? Regardless of the above, our argument under Reg 12(5)(a) (adverse effect on international relations) and Reg. 12(5)(f) (adverse effect on person providing information where no consent for disclosure) still technically stands in my view as the confidentiality of the agreement is somewhat irrelevant - it's the effect that matters.... We still have the hurdle of the 'public interest test' to pass but hopefully all this will be approved and published by the time any appeal gets considered by the ICO. As an addendum to our efforts to secure consent, I should note that DEFRA guidance states that "Suppliers of volunteered information should be encouraged to consent to release where appropriate. Such consent can be sought in advance, when the information is collected, but can be sought later in response to a particular request or in order to proactively disseminate the information. There may however be circumstances where to obtain information the public authority wish to provide reassurance that the information, once supplied, will not be made available to a third party on request. Public authorities can undertake to consult with the volunteers of sensitive information in the event of a request for this information being received. [emphasis mine] I think that JCF can make the argument that we are doing exactly what DEFRA are asking us to do..... The response that we discussed in our meeting on 1 October I believe is to be utilised for incoming requests that follow this one - this case (and the appeal of Mr. McIntyre) are setting the precedent that we will be citing in future requests.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:25 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: Re: FW: FOIA meeting documentation [FOI_09-117; EIR-09-14] Dave, I agree with a lot of what you've said in your attachment - your annotated commentary. There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions. We went into discussions with the Met Services assuming these would exist. The world was a very different place in 1990 than it is now. What I sent GaTech was station data - not the gridded. I don't have this file, but I could recreate what was sent. It won't be exactly the same, unless I strip off the last couple of years. I would have done it in mid Jan 2009 - some back data fro 2007 and 2008 has come in recently. I've been talking with the Met Office. If they do send a letter around, then the normal 'allowed' time to respond is 12 months. I knew it was long, but didn't realise it was this long. Also, you don't chase up on non responders. To avoid much admin at their end, they are considering only releasing the data for countries which say yes. If some yes/but, no or don't respond then we don't release it. As an aside I'm attaching a paper I'd forgotten. This gives a comparison of the CRU and GHCN datasets (Figure 2) for the period from 1900 (the red and blue lines). There are no significant differences between the datasets! If only people would read the literature and realize this. This just shows that the requests are all politically motivated. Cheers Phil At 12:14 23/09/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Phil, Please note the document 'Appeal internal assessment' - what we have decided to do is immediately proceed to a review by JCF on this one as I don't think an 'informal review' will yield any results. Our meeting was to do some preliminary work on what that response will be... In my discussion with JCF, two questions of fact arose that I'd like your opinion on... 1. Is it possible, knowing the parameters of what was sent to GaTech, to work back from the gridded data to what was sent? I'm sure you have told me this before in a meeting but with all the requests flying about, I simply can't remember 2. Do we have a copy of the dataset sent to GaTech still in existence? (I thought not but once again, couldn't remember - must take better notes at meetings!) I'll ensure that you all see a draft of the response when completed.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:25 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Subject: FOIA meeting documentation Jonathan, A couple of things for our meeting 1. FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03 - Copy of referral letter sent to Mr. McIntyre - went 'late' but works to our advantage as it gives us/you more time & puts a response due after our meeting with Phil, Michael & Annie. If Mr. McIntyre wanted to be picky, he could maintain that our referral should have happened 2 weeks ago. However, I think he realises the limitations of FOIA and is probably playing a 'longer game'.... 2. FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14 - Annotated response to Prof. Jones' assertions. I suspect we will get more of these so we should have our arguments at the ready! Cheers, Dave PS. Got a request for agreements with the Mef Office in Australia today - wonder if this is a new tack? ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2286. 2009-10-12 17:48:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:48:10 +0600 from: Rashit subject: Re: Climate Audit to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom, below are some corrections. > SITE NAME ALT NORTH EAST START END SPECIES > YAMALAD Yamal -999 6700 7000 -202 1996 LASI rather between 6700' and 6740' N and 69 and 71 E > KHAD Khadyta-River 90 6712 6950 1782 1990 LASI OK > POR 6732 7050 1580 1994 LASI OK > JAH Jahak 25 6725 7028 1577 1991 LASI please correct coordinates: 6723' N 7101'E in the valley of Yadayakhodyyakha river (downstream of YAD site) > YAD 6725 7048 1803 1996 LASI OK > Also if we publish can we publish the RAW data for the POR, JAH and > KAD trees on our web site? OK Best regards Rashit Hantemirov Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia Tel: +7(343) 260-64-94 Fax: +7(343) 260-65-00, 260-82-56 E-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru 549. 2009-10-13 19:45:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, Jim Hansen , Steve Schneider , Gavin Schmidt , Kevin Trenberth , Michael Mann , Stefan Rahmstorf , Phil Jones , Ben Santer date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:45:45 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: FYI--"Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat to: Rick Piltz Dear folks, You may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing? Michaels' PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical model showed that weather/climate variations could explain 95% of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships, which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about 50% of inter-annual yield variability. How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels' regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability, so that, in Michaels' regressions, weather/climate explains just 5 of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels' claim that weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely bogus. Apparently, none of Michaels' thesis examiners noticed this. We are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance. As an historical note, I discovered this many years ago when working with Dick Warrick and Tu Qipu on crop-climate modeling. We used a spatial regression method, which we developed for the wheat belt of southwestern Western Australia. We carried out similar analyses for winter wheat in the USA, but never published the results. Wigley, T.M.L. and Tu Qipu, 1983: Crop-climate modelling using spatial patterns of yield and climate: Part 1, Background and an example from Australia. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22, 18311841. There never was a "Part 2". Tom +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rick Piltz wrote: > Just posted on Climate Science Watch Website. > --RP > > http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/ > > > *Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on > temperature data record* > > /Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 > > /Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the > University of East Anglia in the UK and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore > National Laboratory comment in response to a petition to EPA by the > Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels, which misleadingly > seeks to obstruct EPAs process in making an endangerment finding on > greenhouse gases. This new CEI tactic is to call into question the > integrity of the global temperature data record and, by implication, the > integrity of leading climate scientists. > > /E&E News PM/ reported on October 7 (CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks > data behind EPA endangerment proposal): > > The Competitive Enterprise Institutea vocal foe of EPAs efforts to > finalize its endangerment findingpetitioned the agency this week > to reopen the public comment period on the proposal, arguing that > critical data used to formulate the plan have been destroyed and > that the available data are therefore unreliable. > At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the > University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface > temperature averages from weather stations around the world. > Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen > the public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate > the scientific merit of the research data. > > We talked with E&E News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at CEI > and contrarian scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8 > : > CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail EPA > endangerment finding > > The process initiated by the CEI petition will, we suppose, produce an > appropriate response for the record from EPA and relevant members of the > science community. And while that process drags on, CEI and Michaels no > doubt will use their petition as a basis for attempting to muddy the > waters of scientific discourse, while sliming leaders of the > international climate science community and questioning their motives. > > A few of those leaders have begun to comment on this attempt. We post > below comments Climate Science Watch has received from Ben Santer at > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Prof. Phil Jones, Director of > the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK: > > Comment by Benjamin D. Santer > , Program for > Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National > Laboratory: > > As I see it, there are two key issues here. > First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels > are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research > Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, > intentionally, and suspiciously destroyed some of the raw surface > temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface > temperature datasets. > Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface > temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC discernible > human influence conclusions. > Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no > intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, > over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw > station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI > and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid > efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley > Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface > temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other > groupsprimarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) > and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also > in RussiaWERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and > UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this > replication completely independently. They made different choices in > the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station > data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, > changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), > and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global > surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data > results. > > The second argumentthat discernible human influence findings are > like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational > datasetis also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) > considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale > near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data > aloneas is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which > shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes. > As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC > TAR and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science > Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in > the lower atmosphere: Steps for understanding and reconciling > differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate > Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical > fingerprint studies have now been performed with a whole range of > climate variablesand not with surface temperature only. Examples > include variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor, > surface specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level > pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature, > tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic > sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is > that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate > changes we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us > an internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and > reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational > dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim. > I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the > antithesis of the secretive, data destroying character the CEI and > Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom > Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers > to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the > HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open > and transparent mannerexamining sensitivities to different gridding > algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, > use of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with > changes in spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and > comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction > choices. They have done a tremendous service to the scientific > communityand to the planetby making gridded surface temperature > datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medalsnot > the kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving > from Pat Michaels and the CEI. > > (Santer has received several honors, awards and fellowships including > the Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist Fellowship > , > the E.O. Lawrence Award, and the Genius Award by the MacArthur > Foundation.) > > Comment by Prof. Phil Jones > , Director, Climatic > Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, > University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK: > > No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up > on the CRU web > page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might > not have done. > Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same > as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used > by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here > and > here ]. > The original raw data are not lost. I could reconstruct what we > had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the > mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort > would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it > some time. The documentation of what weve done is all in the > literature. > If we have lost any data it is the following: > 1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be > affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were > either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series > in the region. > 2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate > adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our > adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that > didnt need adjusting. > 3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological > Services (NMSs) > have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we > replaced the data we had with the better series. > In the papers, Ive always said that homogeneity adjustments are > best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie > Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the > 200+ sites she sorted out. > The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and NASA Goddard > Institute for Space Studies data > for the same domains. > Apart from a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) > showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research > Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. > > Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot. > > I think if it hadnt been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise > Institute would have dreamt up something else! > 2780. 2009-10-14 08:36:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate to: Michael Mann Mike Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it. Kevin Michael Mann wrote: Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it? m On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin Tom Wigley wrote: Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin's energy work. Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] <[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin g_current.ppt Kevin Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? mike On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote: Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@stanford.edu <[4]mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@stanford.edu <[6]mailto:shs@stanford.edu>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: BBC U-turn on climate Steve, You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views. [7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm [8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on -climate-change/ BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist? Narasimha ------------------------------- PhD Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) Stanford University Tel: 415-812-7560 -- Michael E. Mann 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 <[10]mailto:mann@psu.edu> University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html <[12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html> "Dire Predictions" book site: [13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [15]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: [16]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [17]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 -- Michael E. Mann 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: [18]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [22]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 449. 2009-10-14 10:40:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 14 10:40:52 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: CA Fig E to: Keith Briffa Keith, The lower fig shows 1970-1990 qsr generally higher. Upper fig shows qsr lower 1850-1970. The ALL file contains all the data. Must note that the figure using 34cores from KHAD (all others use 18 trees) needs careful explanation i.e. this is our equivalent to McIntyre's figure. Also when KHAD standardised on its own - pith offset data used - all other cases PO data not used. Tom At 09:57 14/10/2009, you wrote: are you really sure about this - the qsr seems lower than the new all 1970-90? At 18:53 13/10/2009, you wrote: Keith, This figure looks convincing - using all sites does not change conclusion Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 248. 2009-10-14 10:53:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate to: Kevin Trenberth thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be disagreement, mike On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Mike Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it. Kevin Michael Mann wrote: Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it? m On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin Tom Wigley wrote: Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin's energy work. Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] <[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin g_current.ppt Kevin Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? mike On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote: Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@stanford.edu <[4]mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@stanford.edu <[6]mailto:shs@stanford.edu>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: BBC U-turn on climate Steve, You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views. [7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm [8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on -climate-change/ BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist? Narasimha ------------------------------- PhD Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) Stanford University Tel: 415-812-7560 -- Michael E. Mann 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 <[10]mailto:mann@psu.edu> University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html <[12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html> "Dire Predictions" book site: [13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [15]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: [16]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [17]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 -- Michael E. Mann 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: [18]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [22]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 -- Michael E. Mann 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: [23]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [24]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [25]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 2881. 2009-10-14 13:51:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 14 13:51:06 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Finland Conference to: Keith Keith, By June we are unlikely to have the long Eurasian paper ready to discuss. Would it be better for you to present on Divergence e.g. CHALLENGES POSED BY DIVERGENCE 1. Problem with curve-fitting e.g. Hugershoff (Briffa 1998) and trend distortion - part solution Signal free. 2. Problem with mixing sloping and horizontal curve fitting in Arstan (e.g. D'Arrigo 2004) - part solution RCS. 3. End effect problems with RCS (Briffa - Hughes book) - e.g. sample bias 4. Problem with updating chronologies (TTHH and Grudd 2008, Tornetrask) 5. Potential problem with Crown dieback (e.g. responders / non responders) 6. Potential MXD in sapwood problem ???? 7. Potential competition problem - tree density changes RCS shape (Helama 2006) 8. Problem with non-linear response / skewed index distribution (Barber, Wilmking etc) 9. Remove all these and residual is real divergence - problem with identifying cause: CO2 change / Nitrogen fertilisation / Global dimming / UV light / Drought stress/ Conclusion - Lots of work to do to clarify situation. I would present on PBS//GUESS work. We need to prepare abstracts in next week or so. Tom 5141. 2009-10-14 15:11:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Turney, Christian" , "Hodges, Pete" date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:11:28 +0100 from: "Bass, Catherine" subject: NERC AUSTRAL: FW: NERC Consortium rationale and cv template to: "Cox, Peter" , Phil Jones , Pierre Friedlingstein , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Sandy Tudhope , Gabi Hegerl , simon Tett , Rob Wilson , Eric W Wolff , "Sime, Louise C" , Tom Melvin , "matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk" , Philip Brohan , Philip Brohan , Rob Allan Dear All, Several things in this email for you all: 1. I am forwarding herewith the overarching rationale sent last week by Chris and now sent again to the whole group for completeness, I have also added the email with the action notes from the first residential meeting , and the info re application for HPC ( HECToR) which may be required with the proposal. 2. We are hoping to have the first drafts of the WPs from the leads on Monday morning (19th Oct), with CVs and Resources identified. Chris and Peter have asked me to confirm the indicative resource windows for each of the newly framed WPs were discussed at the meeting last month: WP-1 Prioritization of globally significant areas and datasets (Hegerl) 500k WP-2: Extending historical climate records using observational and proxy data (P. Jones) 500k WP-3: Modelling the climate system and controls on proxies (Cox) 500k WP-4: Synthesis of data generation and modelling (Turney and Brohan) 750k WP-5: Using the past to constrain future prediction (Tett) 500k This leaves 250k in hand for project management/dissemination/conferences /meetings/travel etc - and small overbudgets if they occur. I have set up the joint JeS forms and will inform your identified research officers of the reference so agreed costs can be entered in due course. 3. Second residential meeting between Nov 1-4 will be important and I will send you all a Doodle request later today and would ask you please to indicate/confirm your availabilities for the dates and times offered. Apologies if this is repetitious for some, however the circle is now wider. There were considerably more people available on Monday 2nd than either of the other 2 days, so we are considering getting everyone together on Sunday evening for a prompt Monday am start. This will be at a new venue and we shall inform you of the location and accommodation arrangements as soon as possible. Best wishes, Catherine Dr CJ Bass Research & Knowledge Transfer Manager Research & Knowledge Transfer E-mail: c.j.bass@exeter.ac.uk Phone: 01392 262398 Fax: 01392 263686 Research & Knowledge Transfer at Exeter is ISO 9001: 2008 accredited This email and any attachment may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or subject to copyright, and which may be exempt from disclosure under applicable legislation. It is intended for the addressee only. If you received this message in error, please let me know and delete the email and any attachments immediately. The University will not accept responsibility for the accuracy/completeness of this e-mail and its attachments. The University cannot guarantee that this message and any attachments are virus free. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the University. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Chris Turney [mailto:turneychris@gmail.com] Sent: 09 October 2009 06:37 To: lsim@bas.ac.uk; Sandy Tudhope; Phil Jones; Simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Gabi Hegerl; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Tom Melvin; matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk Cc: Bass, Catherine; Cox, Peter; Turney, Christian Subject: NERC Consortium rationale and cv template Importance: High Hi guys, Please find attached the opening rationale on the NERC Consortium and the cv template for the proposal. Peter and I have crafted the first few pages. These are by no means the finished product but I hope will be enough to help the work package leaders pull together one page summaries of their individual components so we can weave into the main body of the text. As you'll see, we've settled on sub-headings for each WP as Aims, Science Opportunity, Research Objectives and Key Methods (drawing on the successful Consortium bid led by John Lowe). Please use track changes on the document when it is sent back. I've also attached my cv as a template. Can you please all use the same font setting (Arial, 11 pt), 2 cm margins and sub-headings, and get this to me when done. We've come up with a new working title with the acronym AUSTRAL for: Addressing Uncertainty in Southern ocean and Tropical Reconstructions of Atmospheric Linkages: Using the Past to Constrain Future Climate Change. We are slightly concerned it sounds to southern focussed for NERC but hopefully this sounds more sexy than the previous efforts. Any other suggestions most welcome but if push comes to shove we can have a go when we next get together. Separately can you also please: 1. agree within each work package the level of resource you need? 2. agree a list of overseas collaborators you would like to work with and a brief explanation of why. This needs to be tight so we have to make sure everyone will make a meaningful contribution. And a big welcome to Louise, Tom and Matthew who have agreed to join the application. The work package leaders heading up where you will be primarily involved should contact you soon. Please let me know if you haven't heard anything by mid next week. Catherine Bass who is helping Peter and I to pull this application together and will contact you next week to check on your availability in early November for a getaway where we'll thrash out any remaining issues. Look forward to meeting up soon. All the best, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS Director of [1]Carbonscape, Fixing carbon the way nature intended Author of [2]Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: [3]www.christurney.com [4]Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Home page: [5]http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: [6]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 **************************************************** Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NERC Consortium Rationale 8 Oct.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ATT00001.htm" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Turneycv.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ATT00002.htm" From: "Bass, Catherine" To: "Turney, Christian" , "Cox, Peter" , Pierre Friedlingstein , Sandy Tudhope , Gabi Hegerl , simon Tett , Rob Wilson , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:55:30 +0100 Subject: NERC TASOC: HPC provision Thread-Topic: NERC TASOC: HPC provision Thread-Index: AcpBDIGpUac1jCEfRWuxQfV8eDVbsQ== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6576707973706976736865688079697776807375787779757673766_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Dear All, I have just spoken with Andy Parsons at NERC re the application process for HPC time within the consortium bid. The application is included as an attachment to the JeS form, and all information is here [7]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/sites/facilities/hpc/applying.asp This is a NERC generated form for access to HeCTOR, 6 pages including a specific 2 pp of research description to be written for an expert audience, so presumably written by the relevant Co-I when the project HPC requirement has been defined. I suggest that we try to have this form drafted for the same deadline as the workpackages, October 19th. Catherine Dr CJ Bass Research & Knowledge Transfer Manager Research & Knowledge Transfer University of Exeter Innovation Centre Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon, UK, EX4 4RN E-mail: c.j.bass@exeter.ac.uk Phone: 01392 262398 Fax: 01392 263686 Times Higher University of the Year 2007/2008 Research & Knowledge Transfer at Exeter is ISO 9001: 2008 accredited This email and any attachment may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or subject to copyright, and which may be exempt from disclosure under applicable legislation. It is intended for the addressee only. If you received this message in error, please let me know and delete the email and any attachments immediately. The University will not accept responsibility for the accuracy/completeness of this e-mail and its attachments. The University cannot guarantee that this message and any attachments are virus free. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the University. From: "Bass, Catherine" To: Sandy Tudhope , Phil Jones , Pierre Friedlingstein , Philip Brohan , Eric W Wolff , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , Rob Wilson CC: Chris Turney , "Turney, Christian" , "Cox, Peter" , Gabi Hegerl , simon Tett , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , "Hodges, Pete" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:28:27 +0100 Subject: NERC TASOC development meeting Thread-Topic: NERC TASOC development meeting Thread-Index: Aco8MDRdzrO09UrER4Kqp2Ramm2YUw== X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_7378736573697768727978697271697973656577787678796567717_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Dear All, Many thanks to you all for making the opportunity to meet up in the last couple of days to develop the Consortium bid. On an administrative note, there is an Exeter claim form attached with which to recoup associated travel expenses not otherwise covered. Please return this to Pete Hodges with receipts where appropriate ( address as below ). I have attached the schematic which emerged yesterday to remind you of where we now are in terms of the WPs. Some of you volunteered to discuss additional engagement from new partners or nonattendees: Phil Brohan to invite Matt Collins ( Met Office) to work with Gabi Hegerl on the methodology/ phenomena WP Eric Wolff to invite Louise Sime to participate in the Modelling WP ( Isotopes) Sandy Tudhope to talk with Simon Tett re leading either the modelling or constraining predictions WPs. Rob Wilson ? to talk with Tim Melvin re Modelling WP (Trees) The timetable we agreed is as follows, with a few other dates included to keep us on track: 1. Chris and Peter will circulate the overarching rationale as a 2 -pager by Sept 30. 2. All leads to generate WP drafts ( 2pp) by 9 am Oct 19th in discussion with other Co-Is . Resources need to be identified ( I will touch base in the interim to accumulate the resources requests as they emerge and liaise with your research offices) 3. All 2 pp CVs to be supplied by Oct 19th 4. O/seas project partners to agree commitment by Oct I9th - suggest liaison between yourselves as to who contacts which partners. 5. Full draft of Case for Support will be collated and circulated to all partners Oct 26th in advance of the next meeting. 6. Draft costs collated from all ROs Oct 26th 5. Next mtg between Nov 2 & 4 as previously agreed . Majority of participants are available. We will arrange whatever vid con / telecon is necessary to ensure participation for those absolutely unable to attend in person. I hope most of this sounds familiar, Best wishes, Catherine Dr CJ Bass Research & Knowledge Transfer Manager Research & Knowledge Transfer University of Exeter Innovation Centre Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon, UK, EX4 4RN E-mail: c.j.bass@exeter.ac.uk Phone: 01392 262398 Fax: 01392 263686 Times Higher University of the Year 2007/2008 Research & Knowledge Transfer at Exeter is ISO 9001: 2008 accredited This email and any attachment may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or subject to copyright, and which may be exempt from disclosure under applicable legislation. It is intended for the addressee only. If you received this message in error, please let me know and delete the email and any attachments immediately. The University will not accept responsibility for the accuracy/completeness of this e-mail and its attachments. The University cannot guarantee that this message and any attachments are virus free. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the University. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Copy of Expenses-non-staff-singleentry_000.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\New model.ppt" 452. 2009-10-14 15:50:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:50:05 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: FYI--"Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat to: Phil Jones Phil, Obviously I had a copy of his thesis at some point -- it may still be in the CRU library. But to go back and get another copy and check it out again is too much effort. In the CV in the EPA document there are reports that cover this (probably) -- but the real issue is his thesis (which his CV does not mention). The NCDC info was useful, but still a bit opaque. Tom. +++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: > > Tom, > What you'd need to point this out is a pdf of his thesis! Or is > there a paper where the thesis is referred to? > I recall Pat wasn't very good at writing stuff up. There was one paper > about warming in Alaska that I recall either you or me reviewing. It > related to surface warming in Alaska and the borehole from > Lachenbruch/Marshall (?) from about 1986. > > With the pdf you wouldn't need to say that much, as it is as you say > stupid to leave the Trend in with the rest of the variance. > > Did the NCDC info help you sort out that data. Tom P told me that > they don't infill certain areas in early decades, so there is missing > data. Tom P isn't that keen on the method. He rightly thinks that it > discourages them from looking for early data or including any new stuff > they get - as they have infilled it, so it won't make a difference. It > won't make a difference, but that isn't the point. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> You may be interesting in this snippet of information about >> Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to >> open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, >> PhD needs re-assessing? >> >> Michaels' PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt >> with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate >> relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical >> model showed that weather/climate variations could explain 95% >> of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been >> correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it >> was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships, >> which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about >> 50% of inter-annual yield variability. >> >> How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels' >> regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common >> way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It >> turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability, >> so that, in Michaels' regressions, weather/climate explains just 5 >> of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels' claim that >> weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely >> bogus. >> >> Apparently, none of Michaels' thesis examiners noticed this. We >> are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation >> by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance. >> >> As an historical note, I discovered this many years ago when working >> with Dick Warrick and Tu Qipu on crop-climate modeling. We used a >> spatial regression method, which we developed for the wheat belt of >> southwestern Western Australia. We carried out similar analyses for >> winter wheat in the USA, but never published the results. >> >> Wigley, T.M.L. and Tu Qipu, 1983: Crop-climate modelling using spatial >> >> patterns of yield and climate: Part 1, Background and an example from >> >> Australia. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22, 18311841. >> >> There never was a "Part 2". >> >> Tom >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> Rick Piltz wrote: >>> Just posted on Climate Science Watch Website. >>> --RP >>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/ >>> >>> >>> *Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on >>> temperature data record* >>> /Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 >>> /Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the >>> University of East Anglia in the UK and Ben Santer at Lawrence >>> Livermore National Laboratory comment in response to a petition to >>> EPA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels, which >>> misleadingly seeks to obstruct EPAs process in making an >>> endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. This new CEI tactic is >>> to call into question the integrity of the global temperature data >>> record and, by implication, the integrity of leading climate scientists. >>> /E&E News PM/ reported on October 7 (CLIMATE: Free-market group >>> attacks data behind EPA endangerment proposal): >>> The Competitive Enterprise Institutea vocal foe of EPAs efforts to >>> finalize its endangerment findingpetitioned the agency this week >>> to reopen the public comment period on the proposal, arguing that >>> critical data used to formulate the plan have been destroyed and >>> that the available data are therefore unreliable. >>> At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the >>> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface >>> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. >>> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen >>> the public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate >>> the scientific merit of the research data. >>> We talked with E&E News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at >>> CEI and contrarian scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8 >>> : >>> CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail >>> EPA endangerment finding >>> The process initiated by the CEI petition will, we suppose, produce >>> an appropriate response for the record from EPA and relevant members >>> of the science community. And while that process drags on, CEI and >>> Michaels no doubt will use their petition as a basis for attempting >>> to muddy the waters of scientific discourse, while sliming leaders of >>> the international climate science community and questioning their >>> motives. >>> A few of those leaders have begun to comment on this attempt. We post >>> below comments Climate Science Watch has received from Ben Santer at >>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Prof. Phil Jones, Director >>> of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the >>> UK: >>> Comment by Benjamin D. Santer >>> , Program for >>> Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore >>> National Laboratory: >>> As I see it, there are two key issues here. >>> First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels >>> are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research >>> Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, >>> intentionally, and suspiciously destroyed some of the raw surface >>> temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface >>> temperature datasets. >>> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface >>> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC discernible >>> human influence conclusions. >>> Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no >>> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, >>> over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw >>> station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI >>> and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid >>> efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley >>> Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface >>> temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other >>> groupsprimarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) >>> and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also >>> in RussiaWERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and >>> UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this >>> replication completely independently. They made different choices in >>> the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station >>> data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, >>> changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), >>> and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global >>> surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data >>> results. >>> The second argumentthat discernible human influence findings are >>> like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational >>> datasetis also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) >>> considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale >>> near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data >>> aloneas is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which >>> shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes. >>> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC >>> TAR and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science >>> Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in >>> the lower atmosphere: Steps for understanding and reconciling >>> differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate >>> Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical >>> fingerprint studies have now been performed with a whole range of >>> climate variablesand not with surface temperature only. Examples >>> include variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor, >>> surface specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level >>> pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature, >>> tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic >>> sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is >>> that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate >>> changes we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us >>> an internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and >>> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational >>> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim. >>> I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the >>> antithesis of the secretive, data destroying character the CEI and >>> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom >>> Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers >>> to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the >>> HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open >>> and transparent mannerexamining sensitivities to different gridding >>> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, >>> use of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with >>> changes in spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and >>> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction >>> choices. They have done a tremendous service to the scientific >>> communityand to the planetby making gridded surface temperature >>> datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medalsnot >>> the kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving >>> from Pat Michaels and the CEI. >>> (Santer has received several honors, awards and fellowships including >>> the Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist Fellowship >>> , >>> the E.O. Lawrence Award, and the Genius Award by the MacArthur >>> Foundation.) >>> Comment by Prof. Phil Jones >>> , Director, Climatic >>> Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, >>> University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK: >>> No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up >>> on the CRU web >>> page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might >>> not have done. >>> Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same >>> as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used >>> by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here >>> and >>> here >>> ]. >>> The original raw data are not lost. I could reconstruct what we >>> had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the >>> mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort >>> would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it >>> some time. The documentation of what weve done is all in the >>> literature. >>> If we have lost any data it is the following: >>> 1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be >>> affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were >>> either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series >>> in the region. >>> 2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate >>> adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our >>> adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that >>> didnt need adjusting. >>> 3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological >>> Services (NMSs) >>> have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we >>> replaced the data we had with the better series. >>> In the papers, Ive always said that homogeneity adjustments are >>> best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie >>> Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the >>> 200+ sites she sorted out. >>> The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and NASA Goddard >>> Institute for Space Studies data >>> for the same domains. >>> Apart from a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) >>> showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research >>> Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. >>> >>> >>> Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot. >>> I think if it hadnt been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise >>> Institute would have dreamt up something else! >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 2884. 2009-10-14 15:57:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:57:10 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate to: Michael Mann Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++ Michael Mann wrote: > thanks Tom, > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put together the > other day (its an update from a similar figure he prepared for an > earlier RealClimate post. see: > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). > It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. > We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see > the Sep. HadCRU numbers first, > > mike > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent >> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at >> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend >> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove >> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. >> >> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second >> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. >> >> These sums complement Kevin's energy work. >> >> Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of >> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not >> agree with this. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>> Hi all >>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We >>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past >>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. >>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it >>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was >>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. >>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was >>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing >>> weather). >>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: >>> tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental >>> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] >>> >>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) >>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the >>> moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published >>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even >>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is >>> inadequate. >>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC >>> are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with >>> ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real >>> PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the >>> switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for >>> first time since Sept 2007. see >>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt >>> Kevin >>> Michael Mann wrote: >>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. >>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat >>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was >>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office. >>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it >>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I >>>> might ask Richard Black what's up here? >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and >>>>> signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" >>>>> from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the >>>>> sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few >>>>> tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will >>>>> likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard >>>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money >>>>> on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of >>>>> global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the >>>>> warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea >>>>> ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks >>>>> probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests >>>>> below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stephen H. Schneider >>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental >>>>> Studies, >>>>> Professor, Department of Biology and >>>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment >>>>> Mailing address: >>>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 >>>>> 473 Via Ortega >>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978 >>>>> F: 650 725 4387 >>>>> Websites: climatechange.net >>>>> patientfromhell.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao" >>>> > >>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific >>>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate >>>>> >>>>> Steve, >>>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on >>>>> climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since >>>>> 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next >>>>> 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are >>>>> other skeptics views. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm >>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Narasimha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> PhD Candidate, >>>>> Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) >>>>> Stanford University >>>>> Tel: 415-812-7560 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael E. Mann >>>> 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html >>>> >>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> **************** >>> 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 >> >> > > -- > Michael E. Mann > 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.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5060. 2009-10-14 18:06:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:06:45 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate to: Tom Wigley Hi Tom, thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3 ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC notwithstanding), perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after all), mike On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++ Michael Mann wrote: thanks Tom, I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see: [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulati on/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first, mike On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote: Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin's energy work. Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] <[2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [3]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin g_current.ppt Kevin Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? mike On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote: Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Narasimha D. Rao" > To: "Stephen H Schneider" > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: BBC U-turn on climate Steve, You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views. [6]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm [7]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on -climate-change/ BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist? Narasimha ------------------------------- PhD Candidate, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) Stanford University Tel: 415-812-7560 -- Michael E. Mann 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 <[8]mailto:mann@psu.edu> University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html <[9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html> "Dire Predictions" book site: [10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu <[11]mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu> Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html <[12]http://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 -- Michael E. Mann 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 <[13]mailto:mann@psu.edu> University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html <[14]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm> "Dire Predictions" book site: [15]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [16]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [17]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [18]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 2509. 2009-10-14 18:21:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Jim Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:07 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate to: Michael Mann Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison. The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly. Gavin On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote: > Hi Tom, > > thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3 > ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices > regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud > radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling > community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out > (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing > compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across > the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if > showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine > what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC > notwithstanding), > > perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after > all), > > mike > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote: > > Mike, > > > > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical > > runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the > > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low > > climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too > > harsh) > > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model > > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use > > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least > > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and > > forcing assumptions/uncertainties. > > > > Tom. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Michael Mann wrote: > > > thanks Tom, > > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put > > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he > > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see: > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first, > > > mike > > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the > > > > recent > > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to > > > > look at > > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic > > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second > > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the > > > > observed data. > > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The > > > > second > > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. > > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work. > > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack > > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I > > > > do not > > > > agree with this. > > > > Tom. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote: > > > > > Hi all > > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global > > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have > > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on > > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days > > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the > > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F > > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low. > > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game > > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below > > > > > freezing weather). > > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change > > > > > planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in > > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, > > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] > > > > > (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) > > > > > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at > > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data > > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there > > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. > > > > > Our observing system is inadequate. > > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People > > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly > > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the > > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The > > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO > > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept > > > > > 2007. see > > > > > http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt > > > > > Kevin > > > > > Michael Mann wrote: > > > > > > extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on > > > > > > BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard > > > > > > Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I > > > > > > can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met > > > > > > Office. > > > > > > We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile > > > > > > it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say > > > > > > about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? > > > > > > mike > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural > > > > > > > variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to > > > > > > > this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an > > > > > > > El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their > > > > > > > temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt > > > > > > > per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be > > > > > > > another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard > > > > > > > someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot > > > > > > > of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the > > > > > > > past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis > > > > > > > still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 > > > > > > > year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in > > > > > > > big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do > > > > > > > need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. > > > > > > > Such "fun", Cheers, Steve > > > > > > > Stephen H. Schneider > > > > > > > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary > > > > > > > Environmental Studies, > > > > > > > Professor, Department of Biology and > > > > > > > Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment > > > > > > > Mailing address: > > > > > > > Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 > > > > > > > 473 Via Ortega > > > > > > > Ph: 650 725 9978 > > > > > > > F: 650 725 4387 > > > > > > > Websites: climatechange.net > > > > > > > patientfromhell.org > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Narasimha D. Rao" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Stephen H Schneider" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 > > > > > > > US/Canada Pacific > > > > > > > Subject: BBC U-turn on climate > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > > > You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC 3276. 2009-10-15 14:41:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 15 14:41:39 2009 from: Tim Osborn subject: guidance for weather extremes to: b.rastgi@uea, p.sanderson@uea, j.lockhart@uea Hi Bharat, Paul and James, as requested, here's a little more guidance about the topic of "Extreme weather events have become more frequent as a result of greenhouse gas induced climate change", specifically about evidence *against* this statement. First, don't get too hung up about trying to find articles that explicitly conclude that there are no changes in extreme weather events driven by GHG-induced climate change. The statement you are debating is very firm; it says "have" rather than "may have". So, to argue against the statement you don't have to prove that weather events have not changed in frequency, you can simply argue that the proof that they have changed in frequency due to GHGs is inconclusive. This may be because observed changes in frequency are too small to be statistically significant, or that causes other than GHGs have not been ruled out. For the latter, some European extremes changes may be linked to changes in the NAO (which is not strongly linked to GHGs) and thus that natural atmospheric fluctuation may explain many of the changes instead of a trend due to GHGs. See: Scaife et al., 2008: Scaife A.A., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L., Moberg, A. and Knight, J.R., 2008: European climate extremes and the North Atlantic Oscillation. J Clim, 21(1), 72-83. doi: 10.1175/2007JCLI1631.1 A couple of studies that showed some extremes are not changing in frequency or show unexpected mixes of increases and decreases and hence no clear/simple link to GHG-induced climate change: AU: G. M. Griffiths AU: M. J. Salinger AU: I. Leleu TI: Trends in extreme daily rainfall across the South Pacific and relationship to the South Pacific Convergence Zone SO: International Journal of Climatology VL: 23 NO: 8 PG: 847-869 YR: 2003 Robson, 2002; Alice J. Robson, Evidence for trends in UK flooding, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A July 15, 2002 360:1327-1343; doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1003 Author(s) Fowler, Hayley Jane Kilsby, Christopher Gerard Journal title International Journal of Climatology Year 2003 Volume 23 Issue 11 Pages 1313-1334 Hope that helps, Tim 4622. 2009-10-16 10:12:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:12:57 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Ozzy TR data] to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, indeed - an e-mail from the RS has just come into my Inbox. I have to think about this carefully as, in general, I am very uncomfortable with discussing anything with the media. I have purposely tried not to comment on the Yamal issue despite Steve Mac's attempts to draw me in. I will probably make a very generic response to the RS and say that a response from Keith will be forth coming next week. Thanks for giving me the heads up. I am busy developing a large network of pines from Scotland at the moment and this species is incredibly sensitive to site differences, management influences etc. I am not surprised that there could be some 'odd' sites in the Russian data. hope you have a good weekend Rob Phil Jones wrote: A Rob, Good to have this support letter from Rosanne. I'll be working on the draft text over the weekend. My wife has some plans for me though, so I hope I can find some quality time. Was in London yesterday for the RS/RMetS meeting in UKCP09. Someone from the RS has just called - they've been contacted by the Wall St Journal. They tried to find me last night but I left the drinks reception at about 8pm, and they rang after this time! Anyway the press person at the RS is going to contact you - by email hopefully as well as phone. It may be that the WSJ have run with their story anyway! The RS wanted someone good to talk on the issue. I haven't said what the issue is - Yamal trees! Keith and Tom have almost finished their piece - should be up on Monday. I've read through it once and it seems OK. Goes into lots of detail. Upshot is that they now have all the modern trees from the 3 sites where Rashit Hantemirov took modern cores. They are sites YAD, POR and JAH. For some reason the Russians only used a few modern series (12 or 17). Keith and Tom have added all in now and the Schweingruber site. Result with all in looks like the 2008 paper. They will have plots of all sites (4) separately and together. The Schweingruber site is the odd one - and it's also further from where the majority of the sub fossil stuff comes from. The total number of trees going in when all are put through RCS is over 100. As you're fully aware there are lots of local non-climatic factors that can influence trees. Even though all the sites are all with a few hundred km of each other, you can't just cut some out and add others in. You could on these scales with temperature sites, but trees are different. Cheers Phil t 09:21 16/10/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil, Rosanne sent this on Monday and have been meaning to forward it to you. Have been completely bogged down this week. However, I am free again if you need any more text (or proof reading) before Monday Rob -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Ozzy TR data Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:17:22 -0400 From: Rosanne D'Arrigo [1] To: Rob Wilson [2] References: [3]<1C099EAC-2734-466D-9715-22656B2CB5CA@ldeo.columbia.edu> [4]<4AC10D51.6000205@st-andrews.ac.uk> [5] [6]<4AC24AF0.7020701@st-andrews.ac.uk> [7] [8]<4AC25A60.3090505@st-andrews.ac.uk> [9]<29F449F3-C621-46BD-AEA2-10C7E7A5CD46@ldeo.columbia.edu> [10]<4AC30478.1070405@st-andrews.ac.uk> [11] [12] [13] [14]<4AC462AE.3050507@st-andrews.ac.uk> [15]<1FBE3B32-D9C3-4BDE-BEB9-C0B184CC97FF@ldeo.columbia.edu> [16]<4AD33A95.4060007@st-andrews.ac.uk> [17]<1ADC021F-0B45-425A-8895-C1CDCF8D27E5@ldeo.columbia.edu> [18]<4AD36BB9.2010406@st-andrews.ac.uk> Rob - hows this - feel free to -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [19] 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Content-Type: application/applefile; name="joneslett.doc" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="joneslett.doc" change as needed.. cheers R On Oct 12, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Rosanne, here is one from Ricardo. It might help to give you ideas Rob Rosanne D'Arrigo wrote: Rob - would be great if you could send me an outline/template of what we need to say? cheers R On Oct 12, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Rosanne and Ed, sorry for slow reply - got swamped with a 1st year field trip over the weekend I think I am starting to lose the energy to pursue any PhD related activities as part of the Consortium Grant. Unless you think that there might be some serious interest to pursue this, the consortium will probably focus on compiling TR and other proxy records that are already published and available. As project partners, we will be needing letters of support from you. When you have the time, can you send it (them?) to Phil and I. many thanks Rob Rosanne D'Arrigo wrote: hi Rob, Jonathan Palmer and Patrick Baker collected samples together a few times, once or twice with my funding for travel, wood processing etc. we published 2 papers on this work. We are beginning to collaborate with Lou Cullen/Pauline Grierson from western Australia, who have also worked on Callitris and published a recent paper (see attached for all 3 papers for locations etc) cheers Rosanne On Oct 1, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Ed and Rosanne, OK - it looks like quite a bit of work is being done already. This whole project is already making me nervous as I don't want to tread on any toes and from a data generation point of view, it seems that much work is being done already. Rosanne tweaked my interest with the mainland chronologies she mentioned - where are these chronologies located and is Lamont the main group doing this work, or are these chronologies being generated by Baker? Rob Edward Cook wrote: Hi Ros and Rob, Just an additional warning. I believe that Mike Evans is working with Bowman. I am very serious about avoiding Bowman at all costs so I would worry about inheriting him with Mike. Nothing against Mike of course, but I would not work with Bowman in any way under any circumstances. Working with him would give him credibility that he does not deserve. Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [20]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Rosanne D'Arrigo wrote: Rob, in addition to Patrick (and Jonathan), we have been or are planning to collaborate with Mike Evans (who is funded to do some isotopic work in Australia) and Lou Cullen/Pauline Grierson who are working on Callitris in western Australia. So, several groups working on mainland Australia tree rings at the moment (and Bowman of course)... cheers Rosanne On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Edward Cook wrote: Dear Rob, I am not opposed to what you are suggesting. Probably the places where a PhD student could do work in Oz would be (of course) with Janice at AIMS and also with Patrick Baker at Monash (collaborating with Kathy Allen as well). Patrick is doing a fair degree of chronology development in Oz oriented towards drought reconstruction. This is in addition to other activities there by others. As a word of caution, avoid David Bowman at the Uni in Hobart. He knows nothing useful about dendro, but pretends he does and is rather aggressive in promoting his case in Oz. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [21]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:10 AM, Rob Wilson wrote: Hi Rosanne and Ed, Would you be open to the possibility of a PhD project working with the Australian Mainland tree-ring data you mentioned. Rosanne said that some of these data go back ~300 years. Presumably these chronologies are moisture (ENSO) sensitive, so as well as the obvious terrestrial drought story, I think there would also be some very interesting comparative work with GBR coral data. Janice Lough is measuring stable isotopes on some of the longer GBR samples. NERC actively encourages PhD students to stay at overseas institutions for certain periods, so a PhD candidate, as well as doing fieldwork in Australia could spend some time at Lamont. what do you think? Rob Rosanne D'Arrigo Associate Director, Biology and Paleoenvironment Division Senior Research Scientist, Tree-Ring Lab Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [22]rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu TEL 845-365-8617 FAX 845-365-8152 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [23] 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosanne D'Arrigo Associate Director, Biology and Paleoenvironment Division Senior Research Scientist, Tree-Ring Lab Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [24]rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu TEL 845-365-8617 FAX 845-365-8152 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [25] 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosanne D'Arrigo Associate Director, Biology and Paleoenvironment Division Senior Research Scientist, Tree-Ring Lab Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [26]rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu TEL 845-365-8617 FAX 845-365-8152 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [27] 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosanne D'Arrigo Associate Director, Biology and Paleoenvironment Division Senior Research Scientist, Tree-Ring Lab Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University [28]rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu TEL 845-365-8617 FAX 845-365-8152 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [29]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [30]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1687. 2009-10-16 14:25:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:25:33 +0100 from: Rob Allan subject: Fwd: Follow up to NY Times Editorial to: Fairweather Helen , Helen Fairweather , Andrew Lorrey , Lisa Alexander , Brnnimann Stefan , Gil Compo , Gil Compo , Chris Lintott , Scott D Woodruff , "J.G. Guzman" , Joelle Gergis , Joelle Gergis , Juerg Luterbacher , Phil Jones , Roger Stone , Russell Vose , Tom Ross ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Buchanan Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Follow up to NY Times Editorial To: "allarob@googlemail.com" , "R.Crouthamel@iedro.org" , "rick.crouthamel@gmail.com" , "Catherine.Marzin@noaa.gov" , "egeary@globe.gov" , "Howard.Diamond@noaa.gov" , "rdd@ldeo.columbia.edu" Cc: "philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk" Rob. Very timely. Overall, I don't believe a letter to the editor would have the desired impact. I believe a better avenue would be to see if an article can be written for the Science Times section of the NYT, which appears every Tuesday. To that end, subsequent to our conversation two weeks ago, I have been pulling information together on various related items that have appeared in the NYT, and identifying the columnist who would be most keen to followup with an ACRE based story. I was hopefully going to pull this together this weekend and send over an initial information pack to him, also hopefully this weekend. The main thrust would be building off the CORRAL Cook BBC et al launching but introducing a US flair. As discussed before, I believe a good (populist) angle would be to have the story include the Franklin voyages/ACRE video along with Cook etc. Bringing it current and mainstream, would involve highlighting Ed's Globe Student Initiative (very timely with the October data collection). For reasons detailed in prior emails I also thought a good angle would be Stefan's Data Rescue at Home initiative (for added international flair) also aimed towards kids but when they are away from school. This has the always good angle of bridging gap of kids at school vs. home (like the entire concept of homework and getting them away from video games and into something productive). As before, this student driven initiative could have a good cross generational non-partisan angle of possibly Michelle Obama and Laura Bush (Laura as you may recall was behind the Franklin Legacy project from a few years ago of showing relevance of Franklin to today which is what the Franklin Climate Change video is all about). Perhaps GLOBEs connections to Gore can be brought in as well. As you know, I was also going to follow-up with Google in California (and maybe NY), about the data visualization angle and their overall interest. Not sure if this would be something to also make it into the NYT foray, but please send over whatever you have as update from the Exeter meeting that could possibly build upon the work that Philip, Stefan, and I have done. Let me know if this plan sounds reasonable. Would of course get the NYT person in contact with you, Ed, or whoever else if indeed they want to run with the concept. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Allan To: Rick Crouthamel ; Rick Crouthamel ; John Buchanan; Catherine Marzin ; Ed Geary ; Howard Diamond ; Rosanne D'Arrigo Sent: Fri Oct 16 06:34:00 2009 Subject: Follow up to NY Times Editorial Guys, One of the people we're linking with to take ACRE's outreach and output with visualisations and such to include the social sciences and humanities at the Centre for e-Research at King's College London, suggested to me that we might want to respond to the recent Editorial in the NY Times on the historical logbook efforts by writing a letter to the NY Times explaining how it all fits into the wider ACRE picture. The NY Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09fri4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) was only responding to the media launch of the results of the CORRAL project, which is one of several international efforts focusing on the recovery, imaging and digitisation of historical marine and colonial data that are all linked under ACRE. One of my colleagues behind the CORRAL effort always seems to miss the opportunity with such media events of couching or projecting it to point out how the historical logbook efforts fit into the wider scope of what ACRE is doing, so we miss out on 'airing' a much bigger story, and I think potentially wider impact. If it a Letter to the Editor was published, I'm not sure if it would have much impact, and I'd like to get your ideas as some of those 'on the ground' in the US as to whether you see this is something worth doing. I think my King's College colleague was wondering if doing this might give us a chance of appealing to someone benevolent in the US who might consider supporting ACRE and its activities. Rick, in this sort of same vein, did anything come of the possibility of getting an 'in' to Al Gore that you mentioned a while back? Could we 'use' the NY Times Editorial to get an 'in' to Al Gore or whoever so as to explain that so far they've seen only the 'tip of the iceberg' in what we are doing? Any and all suggestions are most welcome. 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://www.met-acre.org/ Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Mobile: +44 (0)7545 142536 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom. -- -- 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 Mobile: +44 (0)7545 142536 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom. 3671. 2009-10-16 23:53:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: "m.batty@ucl.ac.uk" , "stephen.evans@ucl.ac.uk" , "sebastian.carney@manchester.ac.uk" , "tsb1@cam.ac.uk Barker" , "Minns Asher Mr (ENV)" , "Watson, Robert (ScD)" , "harriet.pearson@manchester.ac.uk" , "an325@cam.ac.uk" , "h.harwitt@its.leeds.ac.uk" , "m.r.tight@its.leeds.ac.uk" , "p.m.timms@its.leeds.ac.uk" , "c.harham@uea.ac.uk" , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" , "p.jones@uea.ac.uk" , "mark.mccarthy@metoffice.gov.uk" , "michael.sanderson@metoffice.gov.uk" , "jonathan.koehler@isi.fraunhofer.de" date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:53:12 +0100 from: "Kevin Anderson" subject: Thanks for an excellant report and Tyndall Cities Programme to: "s.l.barr@newcastle.ac.uk" , "aidan.burton@newcastle.ac.uk" , "Richard Dawson" , "a.c.ford@newcastle.ac.uk" , "vassilis.glenis@newcastle.ac.uk" , "Jim Hall" , "C G Kilsby" , "lucy.manning@newcastle.ac.uk" , "Claire Walsh" Dear All, This is a quick email to say thanks from me and the wider Tyndall Centre for the years of `ard graft that clearly went into your latest report. The report itself, as well as all the other outputs, stakeholder engagement etc is a real credit to both the Cities team and Tyndall - and certainly it is outputs like yours that will ensure Tyndall has a fruitful and sustainable future. I for one enjoyed the launch event and clearly John Beddington and Alex Nickson were impressed with the report and more significantly very complementary of the active engaged with stakeholders throughout the Cities programme - an excellent example of how Tyndall's academic work can also be directly policy relevant. Thanks once again - and all the best with ARCADIA Kind regards Kevin Ps. Jim, could you please forward my thanks to anyone I've missed in the list above. Prof. Kevin Anderson Research Director Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia Tel:+44(0)1603 593900 University of Manchester Tel:+44(0)161 306 3701 Email: [1]kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk PA. Harriet Pearson Email: [2]harriet.pearson@manchester.ac.uk Tel: 0161 275 4344 [3]www.tyndall.ac.uk 950. 2009-10-19 09:19:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 19 09:19:37 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Review of the Hack proposal to: "Bamzai, Anjuli" Anjuli, Here is the review and also the signed non-conflict page. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3125. 2009-10-19 09:50:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 19 09:50:27 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Climate Audit to: Rashit Rashit, The "living tree" site trees X02S, X13, X14W and X16S sampled in 1983 Are there any more trees for this site? Please could you send the measurements. What are the coordinates of the site and site name? The earlier site(s) of living trees M021, M121, M202 and M331 sampled in 1964. I presumed these were Hadyta River russ006 (or russ007). Please could you send these trees as well? Thank you. Tom 2374. 2009-10-19 16:44:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 19 16:44:47 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: D'Arrigo et al 2006] to: Rob Wilson , Keith Briffa This might constitute joining the Team - although as I said the Team doesn't exist! I doubt JGR/AGU will follow this up. Cheers Phil At 16:35 19/10/2009, Rob Wilson wrote: Oh brother!!! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: D'Arrigo et al 2006 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:00:21 -0400 From: Steve McIntyre [1] To: 'Colin O'Dowd' [2] CC: Rosanne D'Arrigo [3] Dear Dr O'Dowd, In fall 2005, I corresponded with you in your capacity as Editor, JGR seeking data for D'Arrigo et al 2006 (then submitted), which was being cited by IPCC WG1. In that email, I referred to AGU policies for data citation and data archiving [4]www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html which requires that data cited in AGU pulications be located in a permanent archive. Despite this correspondence, the data archive for D'Arrigo et al 2006 remains abysmally incomplete. There is no data section describing where the data sets referenced in their Table 1 can be located. Indeed, for some of the regional composites, there is not even any information on which sites are included in the regional composite nor is the measurement data for individual sites available (e.g. Coastal Alaska, Central NWT and others.) Nor are the "chronologies" that result from the analysis carried out in the paper archived. I request that you take steps to ensure compliance with AGU data archiving policies by ensuring that proper listing of the sites for each Table 1 composite is provided and that the measurement data for each such site is located in a public archive. There is also an important error in the description of a key series. For the RCS chronology labelled "POL", core counts are shown for the Polar Urals site, while the RCS chronology actually shown is from a different site entirely (Yamal), which has much lower replication in the modern period. Regards, Steve McIntyre -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [5]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4282. 2009-10-19 16:58:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dave Thompson date: Mon Oct 19 16:58:19 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: food for thought... to: Dave Thompson , John Kennedy , Mike Wallace Dave, Have had a look at these one and off today. My suggestion would be to smooth these series then look at the results. Maybe something at about 5 year timescale. If there was a problem with the NH SSTs in 1969 it should also affect the SH - it doesn't. You could also correlate your red line with gridded land data. It will be noisier, but I'd reckon that the basic pattern would show there. I think what you're seeing is the aerosol cooling of the NH. It's also in the SH, but much lower amplitude. Try a comparison with some of the global dimming/brightening series. There are a number of papers on this my Martin Wild. A proxy for this is the DTR - See Fig 1 in the attached. This is global. What you want is separate ones for the NH and SH. The NH one will be steeper. Cheers Phil At 22:02 16/10/2009, Dave Thompson wrote: Dear Phil, John (cc Mike), I've spent some more time looking at the differences between NH and SH SSTs... and I'm increasingly convinced the global cooling in the 70s occurred over a discrete period, and that it likely reflects some residual data issues. Either that, or the climate system changed abruptly in one hemisphere ~1969, but not in the other .... So... I figured I'd bounce my latest ideas off of you folks to see what you think... the last couple of papers were a lot of fun...maybe there is another story that needs to be told... I've attached three pages of figures. They are based on the corrected SST time series John sent me, but all of the results I discuss below are evident in HadSST2 as well. The vertical tickmarks are 0.5 K in all figures. Figure 1 shows NH (top), SH (middle) and the difference between NH and SH SSTs (NH-SH). The data have not been filtered in any way. There is some mess around WW1 and WW2, and that's to be expected. But there is also - to my eye - a distinct drop in the difference between NH and SH SSTs ~1969 (1969 is indicated by the dashed line). (Note the nice thing about the difference time series is that it filters much of the ENSO and volcanic variability.) Is the drop also evident in the land data? Figure 2 shows NH-SH time series of SSTs (top) and land data (bottom). I've filtered the data for COWL, ENSO and Volcano. This makes little difference in the case of the SST difference time series (since ENSO and volcanos show up in both hemispheres). But it does make a difference in the land difference time series, as the COWL pattern shows up only in the NH. There is a weak drop in the land data ~1969. But nothing like the SST data. Looking at the NH only: Figure 3 shows the land (top) and SST (bottom) time series for the NH. Both have been filtered as per our recent paper. The drop in the NH SST time series is very pronounced. Dominant, I'd say. Can't believe I missed it earlier. It's not as discrete as the 45 drop. But it's certainly rapid. To my eye, the NH land areas are doing something similar to the NH ocean areas ~1969. But it's hard to tell for sure. The drop is there in the land data, but it is not as large. Looking at the SH region only: Figure 4 shows the land (top) and SST (bottom) time series for the SH. Both have been filtered as per our recent paper. Both seem to warm throughout the century. Note the large drop in land variance ~WW2. There is no evidence of the drop in 1969 that is readily apparent in the NH SST time series in Figure 3. Figures 5 and 6 show one attempt to find the pattern associated with the drop. Figure 5 shows the NH-SH difference time series along with a fit to the drop in 1969 (as a red line). Figure 6 shows the correlations between gridded SSTs and the red line from Fig. 5 over the period 1960-1980. It's clear no particular region is giving rise to the drop in 1969. Rather, the entire NH appears to have cooled rapidly relative to the SH at nearly the same time (red shading indicates the NH cooled relative to the SH, and vice versa). I explored a range of slightly different analyses to try and tease out the source of the drop ... but the results always stayed the same. The bottom line... - To my eye, the SST difference time series in Figure 2 looks suspicious around 1969. The difference is almost 0.5 K (tickmarks are at 0.5 K). - I think the NH SST time series in Figure 3 is striking... the drop in 1969 stands out clearly above the rest of the record. A similar drop is not evident in the SH (Figure 4), and that is why the drop exists in the difference time series in Figure 2. - The NH land areas might be doing something interesting around 1969 (Figure 3). But as always, they are noisy (even when filtered) and it's hard to tell. - I think the drop in the NH SST time series in Figure 3 is potentially more important for interpreting long-term trends in global- mean temperatures than the drop in 1945. It lies close to the middle of the period extending from WW2-now... So .... what do you think? To your eyes, does the drop in 1969 look normal or unusual? John... have you had any luck finding any data issues at that time? Maybe the SST data is too high in the 1960s? -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [1]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA 970-491-3338 Dear Phil, John (cc Mike), I've spent some more time looking at the differences between NH and SH SSTs... and I'm increasingly convinced the global cooling in the 70s occurred over a discrete period, and that it likely reflects some residual data issues. Either that, or the climate system changed abruptly in one hemisphere ~1969, but not in the other .... So... I figured I'd bounce my latest ideas off of you folks to see what you think... the last couple of papers were a lot of fun...maybe there is another story that needs to be told... I've attached three pages of figures. They are based on the corrected SST time series John sent me, but all of the results I discuss below are evident in HadSST2 as well. The vertical tickmarks are 0.5 K in all figures. Figure 1 shows NH (top), SH (middle) and the difference between NH and SH SSTs (NH-SH). The data have not been filtered in any way. There is some mess around WW1 and WW2, and that's to be expected. But there is also - to my eye - a distinct drop in the difference between NH and SH SSTs ~1969 (1969 is indicated by the dashed line). (Note the nice thing about the difference time series is that it filters much of the ENSO and volcanic variability.) Is the drop also evident in the land data? Figure 2 shows NH-SH time series of SSTs (top) and land data (bottom). I've filtered the data for COWL, ENSO and Volcano. This makes little difference in the case of the SST difference time series (since ENSO and volcanos show up in both hemispheres). But it does make a difference in the land difference time series, as the COWL pattern shows up only in the NH. There is a weak drop in the land data ~1969. But nothing like the SST data. Looking at the NH only: Figure 3 shows the land (top) and SST (bottom) time series for the NH. Both have been filtered as per our recent paper. The drop in the NH SST time series is very pronounced. Dominant, I'd say. Can't believe I missed it earlier. It's not as discrete as the 45 drop. But it's certainly rapid. To my eye, the NH land areas are doing something similar to the NH ocean areas ~1969. But it's hard to tell for sure. The drop is there in the land data, but it is not as large. Looking at the SH region only: Figure 4 shows the land (top) and SST (bottom) time series for the SH. Both have been filtered as per our recent paper. Both seem to warm throughout the century. Note the large drop in land variance ~WW2. There is no evidence of the drop in 1969 that is readily apparent in the NH SST time series in Figure 3. Figures 5 and 6 show one attempt to find the pattern associated with the drop. Figure 5 shows the NH-SH difference time series along with a fit to the drop in 1969 (as a red line). Figure 6 shows the correlations between gridded SSTs and the red line from Fig. 5 over the period 1960-1980. It's clear no particular region is giving rise to the drop in 1969. Rather, the entire NH appears to have cooled rapidly relative to the SH at nearly the same time (red shading indicates the NH cooled relative to the SH, and vice versa). I explored a range of slightly different analyses to try and tease out the source of the drop ... but the results always stayed the same. The bottom line... - To my eye, the SST difference time series in Figure 2 looks suspicious around 1969. The difference is almost 0.5 K (tickmarks are at 0.5 K). - I think the NH SST time series in Figure 3 is striking... the drop in 1969 stands out clearly above the rest of the record. A similar drop is not evident in the SH (Figure 4), and that is why the drop exists in the difference time series in Figure 2. - The NH land areas might be doing something interesting around 1969 (Figure 3). But as always, they are noisy (even when filtered) and it's hard to tell. - I think the drop in the NH SST time series in Figure 3 is potentially more important for interpreting long-term trends in global-mean temperatures than the drop in 1945. It lies close to the middle of the period extending from WW2-now... So .... what do you think? To your eyes, does the drop in 1969 look normal or unusual? John... have you had any luck finding any data issues at that time? Maybe the SST data is too high in the 1960s? -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [2]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA 970-491-3338 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1415. 2009-10-20 12:34:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:34:11 +0100 from: "Angela Ritchie" subject: ADAM project - further information to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "'Geoffrey Love'" , , , , , , , , , "'jos'" <_marengo@yahoo.com>, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Hello everyone, As registered attendees of IPCC AR5 Scoping Meeting, Venice July 2009 - you may be interested in finding out more about FP6 ADAM project, `ADaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy'. The Final Report is attached, also available to download http://www.adamproject.eu, under `Research Outputs'. Here you can download all Deliverable reports and pre-order the ADAM Book series from Cambridge University Press. Please let me know if there is any further information you require, with best wishes, Angela Ritchie ADAM Project Administrator Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0)1603 591227 Fax: + 44 (0)1603 593901 E-mail: [1]a.ritchie@uea.ac.uk http://www.adamproject.eu Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\adam final report revised June 2009 WEB.pdf" 3760. 2009-10-20 15:16:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" , "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:16:00 +0100 from: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Dear Phil and Keith, Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing about it (true, as he has just returned from China). I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the following lines. (I think the last line would have to come directly from you Keith) For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. Best, Annie Draft statement Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the Climatic Research Unit's website. This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis, with recent data from a more localised origin than the data analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative. This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks. ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ -----Original Message----- From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Here it is Annie -----Original Message----- From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Also, do you know anything about this? -----Original Message----- From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk] Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45 To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Sir, I draw your attention to the growing international climate change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud. After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence attributable to man. I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic. Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be greatly in the public interest, especially given the Copenhagen summit fast approaching. David Robinson http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments --- Sent via BlackBerry David Robinson MSc Blacklock and Bowers Limited This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The views expressed in them are those of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the views of this Company. Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems against viruses. Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. 773. 2009-10-20 15:41:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" , "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" date: Tue Oct 20 15:41:11 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" Annie, Keith's response is almost written. He is just awaiting for one piece of additional information from the Russians. Hopefully this will be up by the end of the week. Thanks for following up with the Spectator. If you want me to email this David Robinson then I can do. It is difficult to stop this sort of rubbish spreading across the internet. No CRU work is flawed. If it hadn't been this issue then it would have been something else. They are just getting at us because we are not responding to them. I have been to a couple of meetings recently - a summer school in Italy early last week and a meeting at the Royal Society last Thursday. There were no comments or discussions about the issue. The only time the issue was raised was over a coffee, and then it was people wishing us well and wondering how we put up with it. Climate scientists know it is all rubbish. As they told me, science is done through publications, not via blog sites. I'd expect that we will reopen all these blog sites once something goes up on the CRU site. Maybe when it all dies down later in the year, UEA/ENV/CRU need to consider what we have learned from the alleged scandal. Should we have responded differently, for example, and if so how? At the moment, I don't see how we could have responded any differently. Despite all the publicity, there are at least 3 people in the US who have had it much worse than us and they are still writing normal papers in the literature. Cheers Phil At 15:16 20/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear Phil and Keith, Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing about it (true, as he has just returned from China). I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the following lines. (I think the last line would have to come directly from you Keith) For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. Best, Annie Draft statement Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the Climatic Research Unit's website. This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis, with recent data from a more localised origin than the data analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative. This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks. ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ -----Original Message----- From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Here it is Annie -----Original Message----- From: Greaves, Tara [[2]mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Also, do you know anything about this? -----Original Message----- From: David_Robinson [[3]mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk] Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45 To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Sir, I draw your attention to the growing international climate change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud. After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence attributable to man. I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic. Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be greatly in the public interest, especially given the Copenhagen summit fast approaching. David Robinson [4]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments --- Sent via BlackBerry David Robinson MSc Blacklock and Bowers Limited This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The views expressed in them are those of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the views of this Company. Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems against viruses. Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2943. 2009-10-20 16:08:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" , "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:08:12 +0100 from: "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Dear All We should tell the EDP that this correspondent not only can't spell (for heaven's sake 'alledgedly) but they are simply misguided in their assertions. I wonder if in our statement, however, we might try to rise slightly above a straight fight over the allegations. Most people seem willing to accept that the climate is changing and that mankind is at least partly responsible - I wonder if we should press on that rather than the detail? This might look like a statement saying: 'It is a matter of regret that highly regarded scientists whose work is open to peer review should be subject to poorly informed and occasionally malicious attacks on their integrity. The Climatic Research Unit has been at the forefront of reasoned debate for over two decades to help people around the world understand how and why that climate is changing and how communities might make the best decisions about their future. CRU remains fully committed to well founded discussion of the causes of climate change and amelioration of its worst effects. A specific rebuttal of the allegations being made with regard to the data from the Yamal region has been published on the CRU website. Legal advice is also being taken in the context of unsubstantiated and entirely unacceptable assertions that have been made in some areas about the way in which data has been selected. It is not acceptable that allegations about the work should be made without any supporting evidence. The published work of colleagues in the Climatic Research Unit has been subject to scrutiny by the scientific community which, in a substantial majority, support its conclusions. In the run up to the Copenhagen climate talks it is inevitable that highly motivated groups on all sides will attempt to publicise their positions but this should not deflect attention from reasoned argument and concerted action in the face of the evidence that currently exists.' Appreciate that it is an entirely different approach but my sense is that the opposition always want to dive into the detail partly because the scientific process and the way conclusions can be drawn is confusing to many people. The detail gives them scope for 'interpretation' and devilment. I really do think we should press ahead with the letter to the Spectator whatever M&R think of the chances of success - it shows that we mean it. Regards Alan Alan Preece Director of Marketing and Communications University of East Anglia 01603 593015 2009 "What Uni" Student Choice Award winner and 2nd amongst mainstream English universities in the National Student Survey World top 200, European top 100, UK top 30 (Times League Table 2010) Norwich: fourth highest cited UK city for science, thanks to the University and our Norwich Research Park partners. >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:16 PM >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece >Alan Mr (MAC) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Dear Phil and Keith, >Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP >environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing >about it (true, as he has just returned from China). > >I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees >any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how >anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the >following lines. (I think the last line would have to come >directly from you Keith) > >For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. >I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been >opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the >piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. >Best, Annie > > >Draft statement >Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately >selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of >recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia >is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the >Climatic Research Unit's website. > >This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a >site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve >McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth >changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data >used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis, >with recent data from a more localised origin than the data >analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces >a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative. > >This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the >Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the >Copenhagen climate talks. > > >------------------------------- >Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 >www.uea.ac.uk/comm >............................................ > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM >To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > > Here it is Annie > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM >To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Also, do you know anything about this? > >-----Original Message----- >From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk] >Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45 >To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk >Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Sir, >I draw your attention to the growing international climate >change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the >reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud. > >After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a >particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no >attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests >that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied >on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be >withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a >fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the >recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence >attributable to man. > >I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject >profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic. > >Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be >greatly in the public interest, especially given the >Copenhagen summit fast approaching. > >David Robinson > >http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments >--- >Sent via BlackBerry >David Robinson MSc >Blacklock and Bowers Limited > >This email and any attachments to it are confidential and >intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom >they are addressed. >You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments >in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The >views expressed in them are those of the individual author and >do not necessarily represent the views of this Company. > >Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a >virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and >you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems >against viruses. > >Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under >Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office >is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. > > 1969. 2009-10-21 06:57:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:57:27 +0000 (UTC) from: rasmus.benestad@met.no subject: Re: Possible EU Bid to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I can confirm that James Rydock has been in touch and that he has asked me about the involvement of an EU bid. I have said that I'm interested n being part of such a bid if he manages to get a consortium together. 1. Have you already divided up the cake? I don't think so. As far as I know, we haven't even discussed this, but I may not know all the details. 2. What other partners do you have? The last I heard was that he has got Atle Harby, Ivar Bertling, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Zbyszek Kundzewicz, Alessandro Tarantino, but ids looking for further potential participants. 3. Is there any money left for us? I should think so, because we have not got to the point of discussing money. 4. We're also working with Tim Carter (who is in Finland) and knows all the impact people. I think you should tell James Rydock this - and I'll of course vouch for you and recommend your involvement. Rasmus ----- Original Message ----- Fra: "Phil Jones" Til: "Rasmus Benestad" Sendt: 20. oktober 2009 kl 17317.57 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Emne: Possible EU Bid > Rasmus, Chris Kilsby (Newcastle) and me have been in touch with James Rydock Research Management AS Trondheim Norway about this EU call. The topic we are addressing is ENV.2010.1.1.4-1 'Underpinning work to enable provision of local scale climate information (annual to decadal timescales)' James says that you and Paco (who seems soon to be moving back to Catalunya) will be leading the bid from a scientific perspective. James says he is contracted to put the bid together. This is a quick email to check these facts. As you know Chris and I have put together the Weather Generator for the new set of UK climate scenarios (UKCP09) that were released this summer. Now some quick questions 1. Have you already divided up the cake? 2. What other partners do you have? 3. Is there any money left for us? 4. We're also working with Tim Carter (who is in Finland) and knows all the impact people. Apologies for poorly constructed email, but I have to do this before rushing home! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5023. 2009-10-21 11:22:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:22:14 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: PROCLIMATION to: "Colin Harpham" ,"Phil Jones" Colin Using Heathrow seems OK. I'm not sure it's necessary to also do Ringway. I think we do need to look at sensitivity of changes to sampling though - so yes, also do for a scenario. Medium emissions and 2050s? Can you propose a draft list of temperature extremes (based on STARDEX) and we can then agree a final list between us - may want to also check with Vic et al. Clare At 16:23 20/10/2009, Colin Harpham wrote: Hi Clare, I thought perhaps I ought to slot in some work on PROCLIMATION just to get it underway. I was proposing looking at the sensitivity tests see attached. Cheers Colin Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 2285. 2009-10-21 15:45:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 21 15:45:58 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Follow up, and a query to: "Heffernan, Olive" Olive, Good to hear you'll be going to one of the UKCIP PIPs (Projections in Practice). Hope you've gone onto the UKCP09 User Interface and seen what can be got and downloaded. There are regional PIPs as well as sector-specific ones organized by UKCIP. There is a more specialized one on the WG being organized in Newcastle on November 26. You can call now if you like - say between 4 and 5pm. On the data issue I reckon if the Met Office were sold off (privatized) then it would make the data access issues much worse. The best comparison country would be NZ. There the NZ Met Service is a company, but climate research goes on in NIWA , which is a Crown Institute. Should any government here in the UK go down the privatizing route, I'd expect a similar split between the research and the weather forecasting side. The Hadley Centre might possibly become a NERC type centre like CEH and BAS? NZ's is the only that I know that is privatized. There are a lot of advantages of keeping the Met Office together as advances in modelling from weather forecasting feed into the climate model and improvements the climate people make feed through to the weather model. I've no idea who would contemplate buying the Met Office. It won't be another Met Service. MoD might want to lose the Met Office, but DEFRA and DECC don't. These are all personal views. I'm going to see a few MOHC employees in a few weeks and I thought I'd ask what views on the inside were. This has been talked about in the past, but nothing much has ever happened. Another person to ask in Brian Hoskins who chaired one of the afternoon sessions last week. Cheers Phil At 15:00 21/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil, It was good to meet you in person last week at the Royal Society, and Im now feeling very enthusiastic at the prospect of attending one of these regional workshops on climate predictions. So thanks for your help on that front, with introductions and on background. On a completely separate issue, I came across this story on BBC News on Sunday, which says that a Tory government would consider privatizing the Met Office. [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8312999.stm Im interested in what the implications and I wonder if you would have a few moments to talk to me about it today? Aside from the potential for loss of jobs, Im primarily interested in whether this would this have any implications for the Met Offices ability to share data with other institutes or with other countries. Could it have any implications for its research agenda? Or is a privatized Met service a common model in other countries? If you let me know a suitable time to call, I can phone this afternoon. Look forward to hearing from you, Best Olive Olive Heffernan, PhD, CMarSci Editor | Nature Reports Climate Change [2]www.nature.com/climate 4 Crinan St | London N1 9XW, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7014 4009 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7843 4563 Email: [3]o.heffernan@nature.com ******************************************************************************** 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4751. 2009-10-21 17:16:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "pierre bessemoulin" , "Thomas C Peterson" , "\"José Stella\" , "Avinash Tyagi" , "Carine VanMaele" , "dsgo" , "Gaelle Sevenier" , "H Kontongomde" , "Jose Arimatea" , "Marie Heuze" , "Rupa Kumar Kolli" , "Wenjian Zhang" date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:16:04 +0200 from: "Omar Baddour" subject: WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2009 to: , "Mohamed Kadi" , , "Shah Alam" , "Blair Trewin" , , "Mike J. Coughlan" , "Andrew Watkins", , "Aphonso Mascarenhas" , "Rodney Martínez" , "Yupin Yan" , "Zuqiang Zhang" , "Christiana Lefebre" , , "Bissolli Peter" , "Fuchs Tobias" , "David Phillips" , "Moheb Doos" , "Abdelaziz Ouldbba" , "Pai Sivanada" , , "Prof. Laban A Ogallo" , "Pai Sivanada" , , "Director" , "Dmitry Kiktev" "Dmitry Kiktev", , "Kumar Ravin" , "Szalai Sandor" , "Naoyuki Hasegawa " , "Satoda" , "azzedine saci" , "Michel Schneider" , "BLinov" , , "Soumaya Ben Rached" , "Serhat Sensoy" , , "John Kennedy" , "Peter Stott" , "Ahira Sanchez-Lugo" , "Karin.L.Gleason" , , "Phil Jones" , "Trausti" , "Rajeevan Madhavan Nair" , "Brad Garanganga" , "José Luis STELLA" , "fatima driouech" , "Abdalah Mokssit" Dear Colleagues, I would like to inform that the WMO call for contribution to the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2009 (WSSGC-2009) is now open. On this occasion I would like to invite you again ( few of you are for the first time) to provide your valuable contribution to this publication. It is worthy to mention the special nature of this year's statement as it will be released during the COP15 time period (7-18 December, Copenhagen, Denmark) hence making it a WMO important showcase for the event in addition to its usual scientific purpose. The collection of the input can start any time from now on with updating the content until few days before the press release which is scheduled in 14 or 15 December 2009. The statement will be given at a press conference led by the Secretary General of the WMO. As usually the press release is embargoed for dissemination until the press conference is over. Date and Timing will be confirmed soon by our MEDIA office. On this occasion I am pleased to introduce you again Mr. Jos Luis Stella of the National Meteorological Service of Argentina who and his institution kindly accepted to offer his services for the second time to collaborate with all of you in collecting input and data needed for the statement. I recall that the content of the statement consists of summarizing statistics with short descriptive texts of the annual global temperature figures and ranking , regional temperatures anomalies as well as the observed major climate events which occurred during 2009, including droughts, heavy precipitations and flooding, wind storms, tropical cyclones as well as the induced impacts and damages. Therefore I would appreciate if you could send the summaries to the following email address: [1]wcdmp@wmo.int with a copy to Mr Jos Stella's email addresses [2]jls@smn.gov.ar and [3]jolust2006@yahoo.com.ar. For your information you can take a look at the previous statement in 2008 by browsing the following link: [4]http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/WMO1039_EN_web.pdf (English). Best Regards _________________ Omar BADDOUR Chief, Data Management Applications Division WMO Information System Branch Observing and Information System Department World Meteorological Organization 7 bis, avenue de la Paix CH-1211 GENEVE 2, SWITZERLAND Tel: +41-22-730-8268 Fax: +41-22-730-8042 email: Obaddour@wmo.int 1644. 2009-10-22 08:37:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:37:59 +0100 from: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" subject: RE: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" Phil I shouldn't correspond with Robinson if I were you. I think the right approach is to remain aloof & not get dragged into an argy-bargy - which is what they want. When there is clearly something libellous, as in the Spectator, we should respond (as we have done) in a low key way. I now hope that our solicitor will see it in the clear-cut way in which I interpret that nature and the falsity of the accusation. We should continue to remain "above it" as much as we can. Trevor >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:41 PM >To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV) >Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece >Alan Mr (MAC) >Subject: Re: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > > > Annie, > Keith's response is almost written. He is just awaiting for one >piece of additional information from the Russians. Hopefully this >will be up by the end of the week. > > Thanks for following up with the Spectator. > > If you want me to email this David Robinson then I can do. It is >difficult to stop this sort of rubbish spreading across the internet. >No CRU work is flawed. If it hadn't been this issue then it would >have been something else. They are just getting at us because we are >not responding to them. > > I have been to a couple of meetings recently - a summer school in >Italy early last week and a meeting at the Royal Society last >Thursday. There were no comments or discussions about the issue. The >only time the issue was raised was over a coffee, and then it was >people wishing us well and wondering how we put up with it. Climate >scientists know it is all rubbish. As they told me, science is done >through publications, not via blog sites. > > I'd expect that we will reopen all these blog sites once something >goes up on the CRU site. > > Maybe when it all dies down later in the year, UEA/ENV/CRU need to >consider what we have learned from the alleged scandal. Should we >have responded differently, for example, and if so how? At the >moment, I don't see how we could have responded any >differently. Despite all the publicity, there are at least 3 people >in the US who have had it much worse than us and they are still >writing normal papers in the literature. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 15:16 20/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: >>Dear Phil and Keith, >>Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP environment >>correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing about it (true, as >>he has just returned from China). >> >>I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees any >>problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how anything is >>phrased and issuing a statement along the following lines. (I think >>the last line would have to come directly from you Keith) >> >>For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. I have >>rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been opened) and >>emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the piece in the >>Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. >>Best, Annie >> >> >>Draft statement >>Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately selected >>tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of recent dramatic >>warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia is completely >>false. A full rebuttal is published on the Climatic Research >Unit's website. >> >>This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a site >>for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve McIntyre, has >>produced an alternative history of tree-growth changes in the Yamal >>region by substituting some of the data used in Prof Briffa's >>published and peer-reviewed analysis, with recent data from a more >>localised origin than the data analysed by Prof Briffa. While >>McIntyre's selection produces a different result, it cannot be >>considered to be more authoritative. >> >>This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the >>Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the >>Copenhagen climate talks. >> >> >>------------------------------- >>Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >>University of East Anglia, >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 >>www.uea.ac.uk/comm >>............................................ >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM >>To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads >> >> Here it is Annie >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM >>To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads >> >>Also, do you know anything about this? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk] >>Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45 >>To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk >>Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads >> >>Sir, >>I draw your attention to the growing international climate change >>scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the reputation of it, >>and Norfolk, through the mud. >> >>After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a particular, >>alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no attempted rebuttle >>by the CRU. Latest information suggests that dozens of 'peer >>reviewed' scientific papers that relied on the same dataset are now >>'similarly flawed' and should be withdrawn. This, unfortunately, >>draws into question a fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - >>namely, whether the recent global warming is in fact abnormal and >>hence attributable to man. >> >>I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject profoundly >>worrying given the importance of the topic. >> >>Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be greatly in >>the public interest, especially given the Copenhagen summit >fast approaching. >> >>David Robinson >> >>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments >>--- >>Sent via BlackBerry >>David Robinson MSc >>Blacklock and Bowers Limited >> >>This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended >>solely for the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. >>You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments in >>whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The views >>expressed in them are those of the individual author and do not >>necessarily represent the views of this Company. >> >>Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a virus >>we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and you should >>take all steps that you can to protect your systems against viruses. >> >>Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under Company >>Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office is Prospect >>House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 3635. 2009-10-22 15:26:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 22 15:26:14 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations to: Ricardo Fernandez OK Phil At 14:50 22/10/2009, you wrote: Thanks Phil, Perhaps you can send a copy of your paper when published? Cheers Ricardo ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 October 2009 15:02 To: Ricardo Fernandez Subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations Ricardo, The stations in the Arctic are much the same in the CRU, GISS and NCDC analyses. Differences in gridding are a factor as well, but the infilling that NCDC (NOAA) do is beginning to have an effect in the Arctic. In this region, we don't do any infilling, so if a box has no data then it stays missing. Infilling gives you more boxes, which generally have higher T anomalies than the average of the rest of the hemisphere, so leads to the NCDC/NOAA analysis appearing warmer. The way we calculate the globe is an important factor. We use for the globe the average of the two hemispheres. NCDC and GISS calculate as one domain. Even with infilling NCDC still has some gaps in the SH, so this biases the globe to the NH. I'm involved in a paper coming out soon looking at ERA-INTERIM. This is the newest Reanalysis that covers the period from 1989-2008. If you sample this where CRU has data over land, the agreement is amazingly good. As ERA-INTERIM is complete, you can sample all NH and SH areas where there is land. This shows slightly more warmer than CRU, mainly for the NH. When these extra areas are mapped it is mostly coming from the Arctic and Siberia. You are right that the lower slope for GISS is due to their large boxes. Their numbers look larger , as most people forget that their base period is 1951-80. Cheers Phil At 12:32 22/10/2009, Ricardo Fernandez wrote: Hello Phil, I read an article in Le Monde yesterday where according to Stefan Rahmstof (university of Postdam) the main difference between the warming observed in GISS and Hadley is that you do not cover the Artic. I was surprised by this. You publish documentation about the network of stations used in the calculation of (land) surface temperature [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ and there are several stations above 66 degrees N. Am I missing something? I also thought the differences between CRU, GISS, but also NOAA, were mainly due to methods and gridding techniques: e.g. you calculate the global anomaly by averaging the two hemispheres, thus giving more weight (i.e. than if you averaged all grids) to the poorly covered and colder Southern Hemisphere. It was also my understanding that over the long run there is a lower slope coefficient for GISS because their method provides estimates for empty grid boxes when at least one station falls within a 1200 Km radius of an unsampled box, which is common e.g. in Antarctica, where warming has been lower than in other areas since the 1970s. You do not provide estimates for unsampled grids. Ricardo ________________________________________ Ricardo Fernandez Analyst Air and Climate Change Mitigation European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark [3]ricardo.fernandez@eea.europa.eu ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 October 2009 14:52 To: Ricardo Fernandez; Barbara.BACIGALUPI@ec.europa.eu Cc: Andr Jol; a.ogden@uea.ac.uk Subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations Ricardo, Thanks! Phil At 13:35 14/10/2009, Ricardo Fernandez wrote: Dear Barbara, Further to Phils email, I attach the chart based on the latest HadCRU3 data - as in previous years. The estimate of the mean anomaly for 2009 is based on the available 8 months (January-August). The (smoothed) global mean temperature for 2009 would then be 0.75 Celsius (rounded i.e. 0.8) above pre-industrial levels (using 10-year moving averages and relative to the period 1850-1899). I can send 3 more updates (including September, October and November) before the December anomaly is available from CRUs website. I should be able to send you the final chart sometime in January. Ricardo ________________________________________ Ricardo Fernandez Analyst Air and Climate Change Mitigation European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel: +45 3336 7270 / +45 23646514 (mobile) Fax: +45 3336 7151 [5]ricardo.fernandez@eea.europa.eu ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 October 2009 14:22 To: Barbara.BACIGALUPI@ec.europa.eu; Ricardo Fernandez Cc: Andr Jol; a.ogden@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations Barbara and Ricardo, The current value is +0.43 deg C above the 1961-90 level. This is for 2009 including August. This would make 2009 the 7th warmest year behind in order 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. The El Nino event is making the second half of the year warmer though, so it may yet pass 2004 and 2006 and possibly 2003. It just depends.... Only 1998 and 2005 stand out from the rest. Cheers Phil At 13:31 08/10/2009, Barbara.BACIGALUPI@ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Ricardo and Phil, We are currently working on the next (2009) version of the Environment Policy Review, and therefore updating all information. Please find the EPR 2008 available on: [7]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm Please look at indicator 1.1 of the annex. Do you have (preliminary) 2009 data for global temperature? I could not find any information or press release available on: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ Thank you. Kind regards, Barbara Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 460. 2009-10-22 15:32:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:32:00 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI)" subject: FW: What Copenhagen means for you-Climate Change event to: "cru.internal@uea.ac.uk" From: Shelley Bolderson [mailto:sr445@admin.cam.ac.uk] Sent: 22 October 2009 15:24 To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: What Copenhagen means for you-Climate Change event I am writing to promote an event outlining the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which will be taking place on Tuesday November 3^rd. Please can you circulate the attached flyer to any potentially interested parties? You may also like to know that the Festival of Ideas is currently taking place in Cambridge, as part of the University's 800^th Anniversary year. Please follow the link below for more details. [1]http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/whatson/ideasfestival/ Shelley Bolderson Festivals and Outreach Officer Cambridge Science Festival Office of External Affairs and Communications University of Cambridge The Pitt Building Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1RP Telephone: +44 (0)1223 766762 Mobile: +44 (0)7824 835225 Fax: +44 (0)1223 764062 [2]www.cambridgescience.org [3]http://twitter.com/camideasfest Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\poster2.pdf" 3084. 2009-10-22 17:18:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 22 17:18:52 2009 from: Tom Melvin subject: CA - Polar CRN to: rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk Rob, At some stage I expect to have to explain why Yamal is better that Polar Urals. I seem to think you discussed Polar on CA site. Have you a copy of what you said? We need to reinforce each other. Tom 865. 2009-10-23 09:40:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:40:32 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: CA - Polar CRN to: Tom Melvin Hi Tom, here are a copy of my two posts this week. I am now ignoring CA as I have lectures to prepare for next week. :-( #1 from "The NAS Panel and Polar Urals" Dear Steve et al. As a response to your recent posts and also to your private e-mails, here's my 10 cents towards the use of the Yamal and/or Polar Urals data. I will admit that the data description (Figure 2 and Table 1) in D'Arrigo et al. (2006) is somewhat misleading. For those who have not read the paper [1]http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/DArrigoetal2006a.pdf we derived two NH reconstructions. One using TR chronologies developed using traditional individual series detrending methods (STD) and another that solely used TR chronologies that had been processed using the RCS method. The latter method being theoretically better to capture more low frequency information. I think our paper clearly shows this. For all locations except the Polar Urals and the Alps, we used the same data to derive the STD and RCS flavours. As we have discussed through CA before, I was not happy with the resultant RCS chronology using the Polar Urals data. I know you do not agree with my decision here. Anyway, the Yamal series represented a RCS chronology from a nearby location. The figure below show the strong coherence between the Polar Urals STD and Yamal RCS series. Polar Urals STD vs Yamal RCS Unfortunately, in the paper we failed to clarify that different data were used for the STD and RCS versions for the location we labelled the Polar Urals. The replication data in Figure 2 are from the Polar Urals data. Please note that the situation exists for the Alps. The historical spruce data detailed in Wilson and Topham (2004) did not perform well using the RCS method, so instead we used a different species chronology (Nicolussi and Schiessling 2001) for the RCS version. So - to clarify - in Figure 2, the replication histograms are relevant for both the STD and RCS flavours for each site EXCEPT POL and ALPS where the replication is only relevant for the STD versions. I will not be troubling the journal with a corrigendum as it does not change the results of the paper at all. Finally, I want to clarify that I never asked Keith Briffa for the raw Yamal data. The simple fact of the matter is, I have great respect for Keith and I saw no point at the time in asking for raw data when there was a published RCS chronology for that location. Rob #2 from "Re-Visiting the "Yamal Substitution"" Dear All, I think I need to clarify a few things as Steve has only given you a select amount of information. As you know, I often reply to Steve privately as it is too time consuming to place a post on this blog due to all the replies that are generated. I just do not have time to reply to all the questions. So.... 1. Firstly, the decision to use Yamal was both mine and Rosanne's and we do not regret this decision. 2. Please do not forget that DWJ2006 did in fact use BOTH the Polar Urals and Yamal data - the former for the STD version and the latter for the RCS version. 3. The variance heteroscedasticity issue was not the only reason why I used the Yamal chronology compared to the RCS generated version of the Polar Urals. I also undertook local calibrations against June-July mean temperatures: 1883-1970 Polar Urals: r = 0.53 / DW = 1.62 / linear trend in residuals - r = -0.18 (ns) Yamal: r = 0.63 / DW = 1.75 / linear trend in residuals - r = -0.05 (ns) 1883-1990 Polar Urals: r = 0.53 / DW = 1.54 / linear trend in residuals - r = -0.16 (ns) Yamal: r = 0.61 / DW = 1.69 / linear trend in residuals - r = -0.08 (ns) So - Yamal was also simply a better estimate (albeit slight) of local summer temperatures. NB. These correlation results are a little different from Steve's - differences of CRU2 vs CRU3 and period analysed??? 4. It might take me a couple of weeks as I am busy with teaching at the moment, but I will re-calculate the DWJ2006 RCS reconstruction using the POL RCS series instead of Yamal. As we weight the data equally between North America and Eurasia, I am pretty sure that the final outcome will not be that different. Certainly, the MWP values will be slightly higher but it will not change the conclusions of the paper - which - I would like to remind everyone - we were quite explicit in saying that prior to ~1300, the reconstruction estimates should be interpreted cautiously. 5. Hey - In fact - for the hell of it, I might swap our RW Tornetrask series with Hakan Grudd's version. I can include new data from central Asia and Europe and North America. Will the final result change significantly - I very much doubt it. Please understand that palaeoclimatology (and science as a whole) is not static. We are continually updating and adding new data-sets. No one paper should ever be treated as the be all and end all. While Steve is mired in the past, we are trying to improve on the uncertainties - not "moving on" as I am sure you will banter around, but simply trying to improve on what has been done before. 6. Finally, devote followers of this blog seem to be obsessed with an elevated MWP. It is stated so very often that we are "cherry picking" purposely to deflate the MWP. This is simply not the case. In fact, the fatal flaw in this blog and what keeps it from being a useful tool for the palaeoclimatic and other communities is its persistent and totally unnecessary negative tone and attitude, and the assumption that our intention is faulty and biased, which keeps real discourse from taking place. Rob Tom Melvin wrote: Rob, At some stage I expect to have to explain why Yamal is better that Polar Urals. I seem to think you discussed Polar on CA site. Have you a copy of what you said? We need to reinforce each other. 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 [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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded Content: PUvsYAM.gif: 00000001,242841b0,00000000,00000000 2378. 2009-10-23 12:07:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, anrevk@nytimes.com, hpollack@umich.edu, gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk, santer1@llnl.gov date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:07:11 -0600 (MDT) from: quotable@telus.net subject: Re: RE: From the Wall Street Journal: to: Anne.Jolis@dowjones.com and criticism and none Dear Anne, There are great stories to be had on the unprofessional, hpahazard or amateurish manipulation of data on climate science, but none actually feature Michael Mann. I would bid you to look here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php), for example, for some background on Steve McIntyre's own machinations in the way he has pursued his criticisms of Mann's hockey stick. For a greater sense as to the robust nature of the hockey stick analyses, you could also look to a host of other reconstructions(you'll find a collection here: http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick), all drawn from different sources, all by different people, all equally available to McIntyre for analysis and none of which that have been contradicted in any way. You will notice as you look at them that they ALL show temperature, graphed over the past many centurie, forms into the shape of a hockey stick. So, even if Mann's data was corrupt (and McIntyre's arguments to that effect are not, ultimately convincing), his conclusion has been confirmed and reconfirmed many times over and by many different people. That, ultimately is one of the true tests of solid science: can results be confirmed by different people using different methods in different places. In a case where the answer to that question is categorically: yes!, you have to wonder at the motivations - and the professionalism - of people who continue to obsess about the finest detail of what they presume to be the weakest link. I would further wonder why the Wall street Journal, one of the most powerful and, in many communities, reputable newspapers in the world, would also choose to invest its energies in the single tiny controversy - this side show - rather than stepping back and getting a rather less blinding look at the big picture. To take this a step further, I have to acknowledge being co-author of a new book, Climate Cover-up, which addresses the hockey stick and many other manufactured elements of debate in the imagined climate science controversy. The book documents evidence to the effect that this entire argument is the work of a well organized, well-funded public relations campaign of confusion. The American people are less convinced today of the realities of climate change than they were two years ago. This is NOT a reflection of scientific reality - or anything that one might call evidence. It is proof that when the energy industry invests $1 billion-plus in a well-documented effort to get people to question science that they may well enjoy some success, especially if mainstream reporters get caught up in the details and ignore the big picture. I urge you first to check the links I have provided. Then, I commend the book. I also would be happy to make myself available or to arrange an interview with lead author Jim Hoggan. Your readers deserve a careful look at this issue. The very fate of the world may hang in the balance. Leaving that fate in the hands of an amateur staistician - favoured over the science academies of every major nation on earth - would seem a specific deservice. Cheers, r Richard Littlemore www.desmogblog.com On Oct 23, 2009, Jolis, Anne wrote: Dear All, I see that Dr. Mann has CCd you on his reply to me, which is fine. Below you see my original email and questions to him - I'm likely to file this weekend, but invite any of you to weigh in with your own thoughts and responses on the issues on which I've queried Dr. Mann. All the best, Anne Jolis On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote: Dear Dr. Mann, My name is Anne Jolis, and I'm with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in London. I'm working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists - and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa's work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures, as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then - when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data - seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 years. I realize this is not exactly the silver-bullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree? I'd love to get some insight from you for my article. I'll be filing this weekend, but I can call you any time it's convenient for you on Friday - just let me know the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I'm attributing to you. Additionally, if you'd like to correspond via email, that's fine too. I've listed below some of the questions and assumptions I'm working on - if, in lieu of a phone call, you'd like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have on these issues, I'd be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length! I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments. All the best, Anne Jolis - Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you agree with policy makers' and advocates' use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new economic regulations? Why or why not? -What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they're given enough weight in the current debate? -What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre's work? Clearly he is not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his "auditing" in the climate science community? Why or why not? -Do you think McIntyre's work and findings are likely to change the way leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions when they present scientific data? -How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair? Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is worthy of publication? -Do you stand by your original "hockey stick" graf, even after the publication of borehole data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your conclusions? Or work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" would not be able to predict current temperatures? 4666. 2009-10-23 14:15:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stephen Schneider , Gavin Schmidt , Stefan Rahmstorf , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Andy Revkin , Henry Pollack , Gabi Hegerl , Benjamin Santer , Richard Littlemore date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:15:12 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal: to: Anne Jolis , Joe Romm , Media Matters Erikka Knuti , DarkSydOTheMoon@aol.com, Dan Vergano , Bud Ward , george@monbiot.info, AJ Walzer , "Paul D. Thacker" , Chris Mooney Dear Anne, I will respond to these briefly. please see below. Will now be incommunicado through early next week, so this will have to do. best, Mike Mann On Oct 23, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Jolis, Anne wrote: Dear Dr. Mann, I realize you've taken that liberty. I've just sent them all an email as well inviting them to weigh in (though I've already spoken with Dr. Schneider) - great minds think alike! I take it that you decline to comment on the two questions I've just resubmitted to you: -How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair? Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is or is not worthy of publication? I won't dignify that question with a response, other than to say that it betrays a deep naivety about how the peer review process in science works, and it buys into what I consider to be rather offensive conspiracy theories that impugn the integrity of editors, reviewers in general, and myself in particular. -Do you have a response to work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" graph (which I do realize did not use the Yamal data) would not be able to predict current temperatures? You seem to be unaware of the fact that there were two serious rebuttals (by Rahmstorf and by Ritson et al) of the Von Storch claims published subsequently in Science See the summaries here: [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/ [2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/addendum-to-a-mistake-with-repercu ssions/ see also what the most recent IPCC report had to say about the hockey stick criticisms: [3]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf First, with respect to the McIntyre criticisms so often touted by contrarian disinformation outlets: "The hockey stick reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called Medieval Warm Period (and Little Ice Age). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the Medieval Warm Period. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005)." Second, with regard to the Von Storch claims. The IPCC assessment was published prior to the publication of the two Science refutations of the Von Storch et al paper noted above, and thus were unable to assess the most serious criticisms of that work. But even at that point, the IPCC noted some serious caveats about that work, and stressed that even if the criticisms were valid (which they have been shown not to be), they would not call into question the key conclusions regarding the anomalous nature of recent warmth in a millennial+ context: Using pseudo-proxy networks extracted from GCM simulations of global climate for the last millennium, von Storch et al. (2004) suggested that temperature reconstructions may not fully represent variance on long time scales. This would represent a bias, as distinct from the random error represented by published reconstruction uncertainty ranges. At present, the extent of any such biases in specific reconstructions and as indicated by pseudo-proxy studies is uncertain (being dependent on the choice of statistical regression model and climate model simulation used to provide the pseudo-proxies). It is very unlikely, however, that any bias would be as large as the factor of two suggested by von Storch et al. (2004) with regard to the reconstruction by Mann et al. (1998), as discussed by Burger and Cubash (2005) and Wahl et al. (2006). However, the bias will depend on the degree to which past climate departs from the range of temperatures encompassed within the calibration period data (Mann et al., 2005b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006) and on the proportions of temperature variability occurring on short and long time scales (Osborn and Briffa, 2004). In any case, this bias would act to damp the amplitude of reconstructed departures that are further from the calibration period mean, so that temperatures during cooler periods may have been colder than estimated by some reconstructions, while periods with comparable temperatures (e.g., possible portions of the period between AD 950 and 1150, Figure 6.10) would be largely unbiased. As only one reconstruction (Moberg et al., 2005) shows an early period that is noticeably warmer than the mean for the calibration period, the possibility of a bias does not affect the general conclusion about the relative warmth of the 20th century based on these data. Finally, the summary of the current state of knowledge regarding the anomalous nature of recent warming, by the IPCC: The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. Best, Anne ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Michael Mann [[4]mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu] Sent: 23 October 2009 18:07 To: Jolis, Anne; Joe Romm; Media Matters Erikka Knuti; [5]DarkSydOTheMoon@aol.com; Dan Vergano; Bud Ward; [6]george@monbiot.info; AJ Walzer; Paul D. Thacker; Chris Mooney Cc: Stephen Schneider; Gavin Schmidt; Stefan Rahmstorf; Phil Jones; Tim Osborn; Andy Revkin; Henry Pollack; Gabi Hegerl; Benjamin Santer; Richard Littlemore Subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal: Ms. Jolis, I've taken the liberty of copying this exchange to a few others who might be interested in it, within the broader context of issues related to the history of biased reporting on climate change at the Wall Street Journal Europe, Yours, Mike Mann On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Michael Mann wrote: Ms. Jolis, I am traveling through this weekend and have only brief email access, so can only respond w/ a very short email to your inquiry. I'm sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc. The National Academy of Science report (more info below) reported in 2006 that "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence...". The conclusions in the most recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment report have been significantly strengthened relative to what was originally concluded in our work from the 1990s or in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from likely in the Third Assessment Report to very likely in the current report for the past half millennium. Since then, the conclusions have been further strengthened by other work, including work by us. Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC: [7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8236797.stm [8]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7592575.stm You don't seem to be aware of the fact that our original "Hockey Stick" reconstruction didn't even use the "Yamal" data. It seems you have uncritically accepted nearly every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself. Furthermore, I doubt that the various authors you cite as critics, such as Pollack and Smerdon, would in any way agree w/ your assessment of this work. Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, and would work to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been called into question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change. I've copied my response to a number of others who might wish to comment further, as I will be unavailable to speak with you until next week. I've pasted below various summaries by mainstream news venues which reported a couple years ago that the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of Nature "Affirmed The Hockey Stick" below this message. In addition, here are a few links you might want to read to better familiarize yourself with what the science actually states with regard to the issues raised in your inquiry below: [9]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/ [10]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summar y-for-policy-makers/ [11]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-repo rt/ [12]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/ [13]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysis-reproduces-graph-of- late-20th-century-temperature-rise/ [14]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hocke y-stick-controversy/ [15]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/ Finally, let me suggest, under the assumption that your intent is indeed to report the reality of our current scientific understanding, rather than contrarian politically-motivated spin, that any legitimate journalistic inquiry into the current state of the science, and the extent to which uncertainties and controversy have been overstated and misrepresented in the public discourse, would probably choose to focus on the issues raised here: [16]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/ Yours, Mike Mann ___________________NEWS CLIPS ON ACADEMY REPORT_____________________ from BBC (6/23/06 "Backing for 'Hockey Stick' graph") The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic "hockey stick" graph.) from New York Times (Andy Revkin, 6/22/06 "Science Panel Packs Study on Warming Climate"): At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result. "I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at [17]North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure. Boston Globe (Beth Daley, 6/22/06 "Report backs global warming claims"): Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in a (millennium), said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington. Los Angeles Times (Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, "U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming"): After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that "is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." and The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times. It concluded that, "with a high level of confidence," global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600. Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion. The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was "less confident" that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600. Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report. Associated Press (syndicate with 100s of newspapers accross the U.S. (John Heilprin, 6/22/06 "The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, perhaps even longer"): The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said. and Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850. Washington Post (Juliet Eilperin, 6/23/06 "Study Confirms Past Few Decades Warmest on Record"): Panel member Kurt M. Cuffey, a geography professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said at a news briefing that the report "essentially validated" the conclusions Mann reported in 1998 and 1999 using temperature records. The panel also estimated there is a roughly 67 percent chance that Mann is right in saying the past 25 years were the warmest in a 1,000 years. Nature (Geoff Brumfield, 6/28/06 "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph") "We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right. and says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the work. New Scientist (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/23/06, "US report backs study on global warming"): It was really the first analysis of its type, panel member Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley, US, said at a news conference on Thursday. He added that it was the first time anyone has done such a large-scale and continual analysis of temperature over time. So its not surprising that they could have probably done some detailed aspects of it better. But it was a remarkable contribution and gave birth to a debate thats ongoing, thats teaching us a lot about how climate has changed. Science (Richard Kerr, June 30, 2006, "Yes, Its been Getting Warmer in Here Since the CO2 Begain to Rise"): In addition, none of the three committee members at the press briefing--North, Bloomfield, and paleoclimatologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley--had found any hint of scientific impropriety. "I certainly did not see anything inappropriate," said North. "Maybe things could have been done better, but after all, it was the first analysis of its kind." -- On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote: Dear Dr. Mann, My name is Anne Jolis, and I'm with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in London. I'm working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists - and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa's work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures , as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data, seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 year . I realize this is not exactly the silver-bullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree? I'd love to get some insight from you for my article. I'll be filing this weekend, but I can call you any time it's convenient for you on Friday - just let me know the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I'm attributing to you. Additionally, if you'd like to correspond via email, that's fine too. I've listed below some of the questions and assumptions I'm working on - if, in lieu of a phone call, you'd like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have on these issues, I'd be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length! I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments. All the best, Anne Jolis Mobile: +44 799 079 3569 - Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you agree with policy makers' and advocates' use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new economic regulations? Why or why not? -What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they're given enough weight in the current debate? -What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre's work? Clearly he is not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his "auditing" in the climate science community? Why or why not? -Do you think McIntyre's work and findings are likely to change the way leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions when they present scientific data? -How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair? Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is worthy of publication? -Do you stand by your original "hockey stick" graf, even after the publication of borehole data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your conclusions? Or work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" would not be able to predict current temperatures? -- Michael E. Mann 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: [18]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Michael E. Mann 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: [21]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Michael E. Mann 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: [24]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [25]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [26]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 4003. 2009-10-23 16:07:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Fri Oct 23 16:07:08 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" Dear All, Noted! It is ridiculous that an Oxford Quantum Physicist is going through UEA's codes of practice! Cheers Phil At 10:53 23/10/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: Gents, Please note all the below - it is clear that Prof. Jones will be monitoring us closely on this matter and I suspect that this will also be one that ends up with the ICO. Letter to go out shortly in response to Prof. Jones.... Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Jones [[1]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:28 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Thanks for the update. I note, however, that UEA is now in formal breach of its own code of practice, appendix H paragraph 10. Regards, Jonathan -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [2]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[3]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 October 2009 14:08 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Mr. Jones, Just a quick note to inform you that I understand that Mr. Colam-French's response should be out to you later today, tomorrow at the latest Apologies for the delay in responding. Cheers, Dave Palmer _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Jonathan Jones [[4]mailto:Jonathan.Jones@qubit.org] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:42 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Dear Mr Palmer, Further to your email dated 22nd September, included below, and the letter attached to it, 2nd_level_referral_090922.doc, I had been expecting a response from Mr Colam-French by last Tuesday, 20th October. I have yet to hear from him, and would be grateful for your suggestions as to how I should proceed at this stage. Regards, Jonathan Jones -- Prof Jonathan A. Jones web page at [5]http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation and Brasenose College Oxford _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[6]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 September 2009 15:30 To: Jonathan Jones Subject: Environmental Information Regulations request (FOI_09-117; EIR_09-14) - Appeal referral Prof. Jones Further to your email of 27 August and our response of 28 August 2009 on this matter, attached please find further information regarding the handling of your request. We will be in touch again in due course. As always, if you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3129. 2009-10-23 16:32:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:29 +0100 from: Sandy Tudhope subject: budgets to: Chris Turney Hi Chris, Good to talk to you a moment ago. As we discussed, the final budgets must be clearly aligned to meet our objectives, with the added pragmatic issue of ensuring critical mass of resources to each institution to help them deliver. Having said that, just to give you an idea, the costs for delivering on the new coral data for 4 sites as described in the WP would be in the region of 395k (FEC). This is based on: - 60 days fieldwork and associated costs (boat hire; travel; shipping; consumables): 125k - 10,000 geochemical analyses (del18O and Sr/Ca): 160k - support staff salary costs (for workshop and fieldwork): 36k - Co-I salary (15% in Y1 then 5% for each of Y2-4): 27k - Misc (equipment upgrade; consumables; XRD, SEM): 10k - conferences, meetings, publication: 6k - Estates and Indirect: ~31k TOTAL: 395k Note this does not include any post-doc time. I envisage that a post doc would be better spent working on model-data comparison and statistical analyses rather than on data generation that can be done in our labs, i.e., shared, e.g., with Gabi. Cheers, Sandy -- _____________________________________________________________________ Professor Sandy Tudhope, School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, Edinburgh University, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW,U.K. Tel: +44 131 650 8508 +44 131 650 4842 (sec.) Fax: +44 131 668 3184 e-mail: sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 3741. 2009-10-25 12:48:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:48:21 +1100 from: "Don McNeil" subject: data anomaly? to: Dear Phil: I have downloaded the dataset for hadCRUT3V. I wonder if the data for latitude band 32 in month 9 of year 1929 for longitude bands v44 and v45 are correct. The values given are both 7.8. The only other recorded value for 1929 in the same year is -0.5701 in month 12 at latitude band 32 and longitude band v51. I'd be grateful if you would check these data. Cheers...Don 1917. 2009-10-26 09:08:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 26 09:08:06 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Some help? to: Jean Palutikof Jean, Thanks! Cheers Phil At 08:32 26/10/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil Hmmm...how about Bob Watson, since he's on the doorstep. Apart from him, I'd mention Saleemul Huq. Works for IIED, but about to return to head an institute in Bangladesh (butI'm sure he'll keep strong links in UK). Definitely a DfID darling. Depends just how much of a figurehead you want them to be. If totally, then maybe Joe Alcamo, now UNEP Chief Scientist, based in Nairobi. Very good - was a water systems modeller at U. Kassel. He's American - maybe has a German wife? Or Diana Liverman? On leave from Oxford to head the US NAS panel on adaptation. All the best Jean -----Phil Jones wrote: ----- To: Jean Palutikof From: Phil Jones Date: 10/23/2009 10:59PM Subject: Some help? > Jean, CRU is going in with DEV in some multi-institutional bid for a seriously large amount of money from DfiD. 40M pounds, but most goes to bidders to do the work. Anyway - do you know of someone - bit lower down than Patchy, who is well known in the adaptation/mitigation fields globally that we ask to lead it (as a figurehead). You should be getting an email from ENV for a reference for Andrew Dlugolecki. We're putting him forward for an honorary readership in ENV. Good to see you the other 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 463. 2009-10-26 10:19:58 ______________________________________________________ date: 26 Oct 2009 10:19:58 +0000 from: "J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys." subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Ref: ATP1923 Title: Distinguishing Paleoclimate Reconstructions from Instrumental Series Article Type: Special Issue: Mursula SpaceClimate Dear Dr. Phil Jones, Thank you once again for reviewing the above-referenced paper. With your help the following final decision has now been reached: Reject The author decision letter can be found below. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this paper and greatly value your assistance as a reviewer for Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. If you have not yet activated or completed your 30 days of access to Scopus, you can still access Scopus via this link: http://scopees.elsevier.com/ees_login.asp?journalacronym=ATP&username=PJones-376 You can use your EES password to access Scopus via the URL above. You can save your 30 days access period, but access will expire 6 months after you accepted to review. Yours sincerely, Margriet ten Napel Journal Manager Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics To: "Irina Knyazeva" iknyazeva@gmail.com From: "J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys." atp-eo@elsevier.com Subject: ATP1923, Editor decision Ref.: "Distinguishing Paleoclimate Reconstructions from Instrumental Series" (Mrs. Irina Knyazeva) Dear Mrs. Knyazeva, I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the attached review reports (and on http://ees.elsevier.com/atp/). I hope that the comments contained therein will be of use to you. Thank you for your interest in our journal. Kind regards, For the Editor, Margriet ten Napel, Journal Manager Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics .......................................................... Important note: If a reviewer has provided a review or other materials as attachments, those items will not be in this letter. Please ensure therefore that you log on to the journal site and check if any attachments have been provided. .......................................................... COMMENTS FROM EDITOR AND REVIEWERS Dear Authors, Your manuscript has been reviewed by two expert reviewers (see detailed statements below). Both recommended rejection of the manuscript. Based on that, I regret to inform you that the manuscript cannot be considered to be published in the Space Climate topical issue of JASTP. ============================================== Reviewer #1: Review of Makarenko et al (ATP 1923) This paper has rather an odd title, but it sums up the paper. I cannot see any point in all the mathematics. Much can be seen from looking at the proxy series that make up these reconstructions and the instrumental data. I recommend rejection of this paper. It does nothing to advance the field of paleoclimatology, and I also can't see why you are even bothering to send the paper out for review. If I was looking for a paper looking at paleoclimatic data, I would not look for it in the JASTP. I do not understand any of the mathematics, but I do understand instrumental and paleoclimatic data. As I've said this paper doesn't advance the science one iota. What is need is more reconstructions and extensions to instrumental data. It would have been better to have understood the proxies better and also to have considered that there might have been issues with the early instrumental data. I'm not going to waste my time pointing out the numerous things that are wrong with this paper, but list just a few. 1. The various reconstructions of the last 1000 years are not competing with each other. This is a very naive view of paleoclimatology. 2. It is expected that the reconstructions won't agree with instrumental data: this is why they are called proxy data!! 3. There are far more informative papers comparing paleoclimatic reconstructions and they are written in climate journals - see for example Lee et al. (2008). The methods used in the combination are almost as important as the proxies used. 4. There are many more reconstructions of the last 1000 years. In fact there are far too many. We don't need any more. Instead we need improvements to the reconstructions and we need more in the SH and the Tropics. 5. In the Introduction, I have little idea what the 4th to 8th sentences mean. 6. I'd suggest the authors read the paleoclimatic literature and find out what is going on. A good recent review of what the different areas of paleoclimatology is Jones et al. (2009). 7. Much of the mathematical parts of the paper are unintelligible. If you want paleoclimatologists to read this, you first have to make it readable and then you have to publish it in a climate journal paleoclimatologists are going to read. 8. The mathematical techniques could be tried out on GCM output. Paleoclimatologists are using these data and sections in the Jones et al. (2009) indicate why GCM output is useful. This is referred to pseudo-proxies, where the answer - the global surface temperature is known. 4127. 2009-10-26 14:20:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Greg Kaser , "Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM" , Rachel Nalumoso , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Mon Oct 26 14:20:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Annual review to: "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" , Phil Abrahams , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" , "kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk" , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" Dear All, Here is some text on Climate Science. There is some introduction to the acronyms as well as the long history of CRU involvement. Some of this won't be necessary, but Clare and I found oursleves writing foir At the end there is a page on what needs to be done for the provision of climate scenarios/services in the light of expected advances over the next few years. Cheers Phil At 11:59 26/10/2009, Adger Neil Prof (ENV) wrote: Pete Herewith one page on adaptation. Roger may well wish to amend, as we havent had a chance to chat yet. Gets the ball rolling. Neil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 26 October 2009 11:46 To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear All Please find attached some draft text on research themes 3 & 4 (international policy and low carbon development). Neil/Roger- can you draft something similar on adaptation? Phil- can you draft something similar on climate science? Kevin- if you have anything to add on the low carbon development, let me know. Since I will have irregular access to e-mail over the next week please send your contributions to Katherine and Adrian at a minimum to ensure they can pull together all the UEA inputs. Thanks and best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [1]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [2]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [3]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [4]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:56 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Peter et al, Below I've given you a list of possible climate scientists to sit on the advisory board. With the UK ones, it is a bit of a guess who might be involved in other bids. I've omitted anyone at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also at the Grantham Institute at Imperial. Before this list, Peter asked if I could think of a figurehead for the Chair of this Board? I emailed my ex-colleague Jean Palutikof. Here is what she said. Hi Phil Hmmm...how about Bob Watson, since he's on the doorstep. Apart from him, I'd mention Saleemul Huq. Works for IIED, but about to return to head an institute in Bangladesh (butI'm sure he'll keep strong links in UK). Definitely a DfID darling. Depends just how much of a figurehead you want them to be. If totally, then maybe Joe Alcamo, now UNEP Chief Scientist, based in Nairobi. Very good - was a water systems modeller at U. Kassel. He's American - maybe has a German wife? Or Diana Liverman? On leave from Oxford to head the US NAS panel on adaptation. All the best Jean Now for the Climate Scientists Dr. Karl Taylor (PCMDI, LLNL, Livermore, Ca, USA) - Karl is at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, where all the climate model simulations for the future under something called CMIP5 will be housed. Dr Susan Solomon, NOAA, Boulder, Co, USA - Susan led the WG1 report for AR4 of IPCC (2007) Prof Dr Thomas Stocker, University of Bern, Switzerland - Thomas is leading WG1 for AR5 of IPCC (2013) Prof Bruce Hewitson, University of Cape Town, South Africa Dr Jens Christenson, Danish Met Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark - Bruce and Jens led the Regional Modelling Chapter in AR4 Dr Linda Mearns, NCAR, Boulder, Co, USA Dr Tim Carter, Finnish Environment Centre, SYKE, Helsinki, Finland - Linda and Tim are well known climate impact scientists Prof Chris Kilsby, University of Newcastle, UK - works on impacts, especially in the water sector, so floods, droughts and water resources. Done consultancy work in the West Bank Prof Rob Wilby, University of Loughborough, UK - similar to Chris and has done consultancy work in Morocco and Yemen. Cheers Phil At 15:52 25/10/2009, Newell Peter Prof (DEV) wrote: Dear Phil (Abrahams) I am copying this message to Prof. Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at UEA who will drafting some text on the climate science element of our research programme. He was on your original list of people that might serve as members of the editorial board for the annual reviews. Phil (Jones) - see below. Could you send on some suggestions of climate scientists to serve on the board? Thanks and best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [5]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [6]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [7]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [8]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:51 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso Subject: {Spam?} RE: Annual review Thank you all for these comments. As you see, I have incorporated them into a document which Elizabeth will work on next week (when Im absent on vacation) as part of the CABI contribution which is to say the version you see here probably will not be the version you see sent from her next week (not least because of its length). However, I am still missing names on the science: Kevin. My apologies if youve sent these already but could you please forward any proposed names to Elizabeth Dodsworth? Best wishes Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [9]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) [ [10]mailto:P.Newell@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 October 2009 12:39 To: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Thanks Neil. On international policy I would suggest: Prof. Matthew Paterson (U. Ottawa) Prof. Michael Grubb (U. Cambridge) Farhana Yamin (IDS, U. Sussex) Prof. Frank Bierman (Free University, Amsterdam) Dr. Fari Zelli (GTZ, Germany) Prof. Timmons Roberts (Brown U, US) Dr. MJ Mace (FIELD) Prof. Ann Florini (Nat U. Singapore) Dr. Benito Muller (OIES, U. Oxford) On low-carbon development: Dr. Jim Watson (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Adrian Smith (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Jim Skea (UK CC Committee) Dr. Axek Michaelowa (U Zurich) Dr. Xiaojie Xu, Head, International Energy Program, Institute of World Economics and Politics, China Academy of Social Sciences Dr. Kirsty Hamilton, Renewable Energy Finance project, Chatham House Dr. Tim Forsyth, (LSE) Dr. Ian Rowlands (U Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Karen Olsen (UNEP Risoe) Prof. Michael Wara (Stanford U) Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: (01603) 593724 Fax: (01603) 451999 E-mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk [11]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Adger Neil Prof (ENV) Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:58 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Peter Thanks. In terms of names who would be appropriate on adaptation etc (I think a few UEA names would be good to include): Barry Smit University Guelph Sam Fankhauser (LSE and UK Climate Change Committee) Richard Klein (SEI) Ian Burton (Environment Canada) Ian Noble World Bank Neil Leary (Dickinson College and former START and AIACC project) Coleen Vogel (Univ Wits) Tony Nyong (African Development Bank) Victor Cruz (University Philippines) Bruce Capmbell Climate Change Challenge CGIAR etc maybe in another category Daniel Murdiyarso CIFOR Indonesia Tao Wang now with WWF China Hope these help stuimulate thoughts Neil ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 17 October 2009 16:55 To: Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil Thanks for this. I am copying to other colleagues at UEA that are part of the bid to suggest names to you (which I will also do of course). One way would be to aim for a mix of specialists across each of the themes that the 'Climate Exchange' (CCDKN) will focus on (i) climate science (of particular importance for developing countries) (ii) low carbon development (iii) adaptation and (iv) international policy for development. As I mentioned at the meeting in London, one way of ensuring synergy across the research and this annual review will be to summarise latest research in these areas, rather than duplicate what the IPCC and other do. Assuming you agree with this, can I invite colleagues to submit a few names under these headings? Kevin on the science, Neil and Kate on adaptation. I'll send some on low carbon development and international policy. Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [12]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [13]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [14]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [15]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:19 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: Annual review Peter Im tasked with considering how we manage the outputs of the Annual Review and will be recommending that a small external Editorial Board is responsible for QA and identification of authors to be commissioned to write reviews of key papers/findings etc. The EB will have to be a mix of eminent research, social and policy experts and can of course, at least in part, be drawn from some of the consortium (especially UEA) staff. Meanwhile, Ive been Googling for resources that rank scientists in terms of their climate science citations and/or absolute outputs as potential candidates to approach for an EB. The site Ive come across at [16]UToronto may not be valid, so are there sites doing this you can also recommend? Are the names below, from the UToronto list known to you and worth approaching as a lined-up EB member? Ive taken an arbitrary selection of names from key institutes (excluding the rival Hadley Centre) and included names lower down the rankings who could be put forward as representing some Southern science) Ranking: 1 Jean Jouzel, CNRS France Ice core data 2 Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, US Decadal variance 3 Joseph Berry, Carnegie, US Plant physiology 5 James Hurrell, NCAR, US NAO 8 Philip Jones, UEA Surface temperature trends 22 Martin Heimann, MPI Germany Carbon cycle 35 Robert Dickinson, GIT, US Biogeochem Cycles 41 Navin Ramankutty*, McGill, Can Biosphere modelling (*India) 57 Filippo Giorgi, Abdul Salam, Italy Regional modelling 63 Mario Molina*, Scripps US Ozone loss (*Nobel winner, Mexico) 77 Andre Berger, Louvain, Bel Orbital forcings 79 Venkatachalam Ramaswany, NOAA US All the best Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [17]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071. ** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2718. 2009-10-26 18:08:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,m.agnew@uea.ac.uk,c.Harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:08:22 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: A UEA 'teach-in' on climate and Copenhagen?? to: UCU Office Hi Trevor I'd be happy to help out in some way with the teach-in, though I'm afraid I don't have time to take a major organisational role. One of the impacts of working in such a high-profile area is an endless workload! When is it likely to happen? I'm away at meetings 6-19 November and have more-or-less no spare time before then. As you know I'm a contract researcher, but will be lecturing on the climate change MSc on 2 December and giving a CRU seminar on 3 December - the topics for these are already fixed. It could be good to use the new national climate projections as a focus - [1]http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/. Several CRU people were involved in their development. Students could look at the projections for Norwich or their home towns. Though too many users at one time would likely crash the server! Best wishes, Clare At 11:06 23/10/2009, you wrote: Hello Clare ( this is going to several UCU members, can you suggest some I should copy to?) Would you be interested in helping a 'teach-in' on Copenhagen/the climate emergency to take place at UEA? Or to play some small personal role in one? I work for UCU here at UEA, as the branch administrator. (I am also active in the Campaign Against Climate Change (CACC) locally, and am organising events in Norwich). ( and a former DEV student!) The UCU branch at UEA has responded to a national appeal by CACC to consider holding campus 'teach-ins' to raise awarness of the climate emergency and the Copenhagen summit. The branch will be encouraging members to support the idea. (Many others may also do so across UK, but UEA is uniquely equipped.) Student activists and the Student Union environment officer are also encouraging this. The chaplaincy also likes the idea. The branch will shortly be contacting all UCU members to ask if they will support this, but I am currently looking for a core team of likely participants to help this along. I believe there are several UCU members - and other staff - who may wish to help. Would you be willing to help/participate? I append a description of what a 'teach-in' might look like. Please contact me very soon if you like the idea. I work part time at UEA but am also available on 07794 690322 Trevor Phillips UCU branch administrator TEACH-IN : 'What happens during a teach in is that a department, a school, or a whole university decide to concentrate on climate for a day. They still use the timetabled rooms. But instead of normal teaching, they run lectures and seminars on climate change, using the expertise of staff and visiting speakers. So geography teachers would approach the topic in one way, history teachers in another, and drama teachers in yet another. Students also organise speakers and workshops. The best way to begin organising the teach-ins is probably for a small group of staff and students meeting together in each university or college. ' UCU Office University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ TEL: 01603 592652 ucu.office@uea.ac.uk Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 5071. 2009-10-26 19:14:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Greg Kaser , "Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM" , Rachel Nalumoso , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:14:36 +0000 from: "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" subject: RE: Annual review to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , Phil Abrahams , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" , "kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk" , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" Thanks for the quick turn around Phil. Very much appreciated Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:23 PM To: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear All, Here is some text on Climate Science. There is some introduction to the acronyms as well as the long history of CRU involvement. Some of this won't be necessary, but Clare and I found ourselves writing for an audience we were not sure knew all this. At the end there is a page of bullet points on what needs to be done for the provision of climate scenarios/services in the light of expected advances over the next few years (some by the time of AR5). The bullet points are ordered roughly in time. What needs to be done earliest is first. Cheers Phil At 11:59 26/10/2009, Adger Neil Prof (ENV) wrote: Pete Herewith one page on adaptation. Roger may well wish to amend, as we havent had a chance to chat yet. Gets the ball rolling. Neil ________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 26 October 2009 11:46 To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear All Please find attached some draft text on research themes 3 & 4 (international policy and low carbon development). Neil/Roger- can you draft something similar on adaptation? Phil- can you draft something similar on climate science? Kevin- if you have anything to add on the low carbon development, let me know. Since I will have irregular access to e-mail over the next week please send your contributions to Katherine and Adrian at a minimum to ensure they can pull together all the UEA inputs. Thanks and best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:56 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Peter et al, Below I've given you a list of possible climate scientists to sit on the advisory board. With the UK ones, it is a bit of a guess who might be involved in other bids. I've omitted anyone at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also at the Grantham Institute at Imperial. Before this list, Peter asked if I could think of a figurehead for the Chair of this Board? I emailed my ex-colleague Jean Palutikof. Here is what she said. Hi Phil Hmmm...how about Bob Watson, since he's on the doorstep. Apart from him, I'd mention Saleemul Huq. Works for IIED, but about to return to head an institute in Bangladesh (butI'm sure he'll keep strong links in UK). Definitely a DfID darling. Depends just how much of a figurehead you want them to be. If totally, then maybe Joe Alcamo, now UNEP Chief Scientist, based in Nairobi. Very good - was a water systems modeller at U. Kassel. He's American - maybe has a German wife? Or Diana Liverman? On leave from Oxford to head the US NAS panel on adaptation. All the best Jean Now for the Climate Scientists Dr. Karl Taylor (PCMDI, LLNL, Livermore, Ca, USA) - Karl is at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, where all the climate model simulations for the future under something called CMIP5 will be housed. Dr Susan Solomon, NOAA, Boulder, Co, USA - Susan led the WG1 report for AR4 of IPCC (2007) Prof Dr Thomas Stocker, University of Bern, Switzerland - Thomas is leading WG1 for AR5 of IPCC (2013) Prof Bruce Hewitson, University of Cape Town, South Africa Dr Jens Christenson, Danish Met Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark - Bruce and Jens led the Regional Modelling Chapter in AR4 Dr Linda Mearns, NCAR, Boulder, Co, USA Dr Tim Carter, Finnish Environment Centre, SYKE, Helsinki, Finland - Linda and Tim are well known climate impact scientists Prof Chris Kilsby, University of Newcastle, UK - works on impacts, especially in the water sector, so floods, droughts and water resources. Done consultancy work in the West Bank Prof Rob Wilby, University of Loughborough, UK - similar to Chris and has done consultancy work in Morocco and Yemen. Cheers Phil At 15:52 25/10/2009, Newell Peter Prof (DEV) wrote: Dear Phil (Abrahams) I am copying this message to Prof. Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at UEA who will drafting some text on the climate science element of our research programme. He was on your original list of people that might serve as members of the editorial board for the annual reviews. Phil (Jones) - see below. Could you send on some suggestions of climate scientists to serve on the board? Thanks and best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:51 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso Subject: {Spam?} RE: Annual review Thank you all for these comments. As you see, I have incorporated them into a document which Elizabeth will work on next week (when Im absent on vacation) as part of the CABI contribution which is to say the version you see here probably will not be the version you see sent from her next week (not least because of its length). However, I am still missing names on the science: Kevin. My apologies if youve sent these already but could you please forward any proposed names to Elizabeth Dodsworth? Best wishes Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment ________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) [ mailto:P.Newell@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 October 2009 12:39 To: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Thanks Neil. On international policy I would suggest: Prof. Matthew Paterson (U. Ottawa) Prof. Michael Grubb (U. Cambridge) Farhana Yamin (IDS, U. Sussex) Prof. Frank Bierman (Free University, Amsterdam) Dr. Fari Zelli (GTZ, Germany) Prof. Timmons Roberts (Brown U, US) Dr. MJ Mace (FIELD) Prof. Ann Florini (Nat U. Singapore) Dr. Benito Muller (OIES, U. Oxford) On low-carbon development: Dr. Jim Watson (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Adrian Smith (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Jim Skea (UK CC Committee) Dr. Axek Michaelowa (U Zurich) Dr. Xiaojie Xu, Head, International Energy Program, Institute of World Economics and Politics, China Academy of Social Sciences Dr. Kirsty Hamilton, Renewable Energy Finance project, Chatham House Dr. Tim Forsyth, (LSE) Dr. Ian Rowlands (U Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Karen Olsen (UNEP Risoe) Prof. Michael Wara (Stanford U) Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: (01603) 593724 Fax: (01603) 451999 E-mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ________________________________ From: Adger Neil Prof (ENV) Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:58 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Peter Thanks. In terms of names who would be appropriate on adaptation etc (I think a few UEA names would be good to include): Barry Smit University Guelph Sam Fankhauser (LSE and UK Climate Change Committee) Richard Klein (SEI) Ian Burton (Environment Canada) Ian Noble World Bank Neil Leary (Dickinson College and former START and AIACC project) Coleen Vogel (Univ Wits) Tony Nyong (African Development Bank) Victor Cruz (University Philippines) Bruce Capmbell Climate Change Challenge CGIAR etc maybe in another category Daniel Murdiyarso CIFOR Indonesia Tao Wang now with WWF China Hope these help stuimulate thoughts Neil ________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 17 October 2009 16:55 To: Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil Thanks for this. I am copying to other colleagues at UEA that are part of the bid to suggest names to you (which I will also do of course). One way would be to aim for a mix of specialists across each of the themes that the 'Climate Exchange' (CCDKN) will focus on (i) climate science (of particular importance for developing countries) (ii) low carbon development (iii) adaptation and (iv) international policy for development. As I mentioned at the meeting in London, one way of ensuring synergy across the research and this annual review will be to summarise latest research in these areas, rather than duplicate what the IPCC and other do. Assuming you agree with this, can I invite colleagues to submit a few names under these headings? Kevin on the science, Neil and Kate on adaptation. I'll send some on low carbon development and international policy. Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:19 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: Annual review Peter Im tasked with considering how we manage the outputs of the Annual Review and will be recommending that a small external Editorial Board is responsible for QA and identification of authors to be commissioned to write reviews of key papers/findings etc. The EB will have to be a mix of eminent research, social and policy experts and can of course, at least in part, be drawn from some of the consortium (especially UEA) staff. Meanwhile, Ive been Googling for resources that rank scientists in terms of their climate science citations and/or absolute outputs as potential candidates to approach for an EB. The site Ive come across at UToronto may not be valid, so are there sites doing this you can also recommend? Are the names below, from the UToronto list known to you and worth approaching as a lined-up EB member? Ive taken an arbitrary selection of names from key institutes (excluding the rival Hadley Centre) and included names lower down the rankings who could be put forward as representing some Southern science) Ranking: 1 Jean Jouzel, CNRS France Ice core data 2 Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, US Decadal variance 3 Joseph Berry, Carnegie, US Plant physiology 5 James Hurrell, NCAR, US NAO 8 Philip Jones, UEA Surface temperature trends 22 Martin Heimann, MPI Germany Carbon cycle 35 Robert Dickinson, GIT, US Biogeochem Cycles 41 Navin Ramankutty*, McGill, Can Biosphere modelling (*India) 57 Filippo Giorgi, Abdul Salam, Italy Regional modelling 63 Mario Molina*, Scripps US Ozone loss (*Nobel winner, Mexico) 77 Andre Berger, Louvain, Bel Orbital forcings 79 Venkatachalam Ramaswany, NOAA US All the best Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071. ** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2239. 2009-10-27 21:18:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:18:11 +0000 (GMT) from: Simon Clegg subject: money matters to: a.grant@uea.ac.uk Dear Alastair, I'm writing about a couple of financial matters. First some good news: I'm in the process of getting UC Davis to issue a subcontract to UEA to get my salary paid for at least another year. I expect it will be approved. The other thing is that the allocation of my salary over the last couple of years, which you may remember I've tried to correct more than once, seems still to be wrong. I'd be grateful if you'd apply some pressure to make sure things are fixed. Let me explain: The different sources of income to pay me have been a handful of research grants, of which the main one has been an EU grant ("EUCAARI"), and a 3 year NERC grant. The latter is "directly allocated" so the School gets all the money, as you explained to me in the summer. I share EUCAARI, which started in 2007, with Phil Jones in CRU. It was established at the beginning that it would pay for about 9 months of my time and the rest of the funds would pay for someone in CRU. At various times over the last couple of years I have discovered that the charges were not being done correctly - basically too much of my time was being charged to EUCAARI. I have tried to get the errors fixed, and to establish a calendar that shows where I should be paid from month by month. I last attempted to sort things out in late 2008, and the attached "emails.txt" file contains my instructions, and exchanges with Janice and others. I assumed from Janice's last message that everything was going to be put right. However - and you can guess what's coming - Phil Jones just emailed me with the following message: Simon, I've now some idea what needs to be done on my part of EUCAARI. Clare has looked at the budget and there is only about 2 months of a researcher time left! Clare also shows me that you've been paying yourself for months in 2007 and 2008. The last two months were July and August 2009. Can you talk to someone about getting this back 0 it may be a mistake? In the original DoW UEA had about 21 months of which I thought I had about 8. I can probably get done what needs to be done with 6. I need the 6 to be able to justify the number of months in the job advert. I'm combining this with some other work to make more months, which might then be more appealing. I'm going to need the two months from 2009 back. Cheers Phil >From his message it appears that my corrections haven't been made. The 2 months from 2009 Phil refers to may be related to a currency exchange windfall I think we expected - I used the surplus to pay myself another couple of months. If the money has come into the University then I should look at that again to see how many GBP the euros actually bought. I'd be grateful if you'd instruct someone to produce a document showing where I have been paid from, preferably since early 2007, and we'll go through the process of doing corrections again. Janice is always helpful but it seems that once things are out of her hands they disappear into a hole somewhere. Sincerely, Simon. ************************************** Simon L. Clegg, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. email: s.clegg@uea.ac.uk phone: (0)1603 593185 fax: (0)1603 591327 Skype: slclegg (with video) SkypeIn: 919-975-4901 (USA) Professor Clegg is also a member of the Air Quality Research Centre at the University of California at Davis. ************************************** Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\emails.txt" 4374. 2009-10-27 23:59:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:59:48 +0100 from: "GCOSJPO" subject: Update on GSN and GUAN Performance in September 2009 to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Matthew Menne" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "GCOSJPO" , "Jerome Lafeuille" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear Colleague, An update for September 2009 of GSN and GUAN observing network performance is now available. You have been designated by the Permanent Representative of your country to the World Meteorological Organization as the National Focal Point for the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and Related Climatological Data. Your country hosts one or several surface/upper air meteorological stations that are designated as being part of the GCOS Surface Network (GSN) and/or GCOS Upper Air Network (GUAN). You are invited to check - on a routine basis - the performance of your station(s), as monitored by the GSN and GUAN Monitoring and Analysis Centres at DWD (Germany), JMA (Japan), NOAA/NCDC and NOAA/NCEP (USA), and ECMWF at GSN: http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN/gsnperformanceindicators.htm GUAN: http://gosic.org/gcos/GUAN/guanperformanceindicators.htm NEW - Practical help for compiling CLIMAT Reports - French, Russian and Spanish translations available: The summary of common errors in the generation of CLIMAT Reports, which is intended to assist station operators charged with the production of CLIMAT Reports, is now available in English, French, Spanish and Russian: English: http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN/GCOS-127_CLIMAT_EN.pdf French: http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN/GCOS-127_CLIMAT_FR.pdf Russian: http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN/GCOS-127_CLIMAT_RU.pdf Spanish: http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN/GCOS-127_CLIMAT_SP.pdf In case of reporting problems or any other questions related to the performance of stations in your country, you may contact the GCOS Implementation Manager (thigpenr@erols.com), the GCOS Secretariat (gcosjpo@wmo.int) or your respective CBS Lead Centre for GCOS (see list of contacts and areas of responsibility below). The CBS Lead Centre for GCOS responsible for your country will liaise with you in case of significant problems detected by the GSN and GUAN Monitoring and Analysis Centres. Please cooperate with your CBS Lead Centre for GCOS in order to further improve GSN and GUAN data and metadata availability and quality. Thank you for your work in supporting global observations for climate! Best regards, GCOS Secretariat c/o World Meteorological Organization 7bis, Avenue de la Paix; 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland Email: gcosjpo@wmo.int Phone: +41 22 730 8067 Web: http://gcos.wmo.int ############################################################### CBS Lead Centres for GCOS and their designated area of responsibility (RA: WMO Regional Association): RA I: Morocco (DMN): Mr Rachid Sebbari (sebbari@marocmeteo.ma) Responsible for GSN and GUAN Stations in: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Equatorial, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia RA I: Mozambique (INM): Mr Patricio Domingos (domingos_p@inam.gov.mz) Responsible for GSN and GUAN Stations in: Angola, Botswana , Burundi, Canary Island, Comoros Island, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, the Ocean Islands (St. Helena Island, Ascension Island, Martin de Vivies, Iles Crozet, Iles Kerguelen), Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe RA II and part of RA VI: Iran (IRIMO): Ms Mina Jabbari (jabbari@irimet.net) Responsible for GSN and GUAN stations in: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, India, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen RA II: Japan (JMA): Dr Hidehiko Isobe (h_isobe@met.kishou.go.jp) Responsible for GSN and GUAN stations in: Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam RA III: Chile (DMC): Mr Jorge Carrasco (jcarras@meteochile.cl) Responsible for all GSN and GUAN stations in RA III (South America) RA IV: USA (NOAA/NCDC): Dr Matthew Menne (matthew.menne@noaa.gov) Responsible for GSN and GUAN stations in: most of RA IV (North and Central America and the Caribbean) plus Hawaii RA V: Australia (BoM): Mr Kevin Smith (K.C.Smith@bom.gov.au) GSN and GUAN stations in the most of RA V (South-West Pacific), except those countries noted for Japan and Hawaii (USA) RA VI: Germany (DWD): Mr Tobias Fuchs (tobias.fuchs@dwd.de) Responsible for GSN and GUAN stations in the most of RA VI (Europe), except those countries noted for Iran Antarctica: UK (British Antarctic Survey): Dr Jonathan Shanklin (j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk) Responsible for all GSN and GUAN stations in: Antarctica CBS Lead Centres for GCOS have been designated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Basic Systems (CBS) as being responsible for the proper monitoring of GCOS networks, and follow-up action in certain assigned areas of the world. More about the CBS Lead Centres at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=cbsleadcentres See the full list of GCOS National Focal Points at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ois/rbsn-rbcn/FocalPointsGCOS.doc 3656. 2009-10-28 06:03:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:03:40 +1100 from: "Don McNeil" subject: additional outliers to: Dear Phil: Following your suggestion, we've found about 20 more unusually high SST values between 1909 and 1923 in our region 78 (between latitudes 45 and 65 south and longitudes 20 degrees west and 20 degrees east) and when these are omitted the graph is much clearer. We're now finding that the global temperature increase from 1909 to 1944 almost exactly matches the increase from 1977 to 2008 in terms of its overall gradient (0.167 degrees per decade) but the individual regions have different patterns in the two periods, and the correlation between them is not high. We're still working on this and will send you a copy of the statistical analysis in due course. Cheers...Don >>> Phil Jones 10/27/09 7:35 PM >>> Don, There are good physical arguments for omitting SST values near to or taken under sea ice. Determining SST normals (for 1961-90) anywhere near sea ice is a problem, as there are few measurements and they are more likely to be from warmer years/seasons. You could flag outliers in terms of standard deviation units (all based on the common period of 1961-90) and remove them in this way. Over land we've been through many of those that exceed absolute values of 4 sigma. Many are correct as they are confirmed by neighbours. Many occur near sea-ice boundaries. Stations on the north coast of Iceland have some very large sigma departures when very occasionally sea ice reached the north coast in the past. Also the more continental the land temperatures the more likely it is in higher latitudes for the distribution to be slightly negatively skewed especially in winter months. Cheers Phil 2856. 2009-10-28 09:34:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 28 09:34:09 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Review paper on temperature inhomogenities - looking for to: Blair Trewin Blair, Thanks for the update. I was aware of the State differences across Australia from discussions a long time ago with Neville and Rob Allan. I knew Qld was better because of Wragge. Hadn't appreciated how bad NSW was. Attached is one other paper that will come out in Feb 2010 in Weather. Don't pass this. I've had some disagreements with the new Weather editor about this and when it might come out. Heard a few months ago from the Chief Exec of the RMS that many people submitting papers to Weather have had arguments with the new editor! He gets reviews commissioned and then sends them back. Later he then decides they are not good enough so does his own reviews, but after the original authors have made revisions to the first sets of reviews - thus annoying everyone, especially Wiley's. These proofs come from about 4 months ago. He's now thought of another wheeze - holding papers until something linked comes along, so ours is waiting for one on the Manchester UHI done by a load of school kids on one day in March 2009! Had to review this poor paper. Also another paper on Chinese temps. Spent some time rewriting this one as you might guess! Cheers Phil At 05:55 28/10/2009, you wrote: Phil, Thanks for this - I'm pretty sure it was cited a fair bit in a review paper by David Parker (a parallel one to mine) which I reviewed a couple of months back. The point that a stable urban environment isn't going to produce an artificial warming trend is an important one to make. (In that context the evolution of the Melbourne 'UHI' is quite interesting - after being fairly stable to about 1955, minima warm relative to rural sites by about 1 C between 1955 and 1970, then stabilise again. My theory, which I haven't tested objectively, is that this is related to the growth in car traffic after 1955 - the site is very close to two major roads - and that after 1970 the passing traffic had essentially reached saturation level). As far as the prospects for pre-1910 Australian data are concerned, it varies a bit from state to state (as you probably know, the various colonies operated as independent organisations until the Bureau was formed as a federal body in 1908). In summary: Queensland - good prospects of data back to early 1890s - Wragge was pretty diligent about getting Stevenson screens rolled out once he came in 1888. Not much prospect for good temperatures pre-1888; I've seen Wragge's review of the network as it existed in 1887, and the expression 'valueless for scientific meteorology' made a regular appearance. South Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria - reasonable prospects - Stevenson screen didn't come in widely in these areas until around 1906-08, but there does appear to have been a fair level of standardisation before then (and a lot of effort in SA went into comparisons of various exposures). Once you go further north than central SA, though, the problem is a lack of data, with Darwin and Alice Springs the only locations with much in the way of pre-1910 temperature data. New South Wales - probably intractable. No standardisation before Stevenson screen installation, with many thermometers under tin verandahs or similar, and some earlier ones in unheated rooms, with very limited documentation. It might be possible to piece together a data set of some kind with station-by-station comparisons but I think this is doubtful. Western Australia and Tasmania - OK once they started, but almost no pre-1895 data except in Perth and Hobart. Blair -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 7:16 PM To: Blair Trewin Subject: RE: Review paper on temperature inhomogenities - looking for images [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Blair, Here's a paper on China that looks at urbanization issues. Each site should be looked at separately, but it is difficult to find sites in China in places away from population like in National Parks. Still the paper comes up with a number. The European sites are something of a contrast - where urban influences appear saturated and the UHIs developed before 1900 and in London's case well before that. I recall discussion with Neville where he's tried in the past to get some resources to sort out Australia's early records. NZ sites are good - but they took Stevenson screens onboard early. A little aside here - the Stevenson who designed them was Robert Louis Stevenson's father! Unless that is Wikipedia has it wrong! Cheers Phil At 07:45 27/10/2009, you wrote: >Phil, > >Thanks a lot for putting me onto this. This was a particularly nice >example because of its replication of a very early exposure, something >it would be good to see more of. (A while back I put forward a proposal >to try to replicate the beer-crate-on-south-wall exposure used in the >now-discredited Australian record high temperature at Cloncurry; >strangely I had difficulty in getting myself taken seriously, although >there were quite a few offers to assist in emptying the crate prior to >its use in the experiment :-) > >On another subject, I've recently been reading the paper on the new >homogenised Chinese data set which you were a co-author on. One thing >which surprised me a little was that there didn't seem to be any >explicit mention of urbanisation - were urbanisation corrections >implicit in the adjustment procedure? At the various regional workshops >I've been involved in with Chinese participants, they have often >expressed concern at the amount of urban data that their data sets >included. (I'm also currently reviewing a paper on trends in climate >indices in China). > >Blair > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2009 5:36 PM >To: Blair Trewin; CLIVAR ETCCDI >Subject: Re: Review paper on temperature inhomogenities - looking for >images [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > > Blair, > The attached is out online in Climatic Change. > > There is also a paper in submission to IJC on similar work in Spain. > You could email Manola Brunet for a copy Manola Brunet > > This paper has pictures of rebuilt Montsourri screens - based on > designs in the books from the 19th century. > > Cheers > Phil > > > >At 08:26 29/09/2009, Blair Trewin wrote: > >I'm currently working on a review paper on the topic "Exposure, > >instrumentation and observing practice effects on land temperature > >measurements". One of the things I intend to include with this is > >some images to illustrate some of the issues; I have Australian > >examples for most of them if I need them but for an international > >audience it would be nice to have a wider range of examples. If any > >of you could send me (or point me to) suitable images (that are not > >covered by copyright or for which permission can be readily > >obtained) I'd appreciate it. > > > >Some images I'm particularly keen on getting are: > > > >- non-Stevenson AWS screens that are in operational use (I already > >have good images for Stevenson screens (of course) and a couple of > >19th-century pre-Stevenson shelters). > >- photos of a station pair showing either a move from one site to a > >very different type of site (e.g. from an enclosed town site to an > >airport), or before/after images of a station where there has been a > >major change in the local site environment (e.g. a new building nearby). > > > >I suspect there's a fair chance a couple of you will end up seeing > >this paper as a reviewer. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Blair > >-- > >This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > >MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5199. 2009-10-28 14:32:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" , "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:32:11 +0000 from: "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" subject: RE: Impacts to: "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , Kevin Anderson , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" , "greg.kaser@htspe.com" Dear All In haste, attached some thoughts on impacts of each of the outputs to get the ball rolling Best wishes Pete Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [1]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [2]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [3]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [4]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Martin Adrian Dr (DEV) Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:49 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Kevin Anderson; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Impacts Dear all, Thanks to all for providing inputs about research themes/priorities and about board members. Sorry to add one more task but the one thing that we still need to gather ideas for, is a section early in the bid that will state the expected impacts of the network as a whole (i.e. of the research, advisory services, knowledge disemination and capacity building). I think this is important - there is some cynicism out there about what this 40million can really achieve above and beyond all the other climate change initiatives ongoing. I think DfID will enjoy some clear vision on this matter. What will all this research and disemmination achieve? We really need this by tomorrow best wishes Adrian ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 26 October 2009 11:40 To: Kevin Anderson; Phil Abrahams; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG); Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Greg Kaser; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear All Quick update before I leave for Singapore. I just had an hour long conversation with Shardul about being named as potential CEO of the bid. I filled him on the background to the bid and how we plan to set things up. He raised a series of issues about the value added of such a network and how it would interact with other existing initiatives. Anyway, on whether he would take this on. He has one of the few permanent positions at OECD, is not many years from retirement and has a lot to lose so: * asks that we treat his potential candidacy with high confidentiality as he is well known at DFID and word will get out quickly * might want to combine this post with a chair and tenured position (perhaps 50/60% as CEO, the rest in an academic position, presumably at UEA) * he couldn't imagine combining this role with ongoing work at OECD as there would be a conflict of interest since he has to work with so many different donors in his current role * the other possibility is to request a secondment or leave of absence from OECD * he would want a lead time of some months after set up to negotiate terms with DFID, us etc. This means we would still near an interim director * he would want to know that the funding is secure irrespective of change of government. The Tories have said they won't cut development spending but politicians change their minds... he doesn't want to run something which might be scaled down or not even funded at all * he wouldn't want his name put forward as one among many but as our preferred choice All of this strikes me as reasonable, hence my expressed concerns about trying to get a named senior individual to commit to something like this when there is so much uncertainty. If we decide to go forward with this, we'll need a form of wording that is acceptable to him. I'll be in touch again in a week when I'm back from Singapore Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [5]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [6]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [7]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [8]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kevin Anderson [kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:30 AM To: Phil Abrahams; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG); Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Greg Kaser; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil, Elizabeth and Katharine, I apologies for my delay in getting back to you. Suggestions for the Science area outside of UEA would be: (please note these are UK based and going beyond both the UK and Annex 1 nations would likely be of benefit for a Dfid call?) Clearly Hadley is appropriate - and whilst it is involved with another consortium I thought this time Dfid had asked for non-exclusivity? If so suggestions are: John Mitchell Richard Betts Jason Lowe Chris Jones I also suggest these by complemented with non-Hadley scientists - my immediate recommendations are Peter Cox University of Exeter Dave Stainforth UCL Dave Frame Oxford John Shepherd Southampton In terms of translating science related to the global situation to more regional impacts, Chris West (UKCP09 & Oxford) would be a good place to start. Kind regards Kevin ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [mailto:P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: 23 October 2009 14:51 To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso Subject: RE: Annual review Thank you all for these comments. As you see, I have incorporated them into a document which Elizabeth will work on next week (when I'm absent on vacation) as part of the CABI contribution - which is to say the version you see here probably will not be the version you see sent from her next week (not least because of its length). However, I am still missing names on the science: Kevin. My apologies if you've sent these already but could you please forward any proposed names to Elizabeth Dodsworth? Best wishes Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [9]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) [mailto:P.Newell@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 October 2009 12:39 To: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Thanks Neil. On international policy I would suggest: Prof. Matthew Paterson (U. Ottawa) Prof. Michael Grubb (U. Cambridge) Farhana Yamin (IDS, U. Sussex) Prof. Frank Bierman (Free University, Amsterdam) Dr. Fari Zelli (GTZ, Germany) Prof. Timmons Roberts (Brown U, US) Dr. MJ Mace (FIELD) Prof. Ann Florini (Nat U. Singapore) Dr. Benito Muller (OIES, U. Oxford) On low-carbon development: Dr. Jim Watson (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Adrian Smith (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Jim Skea (UK CC Committee) Dr. Axek Michaelowa (U Zurich) Dr. Xiaojie Xu, Head, International Energy Program, Institute of World Economics and Politics, China Academy of Social Sciences Dr. Kirsty Hamilton, Renewable Energy Finance project, Chatham House Dr. Tim Forsyth, (LSE) Dr. Ian Rowlands (U Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Karen Olsen (UNEP Risoe) Prof. Michael Wara (Stanford U) Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: (01603) 593724 Fax: (01603) 451999 E-mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk [10]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Adger Neil Prof (ENV) Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:58 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Peter Thanks. In terms of names who would be appropriate on adaptation etc (I think a few UEA names would be good to include): Barry Smit University Guelph Sam Fankhauser (LSE and UK Climate Change Committee) Richard Klein (SEI) Ian Burton (Environment Canada) Ian Noble World Bank Neil Leary (Dickinson College and former START and AIACC project) Coleen Vogel (Univ Wits) Tony Nyong (African Development Bank) Victor Cruz (University Philippines) Bruce Capmbell Climate Change Challenge CGIAR etc - maybe in another category Daniel Murdiyarso - CIFOR Indonesia Tao Wang - now with WWF China Hope these help stuimulate thoughts Neil ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 17 October 2009 16:55 To: Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil Thanks for this. I am copying to other colleagues at UEA that are part of the bid to suggest names to you (which I will also do of course). One way would be to aim for a mix of specialists across each of the themes that the 'Climate Exchange' (CCDKN) will focus on (i) climate science (of particular importance for developing countries) (ii) low carbon development (iii) adaptation and (iv) international policy for development. As I mentioned at the meeting in London, one way of ensuring synergy across the research and this annual review will be to summarise latest research in these areas, rather than duplicate what the IPCC and other do. Assuming you agree with this, can I invite colleagues to submit a few names under these headings? Kevin on the science, Neil and Kate on adaptation. I'll send some on low carbon development and international policy. Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [11]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [12]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [13]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [14]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:19 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: Annual review Peter I'm tasked with considering how we manage the outputs of the Annual Review and will be recommending that a small external Editorial Board is responsible for QA and identification of authors to be commissioned to write reviews of key papers/findings etc. The EB will have to be a mix of eminent research, social and policy experts and can of course, at least in part, be drawn from some of the consortium (especially UEA) staff. Meanwhile, I've been Googling for resources that rank scientists in terms of their climate science citations and/or absolute outputs - as potential candidates to approach for an EB. The site I've come across at [15]UToronto may not be valid, so are there sites doing this you can also recommend? Are the names below, from the UToronto list known to you and worth approaching as a lined-up EB member? I've taken an arbitrary selection of names from key institutes (excluding the rival Hadley Centre) and included names lower down the rankings who could be put forward as representing some Southern science) Ranking: 1 Jean Jouzel, CNRS France Ice core data 2 Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, US Decadal variance 3 Joseph Berry, Carnegie, US Plant physiology 5 James Hurrell, NCAR, US NAO 8 Philip Jones, UEA Surface temperature trends 22 Martin Heimann, MPI Germany Carbon cycle 35 Robert Dickinson, GIT, US Biogeochem Cycles 41 Navin Ramankutty*, McGill, Can Biosphere modelling (*India) 57 Filippo Giorgi, Abdul Salam, Italy Regional modelling 63 Mario Molina*, Scripps US Ozone loss (*Nobel winner, Mexico) 77 Andre Berger, Louvain, Bel Orbital forcings 79 Venkatachalam Ramaswany, NOAA US All the best Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [16]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment [17][cid:image001.jpg@01CA562F.8AF64F10] P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071. ** Embedded Content: image00149.jpg: 00000001,4cd6e96a,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Thoughts on impacts.doc" 2198. 2009-10-28 15:03:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Simon Tett , Chris Turney , Rob Allan , Catherine Bass , Keith Briffa , Matt Collins , Peter Cox , Pierre Friedlingstein , Pete Hodges , Chris Jones , Phil Jones , "Richard, Sharon, Rowan and Nathan Jones" , Tom Melvin , Tim Osborn , "Sime, Louise C" , Sandy Tudhope , Rob Wilson date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:03:28 +0000 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Model/data WP to: "Wolff, Eric W" The time coverage question is a good one. I would advocate to at least cover the LIttle Ice Age, as this is a period with very interesting changes, will help better constrain the emerging ghg signal if you cover the solar low period in the LIA (so you can try separate ghg from solar, volcanism etc) and would be interesting from a carbon cycle point of view. The medieval warm period would be interesting due to its lack of CO2 response (so may produce an upper constraint on CO2response), and also the question of what caused it.... so in my view, is of secondary interest to our goals but not of zero. Can we do a 'largely period from LIA to now but with some reduced effort in the time since, say, 800AD'? Gabi Wolff, Eric W wrote: > Dear Simon > Great to read this text. I can start to see how the different parts fit together, though there is still a lot of work to do. I just want to raise a couple of high level issues we will need to decide very fast on Monday before we go further: > > 1. Timescale covered by this project. Your text, on the second page, mentions three different timescales: "1750 to 2000", 500 years and 1000 years. We must settle on one. If we do scale back to 1750 then we miss the LIA (mentioned in the same paragraph as 1750) - however you define it was almost over by 1750. > 2. You question whether we can also use CH4. CH4 does show some variation in the pre-1800 period. However, based on CH4 and 13CH4, authors tend to ascribe this to fire and agriculture, ie human influenced. While I am convinced Ruddiman is wrong for CO2, methane has probably been under human influence for too long for us to use it. I would avoid this. > > See you next week. > Eric > > Eric Wolff > British Antarctic Survey > High Cross > Madingley Road > Cambridge CB3 0ET > United Kingdom > > E-mail: ewwo@bas.ac.uk > Phone: +44 (0)1223 221491 > Fax: +44 (0)1223 221279 > > British Antarctic Survey: www.antarctica.ac.uk > IGBP/Past Global Changes (PAGES): www.pages-igbp.org > International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences (IPICS): www.pages-igbp.org/ipics/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Tett [mailto:simon.tett@ed.ac.uk] > Sent: 27 October 2009 22:19 > To: Chris Turney > Cc: Rob Allan; Catherine Bass; Keith Briffa; Matt Collins; Peter Cox; Pierre Friedlingstein; Gabi Hegerl; Pete Hodges; Chris Jones; Phil Jones; Richard, Sharon, Rowan and Nathan Jones; Tom Melvin; Tim Osborn; Sime, Louise C; Sandy Tudhope; Rob Wilson; Wolff, Eric W > Subject: Re: Agenda for 2-3 November > > and rather late here is the current draft text that Gabi and I have. It > is still far from complete but will give us something to discuss. > > Sorry -- neither Gabi nor I have had much time to work on it and we > won't have any more this week. Have yet to figure out resource > requirements. > > If this is the way we want to go then I think our current structure will > need some radical changes.... > > Simon > > Chris Turney wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> Please find attached the agenda for the 2-3 November. If you haven't >> yet sent me any outstanding documents for the application (as listed in >> my previous email), please do so by the close of today. I'm away next >> week but will spend the time making a first pass at weaving the >> application together to send round to everyone for next Friday so we >> have something to butcher for the residential! >> >> All the best, >> >> Chris >> >> **************************************************** >> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS* >> >> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing carbon the >> way nature intended/ >> // >> >> 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 >> The University of Exeter >> Exeter >> Devon >> EX4 4RJ >> UK >> >> Home page: >> http://geography.exeter.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 >> >> **************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriele Hegerl Chair of Climate System Science School of GeoSciences, 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 http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 4413. 2009-10-28 15:39:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:48 -0000 from: "Keiller, Donald" subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology to: Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm) and the chronology itself; (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/) Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions 1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination? 2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting? And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email. Dr. D.R. Keiller -----Original Message----- From: Keiller, Donald Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34 To: 'k.briffa@uea.ac.uk' Cc: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk' Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers. As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular; 1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed 2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies 3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate 4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner. Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science. There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required. Yours sincerely, Dr. Don Keiller. -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems 1557. 2009-10-28 15:44:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 28 15:44:39 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: additional outliers to: "Don McNeil" Don, The patterns of the earlier warming and the current are different. Been known for years. Maps are in this paper Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199. Pdf too large to email. Maps are there for 1925-44 and 1978-97. I wouldn't expect patterns to be similar. Also different areas will be locally significant for the two periods. Cheers Phil At 19:03 27/10/2009, you wrote: Dear Phil: Following your suggestion, we've found about 20 more unusually high SST values between 1909 and 1923 in our region 78 (between latitudes 45 and 65 south and longitudes 20 degrees west and 20 degrees east) and when these are omitted the graph is much clearer. We're now finding that the global temperature increase from 1909 to 1944 almost exactly matches the increase from 1977 to 2008 in terms of its overall gradient (0.167 degrees per decade) but the individual regions have different patterns in the two periods, and the correlation between them is not high. We're still working on this and will send you a copy of the statistical analysis in due course. Cheers...Don >>> Phil Jones 10/27/09 7:35 PM >>> Don, There are good physical arguments for omitting SST values near to or taken under sea ice. Determining SST normals (for 1961-90) anywhere near sea ice is a problem, as there are few measurements and they are more likely to be from warmer years/seasons. You could flag outliers in terms of standard deviation units (all based on the common period of 1961-90) and remove them in this way. Over land we've been through many of those that exceed absolute values of 4 sigma. Many are correct as they are confirmed by neighbours. Many occur near sea-ice boundaries. Stations on the north coast of Iceland have some very large sigma departures when very occasionally sea ice reached the north coast in the past. Also the more continental the land temperatures the more likely it is in higher latitudes for the distribution to be slightly negatively skewed especially in winter months. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4226. 2009-10-28 18:20:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:20:16 +0000 from: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" subject: RE: CRU data request form response to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, Many thanks for drafting this letter which I think provides a good solution for closing down the debate. Your concern about the view that the ICO might take is noted. Michael and I discussed this approach briefly with the Registrar when we met two weeks ago and he was content with this. With regards, Jonathan _____________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:20 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: CRU data request form response Folks, A bit overdue but, in response to your instruction in our meeting of 1 October, attached please find a draft letter to anyone requesting either the full CRU raw data set, or the data sent to GaTech. As per instructions, this letter acknowledges the request, answers it in the negative, and cuts short/resolves any internal review of the response, providing instruction to the requester to go directly to the ICO. It's a bit of a pastiche of a number of letters but hopefully ticks all the boxes. Whilst I can understand the reasoning behind the letter, I think the ICO will probably take a pretty dim view of deciding the review before it's done! However, we can always claim that we are simply trying to simplify and expedite a process whose outcome is already known..... For your review and comment. Cheers, Dave << File: CRU_request_template.doc >> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 5280. 2009-10-29 09:28:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" , "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Thu Oct 29 09:28:41 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Impacts to: "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , Kevin Anderson , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" , "greg.kaser@htspe.com" Pete et al, I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues - back in at UEA on Wed Nov 4. Here are a few thoughts on the Impacts of the Project 1) In terms of research - I'd also mention that publications will get assessed and referred to in the next set of IPCC reports (due for publication in 2013 and 2014). Another impact would be for the research to get reported at COP meetings 2) For the advisory services or communications - monitoring the requests to see why the take up might be low in some parts of the world or in some sectors. 3) Capacity Building shouldn't be just considered a developing country issue. There also needs to be an effort educating people how best to incorporate new climate scenarios/services in the developed world and the university sector as well. Cheers Phil At 14:32 28/10/2009, Newell Peter Prof (DEV) wrote: Dear All In haste, attached some thoughts on impacts of each of the outputs to get the ball rolling Best wishes Pete Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [1]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [2]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [3]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [4]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Martin Adrian Dr (DEV) Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:49 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Kevin Anderson; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Impacts Dear all, Thanks to all for providing inputs about research themes/priorities and about board members. Sorry to add one more task but the one thing that we still need to gather ideas for, is a section early in the bid that will state the expected impacts of the network as a whole (i.e. of the research, advisory services, knowledge disemination and capacity building). I think this is important - there is some cynicism out there about what this 40million can really achieve above and beyond all the other climate change initiatives ongoing. I think DfID will enjoy some clear vision on this matter. What will all this research and disemmination achieve? We really need this by tomorrow best wishes Adrian ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 26 October 2009 11:40 To: Kevin Anderson; Phil Abrahams; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG); Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Greg Kaser; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear All Quick update before I leave for Singapore. I just had an hour long conversation with Shardul about being named as potential CEO of the bid. I filled him on the background to the bid and how we plan to set things up. He raised a series of issues about the value added of such a network and how it would interact with other existing initiatives. Anyway, on whether he would take this on. He has one of the few permanent positions at OECD, is not many years from retirement and has a lot to lose so: * asks that we treat his potential candidacy with high confidentiality as he is well known at DFID and word will get out quickly * might want to combine this post with a chair and tenured position (perhaps 50/60% as CEO, the rest in an academic position, presumably at UEA) * he couldnt imagine combining this role with ongoing work at OECD as there would be a conflict of interest since he has to work with so many different donors in his current role * the other possibility is to request a secondment or leave of absence from OECD * he would want a lead time of some months after set up to negotiate terms with DFID, us etc. This means we would still near an interim director * he would want to know that the funding is secure irrespective of change of government. The Tories have said they wont cut development spending but politicians change their minds he doesnt want to run something which might be scaled down or not even funded at all * he wouldnt want his name put forward as one among many but as our preferred choice All of this strikes me as reasonable, hence my expressed concerns about trying to get a named senior individual to commit to something like this when there is so much uncertainty. If we decide to go forward with this, well need a form of wording that is acceptable to him. Ill be in touch again in a week when Im back from Singapore Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [5]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [6]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [7]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [8]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kevin Anderson [kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:30 AM To: Phil Abrahams; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG); Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Cc: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Greg Kaser; Rachel Nalumoso; Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil, Elizabeth and Katharine, I apologies for my delay in getting back to you. Suggestions for the Science area outside of UEA would be: (please note these are UK based and going beyond both the UK and Annex 1 nations would likely be of benefit for a Dfid call?) Clearly Hadley is appropriate and whilst it is involved with another consortium I thought this time Dfid had asked for non-exclusivity? If so suggestions are: John Mitchell Richard Betts Jason Lowe Chris Jones I also suggest these by complemented with non-Hadley scientists my immediate recommendations are Peter Cox University of Exeter Dave Stainforth UCL Dave Frame Oxford John Shepherd Southampton In terms of translating science related to the global situation to more regional impacts, Chris West (UKCP09 & Oxford) would be a good place to start. Kind regards Kevin ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [[9]mailto:P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: 23 October 2009 14:51 To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM; Rachel Nalumoso Subject: RE: Annual review Thank you all for these comments. As you see, I have incorporated them into a document which Elizabeth will work on next week (when Im absent on vacation) as part of the CABI contribution which is to say the version you see here probably will not be the version you see sent from her next week (not least because of its length). However, I am still missing names on the science: Kevin. My apologies if youve sent these already but could you please forward any proposed names to Elizabeth Dodsworth? Best wishes Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [10]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) [[11]mailto:P.Newell@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 20 October 2009 12:39 To: Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk; Trott Katharine Ms (ODG) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Thanks Neil. On international policy I would suggest: Prof. Matthew Paterson (U. Ottawa) Prof. Michael Grubb (U. Cambridge) Farhana Yamin (IDS, U. Sussex) Prof. Frank Bierman (Free University, Amsterdam) Dr. Fari Zelli (GTZ, Germany) Prof. Timmons Roberts (Brown U, US) Dr. MJ Mace (FIELD) Prof. Ann Florini (Nat U. Singapore) Dr. Benito Muller (OIES, U. Oxford) On low-carbon development: Dr. Jim Watson (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Adrian Smith (SPRU, U. Sussex) Dr. Jim Skea (UK CC Committee) Dr. Axek Michaelowa (U Zurich) Dr. Xiaojie Xu, Head, International Energy Program, Institute of World Economics and Politics, China Academy of Social Sciences Dr. Kirsty Hamilton, Renewable Energy Finance project, Chatham House Dr. Tim Forsyth, (LSE) Dr. Ian Rowlands (U Waterloo, Canada) Dr. Karen Olsen (UNEP Risoe) Prof. Michael Wara (Stanford U) Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: (01603) 593724 Fax: (01603) 451999 E-mail: P.Newell@uea.ac.uk [12]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Adger Neil Prof (ENV) Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:58 AM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV); Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Peter Thanks. In terms of names who would be appropriate on adaptation etc (I think a few UEA names would be good to include): Barry Smit University Guelph Sam Fankhauser (LSE and UK Climate Change Committee) Richard Klein (SEI) Ian Burton (Environment Canada) Ian Noble World Bank Neil Leary (Dickinson College and former START and AIACC project) Coleen Vogel (Univ Wits) Tony Nyong (African Development Bank) Victor Cruz (University Philippines) Bruce Capmbell Climate Change Challenge CGIAR etc maybe in another category Daniel Murdiyarso CIFOR Indonesia Tao Wang now with WWF China Hope these help stuimulate thoughts Neil _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Sent: 17 October 2009 16:55 To: Phil Abrahams; Martin Adrian Dr (DEV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV); Few Roger Dr (ODG); Brown Katrina Prof (DEV); kevin.anderson@manchester.ac.uk Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: RE: Annual review Dear Phil Thanks for this. I am copying to other colleagues at UEA that are part of the bid to suggest names to you (which I will also do of course). One way would be to aim for a mix of specialists across each of the themes that the 'Climate Exchange' (CCDKN) will focus on (i) climate science (of particular importance for developing countries) (ii) low carbon development (iii) adaptation and (iv) international policy for development. As I mentioned at the meeting in London, one way of ensuring synergy across the research and this annual review will be to summarise latest research in these areas, rather than duplicate what the IPCC and other do. Assuming you agree with this, can I invite colleagues to submit a few names under these headings? Kevin on the science, Neil and Kate on adaptation. I'll send some on low carbon development and international policy. Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [13]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [14]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [15]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [16]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Abrahams [P.Abrahams@cabi.org] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:19 PM To: Newell Peter Prof (DEV) Cc: Greg Kaser; Elizabeth Dodsworth - Global Director, KM Subject: Annual review Peter Im tasked with considering how we manage the outputs of the Annual Review and will be recommending that a small external Editorial Board is responsible for QA and identification of authors to be commissioned to write reviews of key papers/findings etc. The EB will have to be a mix of eminent research, social and policy experts and can of course, at least in part, be drawn from some of the consortium (especially UEA) staff. Meanwhile, Ive been Googling for resources that rank scientists in terms of their climate science citations and/or absolute outputs as potential candidates to approach for an EB. The site Ive come across at [17]UToronto may not be valid, so are there sites doing this you can also recommend? Are the names below, from the UToronto list known to you and worth approaching as a lined-up EB member? Ive taken an arbitrary selection of names from key institutes (excluding the rival Hadley Centre) and included names lower down the rankings who could be put forward as representing some Southern science) Ranking: 1 Jean Jouzel, CNRS France Ice core data 2 Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, US Decadal variance 3 Joseph Berry, Carnegie, US Plant physiology 5 James Hurrell, NCAR, US NAO 8 Philip Jones, UEA Surface temperature trends 22 Martin Heimann, MPI Germany Carbon cycle 35 Robert Dickinson, GIT, US Biogeochem Cycles 41 Navin Ramankutty*, McGill, Can Biosphere modelling (*India) 57 Filippo Giorgi, Abdul Salam, Italy Regional modelling 63 Mario Molina*, Scripps US Ozone loss (*Nobel winner, Mexico) 77 Andre Berger, Louvain, Bel Orbital forcings 79 Venkatachalam Ramaswany, NOAA US All the best Phil Phil Abrahams Market Development Director CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829374 Mobile: +44 (0) 7833 464342 Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829178 Skype: p.abrahams Email: p.abrahams@cabi.org Visit us at [18]www.cabi.org CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment [19][] P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071. ** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4424. 2009-10-29 10:57:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:57:50 +0000 from: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar requests. Regards, Jonathan ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Folks, This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was for: "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. " Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me). We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach. We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached letters for both approaches. I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller. Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested. I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. Yours sincerely, Dr. D. R. Keiller ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17 To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk' Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 [1]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications [2]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service 1173. 2009-10-29 12:25:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:25:40 +0000 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Dave, I agree too Thanks Michael ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:58 AM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dave, I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar requests. Regards, Jonathan ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Folks, This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was for: "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. " Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me). We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach. We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached letters for both approaches. I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller. Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point? Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested. I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. Yours sincerely, Dr. D. R. Keiller ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17 To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk' Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 [1]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications [2]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service 1625. 2009-10-29 14:20:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Thu Oct 29 14:20:25 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" Annie, Dave, Thanks for the thoughts. Still undecided but I probably won't. Aware of academic freedom and aware that I might not get such a reply as I got from Hull. It will likely just inflame matters more, but I do feel strongly about academics moving outside their area of expertise. Cheers Phil At 12:46 29/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear Phil, Do you know the heads of department at Oxford and Anglia Ruskin? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? I know how frustrating you must find all of this so can understand why you feel you want to do something. But if you do decide to write, I would be cautious about how such a message is phrased - along lines of written more in sorrow than in anger... We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:26 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dave, I am also happy with this response. There is a mistake in your Oct 29 letter in the Code of Practice link. The ! should be a / As an aside, this same person (Keiller) has emailed Keith Briffa since he put a web page up this Wednesday on the Yamal chronology. [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ Annie is aware of all this. The email to Keith is requesting responses to an earlier email and is slightly threatening. In it Keiller states that he finds Keith's responses lack scientific rigour! So instead he accepts the word of Stephen McIntyre who has hardly any academic publications and has never produced any tree-ring chronologies in his life! I have had a thought about Keiller and the Oxford Professor. I may have mentioned to you a malicious email that was sent somewhere in the UK pointing to all these awful right wing web sites. The email was passed on to me and it came from an Emeritus Reader at Hull (first name Sonja). I was incensed by this and sent a response to the head of department of Geography at Hull. I did this on Wednesday after Keith's web page went up. I have had a couple of exchanges with the Head Of Geography. I just got this back I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford? I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil At 10:57 29/10/2009, Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) wrote: Dave, I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar requests. Regards, Jonathan _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Folks, This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was for: "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. " Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me). We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach. We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached letters for both approaches. I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller. Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point? Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [ [4]mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested. I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. Yours sincerely, Dr. D. R. Keiller _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17 To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk' Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [ [5]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 [6]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit [7]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications [8]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009-10-29 14:20 1625. At 12:46 29/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear Phil, Do you know the heads of department at Oxford and Anglia Ruskin? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? I know how frustrating you must find all of this so can understand why you feel you want to do something. But if you do decide to write, I would be cautious about how such a message is phrased - along lines of written more in sorrow than in anger... We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, At 12:46 29/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear Phil, Do you know the heads of department at Oxford and Anglia Ruskin? Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? I know how frustrating you must find all of this so can understand why you feel you want to do something. But if you do decide to write, I would be cautious about how such a message is phrased - along lines of written more in sorrow than in anger... We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. Best, Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[2] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:26 PM To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dave, I am also happy with this response. There is a mistake in your Oct 29 letter in the Code of Practice link. The ! should be a / As an aside, this same person (Keiller) has emailed Keith Briffa since he put a web page up this Wednesday on the Yamal chronology. [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ Annie is aware of all this. The email to Keith is requesting responses to an earlier email and is slightly threatening. In it Keiller states that he finds Keith's responses lack scientific rigour! So instead he accepts the word of Stephen McIntyre who has hardly any academic publications and has never produced any tree-ring chronologies in his life! I have had a thought about Keiller and the Oxford Professor. I may have mentioned to you a malicious email that was sent somewhere in the UK pointing to all these awful right wing web sites. The email was passed on to me and it came from an Emeritus Reader at Hull (first name Sonja). I was incensed by this and sent a response to the head of department of Geography at Hull. I did this on Wednesday after Keith's web page went up. I have had a couple of exchanges with the Head Of Geography. I just got this back I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford? I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil At 10:57 29/10/2009, Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) wrote: Dave, I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar requests. Regards, Jonathan _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Folks, This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was for: "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. " Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me). We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach. We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached letters for both approaches. I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller. Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point? Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald [ [4]mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested. I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. Yours sincerely, Dr. D. R. Keiller _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Keiller, Donald Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17 To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk' Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Importance: High Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached: Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the decisions that were stated in the attached response. By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken. In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants". In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient? I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient excuse. Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem. Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.R. Keiller, Deputy Head of Life Sciences _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [ [5]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16 To: Keiller, Donald Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) - Response Dr. Keiller Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy & Compliance Manager University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010 [6]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit [7]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications [8]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4091. 2009-10-30 05:26:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:26:48 +1100 from: "Don McNeil" subject: Re: statistical methods to: Dear Phil: The treatment of anomalies versus absolute temperatures is not quite as simple as you say. It might be if there were only 12 monthly constants in all, but in fact there are 12 for each region, and there are a lot of regions, and as we know the regions have different patterns of temperature increase. So creating anomalies is essentially the same as fitting a model with a large number of parameters (12 times the number of regions) to the data for the 30-year period 1961-1990 and then using this model to adjust ALL the data. As a result, the variability of the data outside the period used to fit the model is generally not the same as the variability within this period. The extent of this difference will depend on the distribution of the data, but for the hadCRUT3 data the variability increases with year after 1961. The reason for this is that the temperatures are generally increasing with different rates for different regions, so they are increasingly "getting away" from the model based on the 1961-1990 data. If you are just doing descriptive analyses based on anomalies this increasing volatility is not obvious and might not matter too much, and we didn't see it at first. It was only after we fitted the "Lee-Carter" regression model (a model that allows for different temperature increases in different regions) to the anomalies that we realised the problem, which disappeared when we reclaimed the absolute data by adding absTem3 to the anomalies. That's why statisticians like myself prefer to start with absolute data, rather than "anomalies" that already have been adjusted. We can make the adjustments ourselves, ensuring that these adjustments apply equally to the whole period. (I guess this is what you meant when you said "this is always a problem for statisticians, but ones like Peter Bloomfield, Richard Smith and Rick Katz (who have all worked extensively with climate data) understand why.") Peter Bloomfield was my close colleague in the Statistics Dept at Princeton from 1970-1976 (with John Tukey who suggested the Winsorizing you use for your data cleaning), and he suggested I contact you when I told him that my students and colleagues in Thailand were interested in looking at global warming data. He also suggested I contact the NCAR people, and they put me on to Richard Smith's work. (But Richard's a Bayesian and therefore on a different planet to us mainstream statisticians!) I'm puzzled by your comment that precipation is more likely an effect than a cause of temperature increase. Isn't precipation due to atmospheric water vapour, one of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming? Cheers....Don >>> Phil Jones 10/29/09 8:49 PM >>> Don, Here's a couple of more recent papers. One is emailable. The other is way too large. 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. At our library UEA has paid for online access to journals, so we can download the pdfs. I've not been to our library in ages and had to photocopy a journal! A couple of other thoughts. Circulation does influence temperature - phenomenon like ENSO, NAO/NAM and the SAM, but precipitation influences will not be that strong. It's more likely to be temperature influencing precipitation. You can add back the absolute - if you do the way I said. Calculate your 86 regions as time series in anomalies then add back the 12 monthly means from our absolute file (these monthly means are the averages of the boxes within your regions). The ONLY difference between the anomaly and the absolute numbers is a CONSTANT. They will have absolutely no differences in variance. I know this is always a problem for statisticians, but ones like Peter Bloomfield, Richard Smith and Rick Katz (who have all worked extensively with climate data) understand why. If you're anomaly files differ by more than a CONSTANT from the absolute ones you've made a mistake. Sorry to go on about this. I'm just trying to make sure you've got the right series. With the Hansen and Lebedeff series you will find that they have more variance as you go back in time. This is because there are fewer stations. We try to adjust for this with the variance adjustment - discussed in all the papers. It works for individual boxes, but less so for regions - when the number of our boxes within your large regions reduces back in time. Cheers Phil 307. 2009-11-01 19:48:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:48:00 +0000 from: "Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC)" subject: RE: Climate change research to: Deborah Wargate Apropos our earlier conversation, I read this discussion about Superfreakonomics on Grist [1]http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-new-book-superfreakonomics-pushes-global-cooling -myths Phil may well have other rebuttals Bruce ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Sent: 24 August 2009 18:53 To: Deborah Wargate Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV) Subject: RE: Climate change research Hi Deborah I'm copying your e-mail to people more expert than myself in the detail of climate change measurement and modelling. Phil or Clare - could you perhaps send any relevant papers to Deborah. It is important that the Suffolk Climate Change Strategy gets the best advice it can - they are doing a great job overall. However, while it is sad that there seem still to be climate change deniers (who are probably responsible directly or indirectly for the response you quote) there are a number of sites that can provide helpful insight. One of the most useful is realclimate.org which needs a bit of exploring but can usually provide a helpful antidote to the lies that are otherwise peddled and which are difficult to refute. In respect of short-term fluctuations in long-term trends - which is what your responders are getting at I think - El Nino can have a significant impact. For information on this see [2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/. Extracting a sentence from this: The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Nio) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years! The link to similar work is to [3]http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82, see p9. Another place to look for correct information is the Met Office site, [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html. Here, the link to Fact 2 gives straightforward information about the recent and current situation. It's dire and it is important not to be put off taking action by stupid misinformation. Hope this helps - but the people in CRU are the real experts. Bruce This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. 'Low Carbon Innovation Centre' and 'CRed' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ The Carbon Connections fund is operated by Carbon Connections UK Limited, a company registered in England (no. 05906083) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Both Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited and Carbon Connections UK Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of the University of East Anglia Go green, keep it on screen. Think before you print - save energy and paper. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Deborah Wargate [Deborah.Wargate@suffolkcoastal.gov.uk] Sent: 24 August 2009 15:55 To: Tofield Bruce Dr (LCIC) Subject: Climate change research Dear Bruce Hope alls well. I am trawling through reponses to the SCDC climate change strategy to present a report to the Green Issues Task Group and one concerns me as I may well be challenged on it and it is not a piece of research I am familiar with: The response is: The premise that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is false - research published by inter alia the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia shows that the combined global land and marine surface temperature has fallen since 2004. Now unfortunately it does not give any more information as to the name of the research etc although I suspect looking at the CRU website it is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, [5]doi:10.1029/2005JD006548 Do you know 1) where I could get a look at a copy of the above 2) if the person could be refering to anything else and where I can get copies of that If you can answer these queries and have any other thoughts that would be much appreciated. I am writing to a tight timescale - report due in on 3rd Sept. Kind regards Deborah Wargate _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email communications on any part of its network. Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. _____________________________________________________________________ 2463. 2009-11-03 07:52:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: "John Mitchell" , "Phil Jones" , "Pope, Vicky" , "Warrilow David \" , "Cook Jolene \" , "Stirling Alison \" date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:52:48 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: For URGENT comment - Oral PQ on near-surface temperature data to: "Chalmers Andrew \(DECC\)" Andrew, I'm at a meeting in Bristol and I don't have any of the correspondence I've sent to John Mitchell on this issue. John is working on a letter to go out to all Met Services around the world to check whether we can send the data we have for their countries. Some history - in order to get more data CRU/UEA has entered into agreements with Met Services and individual scientists. Our web site has the gridded data for all to use. It is the gridded version that you need to calculate the global average temperature. This is available on the Met Office and the CRU web sites. The issue is about the original station data. The MOHC/CRU series looks essentially the same as the two US series. Cheers Phil PS This email came through last night. It relates to a precip data set that the German Weather Service work on. Neither MOHC nor CRU want to waster their time in a similar fashion. GPCC release gridded data for precip like we do for temperature. Hi, Phil, I thought you might be interested in some comments that Udo Schneider made at a meeting last week. I raised the question of data release from GPCC and he said that some of the countries that provided data to him for GPCP would not mind him releasing their data but if he tried to keep track of which data he could and which he couldn't (and probably some additional ones of which to scientists and which to the public) he would be spending all his time book keeping as he has received data from 185 countries. Therefore, to simplify matters he has one policy fits all: he will not release any data. 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: +1-828-271-4876 > Dear John , Phil > > Apologies for the very short notice but I would be very grateful for > your urgent views/comments on the following oral PQ, which we only > received at the end of today (Monday) and need a provide draft answer > and briefing for by 2pm, Tuesday 3 November: > > To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, If he will > discuss with the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East > Anglia Climate Research Unit the publication of near-surface temperature > data used to calculate changes to average global temperature. > > Any comments and background information you can provide as soon as > possible on Tuesday morning would be much appreciated. Please reply to > all recipients of this email. > > Thanks. > > Andy Chalmers > Climate Science and Impacts team, CESA, DECC > Tel: 0300 068 5565 > 430. 2009-11-04 09:46:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:46:58 +0000 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: WP1 draft II to: Phil Jones Jan has told me that they are planning to archive all their new data soon, but if he does, then MacIntyre will try and take the credit. will check out CA later, but for now, will try and focus on AUSTRAL while it is all fresh in my mind. Will send edited text later Rob Phil Jones wrote: > > Rob, > Not today - so send end of today what you've done and I'll pick it > up tomorrow. > A number of other things pressing for today! > > Have revised pdfs from Ricardo and Juan Carlos - will send on > later. Saw Ed's/Rosanne's. > > Also saw CA has found Esper et al on Siberia in Glob Chan Biology. I > can't see Esper or WSL sending them any data. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 09:11 04/11/2009, you wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> have just started working on the WP1 draft - are you working on it yet? >> I can hold off if you already are. >> 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 >> >> 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 >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3430. 2009-11-04 09:58:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Nov 4 09:58:55 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Clim Ch paper to: Tom Wigley Tom, Thanks for this - have printed off and will look tonight. Too much else on today having been away for the last two days at a possible NERC bid (with Keith) in Bristol. I didn't really think it needed a coverage section. Hope you had a good time in Peru with Melissa! [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ Keith posted this the other week on Yamal. CA has yet to respond on Yamal itself, but is going on and on about whether Yamal was used in this or that reconstruction. You can see how the goalposts continually move, as now they are talking about strip bark (bristlecones and foxtails) pines, which of course don't grow in Eurasia! Attached is a bad paper by Esper et al. I can see why CA get confused when papers like this appear. It does seem to have been accepted in 2 days! Have you registered for ResearcherID? You get to this from the Web of Science. Once registered you can locate all your papers with citation counts and it does nice plots of citations per year and H-index etc. It retains it all and you can add others. Not yet found out how to add in Chaps in Books. [2]https://www.researcherid.com/Login.action Keith's H-index is 42 and mine is 66. According to someone at the HC, the whole of the HC has an H-Index of 60. Haven't yet tried any of the other indices that are talked about on the page. Keith's was easy to set up, but mine took an age getting rid of at least two other PD Jones. Cheers Phil At 16:07 03/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, Here's the rest. Still requires a bit of work from you. Re coverage, I think this is adequately covered (ho ho) and does not need a separate (new) section. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1356. 2009-11-04 10:28:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:28:41 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Yamal to: Keith Briffa Keith, Good work. The Abstract is a bit weak, and there are some typos. See attached. Please tell me if I have it right as I have to write this up in a report I am doing for EPRI. I'd like to use your Table of users (or not) of Yamal -- with acknowledgment of course. OK?? Tom Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\BriffaComments.doc" 2249. 2009-11-04 11:50:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:50:31 -0000 from: subject: EPSRC Policy to Reduce the Pressure on Peer Review to: Dear Professor Jones In April this year EPSRC announced a series of measures to help alleviate pressure on all involved in our peer review process. As a Principal Investigator on a recent proposal submitted to EPSRC it is important that you understand how these changes may affect you and so EPSRC is sending this email to all Principal Investigators on proposals submitted to EPSRC over the past two years. Receiving this email does not mean that you are directly affected by these changes. Please see attached letter for further details David Delpy Chief Executive EPSRC Explore the impact of our research at www.impactworld.org.uk ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EPSRC - Rules on Resubmission.doc" 3120. 2009-11-04 12:22:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:22:48 +0000 from: Said Alsarmi subject: Re: Sohar (Oman) station minimum temperature shifts to: Phil Jones Dear Professor Phil, Thank you so much for your comments. These change points are not present in the maximum temperature series. I agree with you that these are most likely natural shifts. Regards Said Phil Jones wrote: > Dear Said, > I'd be very reluctant accepting these as change points unless you > also see them in the maximum temperature series as well. Also if > there is no evidence in the station history information, then it is > also hard to accept them. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 11:12 04/11/2009, you wrote: > >> Dear Professor Jones, >> >> I hope this will receive you in health and happiness. I need your >> view in the attached pdf file which is an output of a homogeneity >> test called RhtestV3(published online at >> http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDMI/software.shtml). The test detected >> 2 significant(at 95% confidence level) change points in 1986 and >> 2004 for Sohar station (Oman), the data were monthly minimum >> temperature for the period 1980-2008. >> The ncep and era40 anomaly plots for the same climatology reference >> period show that cold anomalous months with varied intensities >> affected the station region while warming at the end of the >> changepoints period. >> >> Please and if you do not mind could you comment on this station output? >> >> Said AlSarmi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> Dear Said Hamed, >>> The only data we have is daily precipitation data for Masirah and >>> Salalah. >>> We digitized these in the UK - the data are in the Met Office archives, >>> which are now in Exeter. The originals would have had the other >>> variables, but at the time we were only interested in rainfall data. >>> These data were taken at RAF airfields up to the mid-1970s. >>> I'm attaching the files. I did send these to the authors of the paper >>> you refer to. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 19:37 25/02/2009, you wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear Professor Jones, >>>> >>>> My name is Said AlSarmi from Oman. I am a PhD student at Oxford University >>>> aiming to do some work on Oman climate variability and change. If >>>> you remember >>>> I met you in Delhi (India) in GCOS workshop September 2005. >>>> >>>> I seek your help in providing actual observed data or metadata >>>> related to Oman. >>>> I understand that Climate extremes indices workshop in Turkey (October 2005) >>>> had used daily data for 2 Omani stations from your department. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Said Hamed AlSarmi >>>> DPhil Student >>>> School of Geography and Environment >>>> Oxford University >>>> >>>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2234. 2009-11-04 13:14:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Nov 4 13:14:53 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: Question] to: Kerry Sloan Kerry, Last email! 1. Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44. It is also more global - in the sense that it is across most latitude bands. The earlier warming was mainly northern high latitude. See Fig 3.4 in this 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. Which is Ch 3 of WG1 of IPCC's AR4. As for earlier - millennial temperature estimates have wider error bars for periods before 1850. But if you took any of these series can you find a period where there is such an increase in the a 27 year period (looking at Table 3.3 of the above, so 0.163 deg C per decade over 1979-2005). When were these earlier dramatic rises in global temperature. Any millennial series you consider has to be global (not NH) and has to be the whole calendar year. Most are NH, so your rise has to be even greater in the past than 1979-2005. Cheers Phil At 19:33 02/11/2009, Kerry Sloan wrote: Phil, One last question (while you're contemplating the answer to my last question about the data to support the conclusion that the warming is happening faster than ever before). If we were to select the temperature data set from 1915 through 1940, wouldn't that data show that the Earth is warmed more than it has in the last 25 years? Furthermore, the Earth has had far greater temperature swings in the last 1,000 years than we are experiencing now --- no one can dispute that. The VERY modest .7C temperature increase in the last 20 years is the fastest rate change in history? Where is the data to support this claim? Kerry Sloan -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[1]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 8:30 AM To: Kerry Sloan Subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: Question] Kerry, The point is that the rate of change is quicker now than it has ever been in the past. You can't prove that it isn't. C02 does warm the planet - we'd be 33 deg C cooler if it didn't! Phil > Phil, > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > But isn't that THE point? Orbit of the Earth changes and continental > drift is occurring daily. > > > > The orbit has been doing what it does for millions of years. We also know > that during these "cycles" the planet's climate changes (ice ages; > expansion/receding glaciers, etc.). We also know that continental drift > plays a huge role with global climate. Have the continents stopped > shifting in the last few hundred years? No, they continually move. So if > we know for a FACT that the above two items have in the past caused > massive shifts in the Earth's climate countless times, why would we > conclude anything different (namely CO2) is causing a slight increase in > temperature today? > > > > Does that make any sense to you? > > > > Furthermore, can't one simple lab experiment be conducted somewhere to > prove that CO2 could cause a retention of heat in the atmosphere for a > long enough period of time to warm the planet? > > > > The point I'm making is this --- NONE of the antidotal evidence pointed to > by AGW proponents (glaciers melting; polar ice caps reducing in size; very > slight increase in global temperatures) are new. They have ALL happened > before....MANY times before all due to natural reasons. There is not one > single piece of evidence that can be solely attributed to CO2. Therefore, > how can we conclude that CO2 is causing the planet to warm? > > > > Kerry Sloan > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[2]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:38 AM > To: Kerry Sloan > Subject: [Fwd: FW: Question] > > > > Kerry, > > We select 1850 as that is the period from which we can calculate global > > mean temperatures based on thermometers. They go back further in Europe > > - to 1659. All earlier measurements are proxies. > > Going back much further then the boundary conditions are different. > > Here the orbit of the Earth around the Sun differs, so results are not > > comparable. Further back - millions of years the continents were in > > different positions, so again not comparable. > > So, we only use thermometer measurements from 1850. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > From: Kerry Sloan [[3]mailto:kerry.sloan@sweci.com] > > Sent: 30 October 2009 16:00 > > To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) > > Subject: Question > > > > I've been following the debate about global warming for many years. I > > have a few questions that I hope someone there can answer for me. > > > > 1. When showing temperature data (specifically graphs) on your > > web site, you begin the data around the year 1850. I assume you do that > > because that is the earliest date actual measurements were taken, I > > understand that. However, there are ice core samples available that > > indicate temperatures for many thousands of years, perhaps even hundreds > > of thousands of years and ocean floor sediment samples that indicate > > temperatures for perhaps millions of years. Why not use as much > > temperature data as possible to increase the sample size? In other words, > > considering how old the planet is (4.5 billion years) using only about 150 > > years worth of data decreases the confidence level to the point of > > implausibility. Why not use all the data available to increase the > > statistical validity of the analysis? > > 2. When using all the data available, what temperature becomes > > the baseline? And therefore what is the level of standard error? On your > > web site you state "Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05C > > (two standard errors) for the period since 1951." You also state that > > the standard error increases for data by about a factor of 4 for data from > > the 1850 era. Again, what does the standard error become if you use all > > available temperature data? > > 3. After the standard error is determined when using all > > available temperature data, and the new baseline temperature is > > established --- then we can conclude if current temperature levels are > > "out of the normal" range? > > > > I'm curious to know why this approach has never been taken. This is the > > only way to determine if there is an "abnormal warming trend" occurring > > beyond anything that has happened in the Earth's history. Wouldn't you > > agree? > > > > The simple question is --- Is the planet getting warmer? We both know > > that we can not look at the last 30 years to draw a conclusion. We also > > both know we can not look at the last 150 years and draw a valid > > conclusion...considering the planet is 4.5 billions years old. No > > reputable scientist in the world would conclude anything based on > > 0.00000001 worth of data. Or have they been doing that very thing? > > > > If we selected only temperature data from 1940 through 1975 it would show > > a distinct cooling trend, correct? How is talking about the last 30 years > > temperature data any different? > > > > I eagerly await your response and thank you in advance. > > > > Kerry Sloan > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 376. 2009-11-04 14:05:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Darch, Geoff J" date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:05:15 -0000 from: "Arkell, Brian" subject: RE: EA Project SC090017 Climate change in water supply planning to: "Phil Jones" Phil that's excellent news, thank you very much. The pressure on us (me !) this week is in identifying and engaging partners and getting the internal thinking going on issues and approach. I will be meeting up with Geoff next monday and we will forward our thoughts after then. For info, I made contact with Steve Wade separately yesterday to propose a combined offering which would have greater strengths but have yet to hear back from him. My thinking thus far is that we need to define an approach which explores the issues and risks inherent within the current methodologies used by the industry and which will provide a framework for more robust decision making based around the concept of resilience. Inherent in this is an understanding of risks and uncertainties and how they affect decision making at various stages. However, to date there has been a tendency to use these (by the regulators) more as a reason not to act. The current risk and uncertainty framework is getting rather unwieldy - so in addition to climate science inputs, I'd be keen to hear whether UEA might also be able to provide expertise to help us identify alternative approaches. I know Geoff is out for much of the rest of this week, so I'll aim to keep you posted of any developments. Regards Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Brian Arkell Head of Strategy, Assessment & Management (Central) Water & Environment "Leaders in providing integrated and innovative technical and management solutions to our greatest water and environmental challenges" Atkins The official engineering design services provider for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games email: brian.arkell@atkinsglobal.com Direct line: 01865 734032 Mobile: 07803 261092 Atkins Chilbrook, Oasis Business Park, Eynsham, Oxford OX29 4AH ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 November 2009 13:26 To: Arkell, Brian Cc: Darch, Geoff J Subject: Re: EA Project SC090017 Climate change in water supply planning Brian, Geoff, OK, I'll join your group for this bid. Let me know what you need. I'm down to see Geoff at 10.30 in CRU about his PhD thesis on Nov 13. Maybe we can talk about it then - can do earlier if you want. I have emailed a no to Steven Wade at HR Wallingford. Cheers Phil At 11:15 03/11/2009, Arkell, Brian wrote: Phil, I don't know if Geoff has made contact with you on this already, if so, I apologise for any duplication but we have just received this call from the EA and I am keen to confirm partners, particularly with yourself and your team. I havent had time to get into the detail of this project as yet but I can see some immediate areas where we would value your support. Could you confirm whether you would be willing to collaborate and then we will arrange more detailed discussions once Geoff is back in the office. Regards Brian <> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Brian Arkell Head of Strategy, Assessment & Management (Central) Water & Environment "Leaders in providing integrated and innovative technical and management solutions to our greatest water and environmental challenges" Atkins The official engineering design services provider for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games email: brian.arkell@atkinsglobal.com Direct line: 01865 734032 Mobile: 07803 261092 Atkins Chilbrook, Oasis Business Park, Eynsham, Oxford OX29 4AH 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 and locations around the world can be found at [1]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 checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs. 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 and locations around the world 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. 3654. 2009-11-04 17:45:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:45:07 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: RE: Annual review to: Phil Jones , "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , Dear Adrian Thank you for ringing me yesterday. This afternoon I discussed your proposal for the 'climate science team' with Phil Jones and Tim Osborn. Tim has been interested in involvement in the proposal from the start but has been tied up with family and teaching responsibilities until now. He will let you have an additional bullet point for the Climate Science text that Phil sent you last week. And will also send his CV. Tim and I are at the same salary level. So, what we would like to propose is that the proposal is costed for one person at our level for 30% time. Over the 5 years, the final split would be 20% for me and 10% for Tim (we would both be named). But Tim would put in relatively more time earlier on (the first year) when I already have project commitments. Together with Phil's input (10% of time) and two full-time post docs, we think that we would form a very effective and appropriate climate team. The list of bullet points that Phil sent would provide a focus for work in the first year - although some tasks would be ongoing (as climate modelling for the IPCC AR5 progresses, for example). These tasks are generally more on the service provision side, rather than the research side (though research would be involved in some, e.g., extension of the weather generator). Then we understand that the broader, key research issues would be identified and specified as part of the first phase of the work (some of which might be review work done by the post docs). I'm out of the office tomorrow, and then (tropical storm permitting!) off to Panama for an IPCC meeting on Friday afternoon. But Phil and Tim will be around to deal with things. Please continue to cc me in one relevant emails however. One thing we wanted to ask now concerns development of the budget. Do you need us to provide salary estimates now - and will these be done under FEC? If so, Phil/Tim can ask Janice Darch to provide the necessary information. Best wishes, Clare At 14:23 26/10/2009, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > Here is some text on Climate Science. There is some > introduction to the acronyms as well as the long history of CRU > involvement. Some of this won't be necessary, but Clare and I found > ourselves writing for an audience we were not sure knew all this. > > At the end there is a page of bullet points on what needs to be > done for the provision of climate scenarios/services in the light > of expected advances over the next few years (some by the time of AR5). > > The bullet points are ordered roughly in time. What needs to be > done earliest is first. > > > Cheers > Phil > 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 751. 2009-11-04 18:03:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:03:40 -0500 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Any recent peer review publications on 'hockey stick' time to: "Phil Jones" Thanks a lot Phil. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:54 AM To: Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: Any recent peer review publications on 'hockey stick' time series? Anjuli, I don't have any papers in the works on millennial time series recently. Attaching a large review paper - apologies if I forgot to send you this one. This has lots of recommendations in for what proxy climate research should be doing. As for the millennial time series, the time series of change is pretty robust. There was a paper in Science recently which found much the same thing as many earlier papers - also attached. There is a lot on blog sites especially the right wing ones. My colleague Keith Briffa put this up the other day in response to one of these. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ There is a lot to read here and take in. Bottom line is that the conclusion that recent decades are the warmest of the last millennium is robust. It just takes time to respond to all the rubbish that is out there. Loads of web sites claimed that the Yamal site was used in all the reconstructions. It wasn't - it was used in 3 of 12. There is a Table in the attached which you can get to at one point. Cheers Phil At 18:51 27/10/2009, Bamzai, Anjuli wrote: >Phil, >I was curious on the latest on the hockey stick time series. Any recent >peer reviewed publications? >Thanks >Anjuli > >Anjuli S. Bamzai Ph.D. >Physical Scientist >Earth System Modeling Program >Climate and Environmental Sciences Division >SC-23.1 Germantown Building >US Department of Energy >1000 Independence Avenue SW >Washington DC 20585-1290 > >(301) 903 0294 (voice) >(301) 903 8519 (fax) > >For Courier Services: >Eileen Knox /Anjuli Bamzai > >US Department of Energy SC-23.1 >19901 Germantown Rd >MD 20874-1290 > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 3380. 2009-11-05 08:31:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Nov 5 08:31:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Clarification on data availability to: phil@greenbridge.com Phil, I wouldn't believe this some person - the one you linked to. Of course I don't agree with this assertion. I doubt that Pat Michaels has read through the papers I sent you details of yesterday - the one on the CRU Temperature web page and the one I attached. The dataset isn't changing that much. We recently added revisions to many stations in the Alpine area as a result of an EU project. In the last couple of years we've also added revised data for Canada, Australia and NZ. We've yet to write these up, but I can tell you the net effect if essentially zero change to trends over the time periods that the IPCC report used. There are differences but they are well within the error estimates of individual years that Brohan et al (2006) produced. There is a paper coming out soon in JGR which shows excellent agreement with the latest set of Reanalyses performed in Europe. This should prove to people that the record is reliable. It is an extension of this paper attached. In the attached NCEP and ERA are incorrect before the late-1970s because of the problems discussed in the paper - mainly the lack of satellite estimates before this time. It would take a few months to get back to what we had in the mid-1980s. As I said yesterday the effort would be a waste of resources. Cheers Phil At 02:27 05/11/2009, you wrote: Phil--thanks for the prompt reply. If I understand you correctly, you remove data series because of things such as urbanization effects that affect the station errors, or the stations moving? I suppose this means the data set is always changing because of these issues? When you say you could reassemble it quite easily, how long would it take? To which state would you reassemble it if it is always changing? Some [1]people are saying that this means there are no "reliable records of global surface temperature" because of this. Do you agree? Many thanks Phil Phil Jones wrote: Phil, Yes - we could reassemble it quite easily. We have all the adjustment factors. We also have the lists of the few stations totally removed (~150). We could get these back from GHCN. These were removed because of urbanization effects and multiple jumps/moves. We're not keen on doing any of this as we know it is a complete waste of time. To know why read 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. You can get this from here - [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ This links to the pre-publication version. Look in this paper about homogeneity adjustments - and see that they have hardly any effect. See also the attached - Figure 6. Apart from the stations that we deleted (which we can get back) we haven't deleted anything. We never had the original records to destroy anyway - the relevant Met Services have these! I know the web says other things - but hardly anybody has ever bothered to check with me or look over our web site. A lot of people read what they want to read..... Cheers Phil At 16:11 04/11/2009, you wrote: Hi Phil, Can you kindly clarify this statement regarding data availability from CRU's [3]website : "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e.quality controlled and homogenized) data.". Does this mean that to if CRU wanted to recreate the value added data you would have to reassemble the original data? There is information on the web, such as [4]this, that the data has been "destroyed." Is this true? Thank you Phil -- Phil Green Greenbridge Management Inc. 905-271-6262 land/cell [5]http://www.greenbridge.com [6]phil@greenbridge.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 [7]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Phil Green Greenbridge Management Inc. 905-271-6262 land/cell [8]http://www.greenbridge.com [9]phil@greenbridge.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2869. 2009-11-06 13:40:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: Revised CC text to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil. A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper to avoid giving Lindzen the last word. Tom. ++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: > >> Tom, > > Got to this sooner than I thought. I've responded to your points by > saying things in comments and also responding to some points at the end > of the references. > > Over the weekend I'll get the references into the same format. Can > you have another look through? I think we are there on almost everything. > > Keith should be replying about the trees - a possible reason why KHAD > is anomalous relates to permafrost depth. Impossible to prove and it's > likely much more complicated. Difficult to detail with MM when they > won't publish anything. They also know the global temperature record is > robust, the millennial records less so. Taking one or two records out > makes no difference and they know that. They go on about issues that > have no effect. > > The CC article explains why the global T record is robust, so > something to refer to. I don't think it is going to help our H-Indexes > though! > > Have a good weekend! > > Phil > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4785. 2009-11-06 13:41:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:41:55 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: [Fwd: Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon to: Phil Jones Can you comment on this? Tom. Return-Path: X-Original-To: wigley@cgd.ucar.edu Delivered-To: wigley@cgd.ucar.edu Received: from nscan4.ucar.edu (nscan4.ucar.edu [128.117.64.194]) by post2.cgd.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F87F38056 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:07:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nscan4.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC018610EC6 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:07:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from nscan4.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nscan4.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06149-02 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:07:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from uspalbh01.epri.com (uspalbh01.epri.com [144.58.1.205]) by nscan4.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FD6610EAB for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:07:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from uspalex04.epri.com ([144.58.1.227]) by uspalbh01.epri.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:07:19 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:07:17 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4AF44445.9020106@ucar.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Thread-Index: Acpe9/wVZ51merA7T5Gj733aBWeUBAAAtTgg References: <88D649D1E09B684E8CBF77A5ADB3D30603035A24@tron.stratus.local> <4AF347E0.40401@ucar.edu> <88D649D1E09B684E8CBF77A5ADB3D30602F86D84@tron.stratus.local> <4AF44445.9020106@ucar.edu> From: "Kumar, Naresh" To: "Tom Wigley" , "Joel Smith" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2009 16:07:19.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[37BE6FB0:01CA5EFB] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu I agree that we limit ourselves to issues we have already identified to address. On the temperature trends issue, I heard someone mention that ocean temperatures have actually dropped slightly in the last few years. Is there any truth to that? If yes, should we address that issue? Thanks Naresh ___________________________________________ Naresh Kumar Voice: (650) 855-8758 * Fax: (650) 855-1069 * Cell: (650) 387-7565 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Wigley [mailto:wigley@ucar.edu] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:44 AM To: Joel Smith Cc: Kumar, Naresh Subject: Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Joel, You are right -- there is no way that I can cover all the skeptics ideas and literature. So I have to be selective, and also try to touch the main skeptic bases -- which is what I am trying to do. You are right re Lindzen. As he is one of the most credible of the skeptics (he is a very clever person with a top reputation outside of the global warming area) he gets higher priority. Just as an example, I've been involved in some published criticisms of work by Scafetta and West -- one example of the idea that the Sun is the dominant forcing, and this is only one of the skeptics ideas. We have spent weeks on this issue alone. Tom. +++++++++++++++++++ Joel Smith wrote: > Hi Tom > > Thanks for the update. Naresh I wonder if you agree with this: Tom I > suggest you cover what you reasonably can. I am not sure it is possible > to write the definitive piece addressing all the issues raised by > skeptics. I think it makes sense to focus on the most credible skeptics > such as Lindzen as well as addressing the major arguments of the skeptics. > > I'm in Tempe today, but will be availalbe over the weekend if you want > to talk. > > yours, > > Joel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Tom Wigley [mailto:wigley@ucar.edu] > *Sent:* Thu 11/5/2009 2:47 PM > *To:* Joel Smith > *Cc:* Kumar, Naresh > *Subject:* Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon > Dioxide > > Joel, > > Making slow progess. I have spent a lot of time on the latest > piece by Lindzen on climate sensitivity. Given Lindzen's esteem, and the > fact that his work is in a good journal (GRL) it is important to cover > this. I've been in touch with others on it -- there is nothing published > to cite rebutting it (yet). > > I've also spent a lot of time on two other issues, urban warming and > some recent criticisms of tree ring data. I have these three items under > control, but need to insert them into the Report. > > I hope to have a more complete version by Sunday. > > The trouble with this is that there is so much material to cover, and > a lot is quite recent (after the AR4). > > Tom. > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Joel Smith wrote: > > HI Tom > > > > Naresh and I just spoke. Given that this article was not even published > > in a journal on climate, we think it is not worth referencing it in your > > paper. > > > > Could you send an along on update on where you are. FYI: I'm heading out > > this afternoon to a meeting in Tempe AZ and will be gone through > tomorrow. > > > > yours, > > > > Joel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Kumar, Naresh [mailto:NKumar@epri.com] > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:31 AM > > *To:* Joel Smith; Tom Wigley > > *Subject:* Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide > > > > I don't know if you have seen this paper someone sent me. I haven't read > > it yet (only the abstract). I don't know if there are any issues here > > that can be included in the "Response to Skeptics" while fully > > understanding it is too late to ask. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Naresh > > > > ___________________________________________ > > Naresh Kumar > > Voice: (650) 855-8758 * Fax: (650) 855-1069 * Cell: (650) 387-7565 > > > > 3244. 2009-11-06 13:46:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:46:48 -0000 from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" subject: RE: Parliamentary debate and temperature data to: "Phil Jones" Ah. No decision has been made and now we are worried we are in warm water over it from a misleading parliment perspective. At least it'll speed a decision up one way or another. -- Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB. tel. +44 1392 886552 fax. +44 1392 885681 http://www.hadobs.org -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 November 2009 13:46 To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) Subject: Fwd: Parliamentary debate and temperature data Peter, I take it this response in the House means that the emails will go out fairly soon?! I was asked about this question by someone at DECC on Tuesday and I sent a reply which basically said what Joan Ruddock said. The question did mention UEA as well as MOHC - or whatever Lilley called you. Have a look at this link http://www.uea.ac.uk/hr/jobs/acad/atr841.htm Several of us have been at a meeting about these posts with Jacqui/Alastair. Although the Tyndall posts are vague, it could be worth you while talking to Neil Adger. "Neil Adger" . These 3 posts are nothing to do with ENV - the money comes from UEA. It is all very odd. Ian Renfrew was at the meeting and he and Jacqui felt that if someone with a hard science background applied they would definitely be considered. Another person to discuss these with could be Trevor. "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" ENV's top priority for a replacement is in Nathan's area. It just depends on how pushy you want to be. They do want good scientists who will be able to carve out research teams in a few years. The 3 Tyndall posts will be based in the CRU Building - that was agreed at the meeting. Cheers Phil >X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,692,1249257600"; > d="scan'208";a="10374906" >Subject: Parliamentary debate and temperature data >Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:14:29 -0000 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: Parliamentary debate and temperature data >Thread-Index: Acpe0k8/SGwGr+v4RmSCqmocsMNQfg== >From: "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)" > >To: "Evans, Dorothy" , > "Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)" > , > "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" , > >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: 35048525 - 341e1ceefe4e (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 > >John, Peter, Phil and Dorothy, > >Regarding claims of refusal to release station data used in near >surface temperature records. >Peter Thorne suggested I should let you know about a question made in >parliament yesterday during the Copenhagen/climate debate and the >response by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate >Change - Joan Ruddock. > >http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091105/deb >text/91105-0014.htm >Column 1052 >Peter Lilley :- >"I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening about the Met >Office Hadley centre's refusal to publish the basic figures it has >received from around the world that it uses to calculate its estimates >of the rise in surface temperatures throughout the world." > >http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091105/deb >text/91105-0020.htm >Column 1090 >Joan Ruddock :- >"The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Met Office had not made data >available, and we have taken steps to try to make that happen. >The Met Office has written to all those who provided data to ask >whether they will agree to release those data." > > >Peter suggested that Ruddock may not have been quite right in her statement. > >Gareth >p.s. I heard the debate and am pretty sure that Lilley said >"Meteorological office Hadley institute" not "Met Office Hadley centre". > > > -- >Dr Gareth S. Jones Climate Research Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK >Tel: +44(0)1392 886903 email:gareth.s.jones@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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 5303. 2009-11-06 14:06:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Nov 6 14:06:43 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: 220 words on Copenhagen summit for commissioned article to: Ian Sinclair Ian, I have too much on to think about this. This meeting isn't really about my area - the science of climate change. It is more about doing something. I know there are climate change deniers trying to malign some of the research going on. They do not write any of this in the scientific literature, only on right wing blog sites. All the climate scientists I know though are fully behind the conclusions of the last IPCC Report in 2007. There is no doubt the world is warming and will continue to warm. Cheers Phil At 12:50 06/11/2009, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones My name is Ian Sinclair and I work as a freelance journalist, writing for a variety of publications such as Tribune, the Big Issue, Peace News and the Eastern Daily Press. With the Copenhagen climate change summit approaching, I have been commissioned by the Morning Star newspaper to ask experts and environmentalists about their hopes and fears for the summit. I will then collate the responses I receive in to an article to be published in late November. By publishing this article I hope to raise awareness of the summit and climate change among the newspaper's readers. Would you be able to send me 220 words for this? Once they have all been submitted I hope all of the opinions in total will answer the following questions: - How important is the summit in terms of combating climate change? / what is at stake? - What are the central issues and sticking points at the summit? - What type, and scale, of agreement is required for the summit to be successful in combating climate change? / What is the most important issue that needs to be agreed upon for the summit to be successful in compbating climate change? - What are the chances of a robust agreement being agreed upon at the summit? Of course, you may want to focus on just one of the points above, or talk about something I haven't mentioned that you think is important. In case you are unsure of the format I am after, I hope the finished article to be a smaller version of the following Guardian article that was published last year on the Left's response to the financial crisis: [1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/17/recession.labour As well as yourself, I have asked the following people to contribute: Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, the leader of Prospect union, the Director of Greenpeace, Leo Murray from Plane Stupid and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I am working to a Friday 13 November 2009 deadline for this article. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Ian Sinclair Tel: 07837 921080 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Chat to your friends for free on selected mobiles. [2]Learn more. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1541. 2009-11-06 15:10:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" date: Fri Nov 6 15:10:34 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Recent climate claims in some media web sites to: "Watson, Robert (SEG)" Bob, Jacquie and Alastair alerted me that you'd noted the claims on some media sites over the past month. They are not just affecting CRU/UEA but the Met Office, Hadley Centre as well. There have been two basic issues 1. A tree-ring chronology developed by Russian colleagues at Yamal. Keith Briffa has responded to this on the CRU web site. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ The skeptics are still going on about this and refuting what he is saying. Yamal is used in 3 of the long reconstructions in spaghetti plots and then it is one of 20. Its omission would not change anything. It is important to keep the moral high ground in all this. Keith will be writing a peer-review journal paper which he hopes to submit around March/April. It is important that science gets published in the normal way - in the literature. Blog sites are not the way this should be done. I know things are moving this way, but there needs to be something fixed. Blog sites are moving targets, issues change from day to day. We can't do science this way. On this and the second issue - the chief skeptic (Stephen McIntyre) is sensible enough to realize that the global temperature series is robust and the millennial reconstructions are also, but to a lesser extent. They refuse to develop their own, refuse to publish their results - because they know that if they did the series would look much the same. So they knock away at the edges at issues that are unimportant but give them some media attention amongst people who are ready to accept conspiracy theories. They are also trying to waste our time with their claims, so we've chosen to barely respond and only through our web site. 2. The second issue is the release of the station temperature data by ourselves and the Met Office. UEA has had about 60 FOI requests about this and the Met Office has had about 20. The Met Office HC are going to send a letter around to all Met Services to check that we can release the versions of their data we have. This is the crucial thing - we're using the data we have for France, which isn't the same as the data the French has for France. France was a random choice of country. What is important to global average temperatures is the marine data. I think skeptics realize this, but it is much harder for them to do any work in this area. There was a PQ in the House earlier this week (see below). I was asked to respond as was John Mitchell. I said that the Met Office were going to ask all other Met Services the question above. If you want to talk about any of this - give me a call or email. The timing of all this relates to me to issues in the US and Copenhagen. Keith and I have had some really nasty personal emails, but I think we've yet to reach the number that Mike Mann or Ben Santer have had. Cheers Phil Regarding claims of refusal to release station data used in near surface temperature records. Peter Thorne suggested I should let you know about a question made in parliament yesterday during the Copenhagen/climate debate and the response by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change - Joan Ruddock. [2]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091105/debtext/91105-0014.h tm Column 1052 Peter Lilley :- "I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening about the Met Office Hadley centre's refusal to publish the basic figures it has received from around the world that it uses to calculate its estimates of the rise in surface temperatures throughout the world." [3]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091105/debtext/91105-0020.h tm Column 1090 Joan Ruddock :- "The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Met Office had not made data available, and we have taken steps to try to make that happen. The Met Office has written to all those who provided data to ask whether they will agree to release those data." Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4301. 2009-11-06 15:24:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Newton Martyn Mr (MAINT)" date: Fri Nov 6 15:24:06 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Environment Agency announcement to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" , "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" , "Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)" Dear All, I'll be around, but as far as I can see there are no scientists speaking. I've no idea what they will be talking about. This seems just another pre-Copenhagen meeting. Cheers Phil At 14:05 06/11/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote: Dear all, If they are looking for something visual and they are expecting people to be doing things in labs rather than sitting at computers - I wonder if David Richardson's lab might be appropriate - as we did for the David Cameron visit? Annie ------------------------------- Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ............................................ _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:05 PM To: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) Cc: Newton Martyn Mr (MAINT); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) Subject: FW: Environment Agency announcement Importance: High Dear Trevor, Phil and Jacqui I've just been contacted by the EA about this. Very late notice, may not come to anything, but potentially a very good opportunity. Could someone let me know if we can make this happen. Their specific requests are: 1. Will an expert/scientist be available for interview at the university on Monday morning? If so, who is this and what would they say? 2. What filming opportunities will there be e.g. to film researchers at work in your centre? Could you please let me know how these will appear on camera. (On the phone they said they may want to film students being taught too...) 3. If you will be issuing any comment of your own off the back of the Environment Agency's announcement. I can sort out the photographs for them, but I don't have any footage. (Do you Martyn?) Thanks, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [2]www.uea.ac.uk/comm A PREMIER RESEARCH AND TEACHING UNIVERSITY 2009 "What Uni" Student Choice Award winner and 2nd amongst mainstream English universities in the National Student Survey World top 200, European top 100, UK top 30 (Times League Table 2010) Norwich: fourth highest cited UK city for science, thanks to the University and our Norwich Research Park partners. _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Winser, Jo J [[3]mailto:jo.winser@environment-agency.gov.uk] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 12:57 PM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) Subject: Environment Agency announcement Hi Simon Following my call, please find details of the Environment Agency's annual conference and Lord Chris Smith's speech below. environment 09, the Environment Agency's annual conference will take place on Monday 9th and Tuesday 10th November 2009 and will be the largest meeting of environmental leaders in the UK in the run up to Copenhagen. There will be several key note speeches from political and business leaders throughout the event. Please find more information at [4]www.environment09.com and attached. On Monday, Lord Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency will be making a key speech on his vision for a "low carbon revolution within our lifetime". This speech will set out the measures that Britain must take in the next 20 years to achieve a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It will include a focus on the need for "more scientists and more engineers" to develop technology for a low carbon economy. Lord Smith will be calling for a 'Climate Challenge Fund' to prioritise research on combating climate change across a group of leading academic institutions. Please note that this information is embargoed until Monday 9th November. We will be issuing a press release to media under embargo for Monday 9th November. We will be pitching the story to national print, online and broadcast media. Our regional press officers will also be looking for regional angles on the story. I will send you the final press release as soon as I have it. We'd be interested in working with the University of East Anglia to offer filming and interview opportunities to broadcast media in relation to your Climatic Research Unit and Low Carbon Innovation Centre. This would be pitched to broadcast media ahead of Monday. Could you let me know if you'd be keen to work with us on this please? If you are we'll need to know the following: Will an expert/scientist be available for interview at the university on Monday morning? If so, who is this and what would they say? What filming opportunities will there be e.g. to film researchers at work in your centre? Could you please let me know how these will appear on camera. If you have any rushes/film/photographs of the centre that we can offer to media to use as background footage/illustration. If you will be issuing any comment of your own off the back of the Environment Agency's announcement. Also, could you please send me any useful information on climate research at the university which might be useful in our sell in to the media. Please call me on the number below if you have any questions. Best Wishes Jo Jo Winser | Press Officer Forward Features desk Environment Agency | National Press Office, 25th floor, Millbank Tower, 21-24 Millbank, London SW1P 4XL tel: 020 7863 8690 | fax: 020 7863 8621 | mobile: 07787004878 email: jo.winser@[5]environment-agency.gov.uk Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about the Environment Agency at [6]www.environment-agency.gov.uk Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1712. 2009-11-06 15:28:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: IDAG meeting 2010 to: Myles Allen , Knutti Reto , "Stott, Peter" , Gabi Hegerl , "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 , Mary Anne Perez , Susan Solomon , Stephen Leroy , Tim Delsole , Melanie Whitmire Hi IDAG'ies, As we discussed, we have been given funding to hold another IDAG meeting January 27-29 (nonoverlapping with the IPCC expert meeting but in the same location) (THANK YOU DOE/NOAA!). At this point, I would like to hear from you cc Mary AnnePerez (maryanne@duke.edu) a) are you planning to come? b) what do you plan to talk about? We will definitely have a runthrough our workplan to make sure all items are taken care of (those who have outstanding review papers may hear a slightly threatening undertone here which, however, should not prevent you from coming please! :) but if there is any other issue you'd like to see covered (impact attribution?) please get in touch with me. Also, I'll check later to make sure all new members get this. We need your answer next week, so we can start to plan hotel, agenda etc. Gabi -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriele Hegerl Chair of Climate System Science School of GeoSciences, 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 http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1085. 2009-11-09 09:46:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:46:57 +0000 from: Royal Society Events subject: Greenhouse gases in the Earth system 22-23 February 2010 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk If you are having difficulties viewing this email, [1]click here for an online version [2]The Royal Society Discussion Meeting Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 Monday 22 and Tuesday 23 February 2010 Organised by: Professor Euan Nisbet (Royal Holloway, University of London) Professor Peter Liss FRS (University of East Anglia) Dr Andrew Manning (University of East Anglia) Professor Ralph Keeling (University of California, San Diego) Location: The Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Dear Sir or Madam The Royal Society is organising a two day conference on 22-23 February 2010 which may be of interest to you. Please feel free to pass this on to staff and students within your department who may be interested. Synopsis 2010 marks the fiftieth anniversary of Keeling's first publication of atmospheric CO[2] measurements. This meeting discusses the use of long-term monitoring to understand greenhouse gases in the Earth system. New scientific advances promise regional audit of emissions, assessment of uptakes, and better understanding of controlling and feedback processes. The meeting will assess these, shaping the agenda for the next 20 years. [3] Confirmed speakers and chairs are: Dr Philippe Ciais, Professor Peter Cox, Dr Ed Dlugokencky, Professor Nicolas Gruber, Professor Kim Holmen, Professor Ralph Keeling, Professor Corinne Le Qur, Professor Ingeborg Levin, Dr Marina Lvy, Professor David MacKay FRS, Dr Alistair Manning, Professor Martin Manning, Lord Oxburgh FRS, Professor Euan Nisbet, Professor Justus Notholt, Dr Peter Rayner, Sir Crispin Tickell, Professor Andrew Watson FRS, Professor Robert Watson and Professor Ray Weiss. For the programme and further details please visit the [4]webpage. This discussion meeting is intended for researchers in relevant fields and is free to attend, but [5]pre-registration online is essential. [6]Click here to register. Images above: A selection of the various Co[2] measuring stations around the world allowing accurate measurements of the levels of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere. Images courtesy of J.Hatakka, D.Lowry, NOAA/ESRL, USA and the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia. ______________________________________________________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can [7]unsubscribe immediately. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright The Royal Society The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG t: 020 7451 2500 e: [8]discussion.meetings@royalsociety.org w: [9]royalsociety.org/events Registered Charity No 207043 See further with the Royal Society in 2010 celebrate 350 years of excellence in science 2038. 2009-11-09 09:48:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 9 09:48:35 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Land/Ocean to: Tom Wigley Tom, Sounds fine! Still no sight of the HC paper on the 1945-60 adjustments, so nothing also on the possible recent changes in SSTs. All just confirms what is said in the CC paper that SSTs are what's really important for global T. On Jim Hurrell's paper about the development of a new SST and Sea-Ice Edge dataset, it's not clear whether this has been used by any Reanalysis yet. It hasn't by ERA-INTERIM. What was used here is in that paper I sent you a few weeks ago by Adrian Simmons. Also clear that you need to put increases in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases into these reanalyses. I'll contact Gil Compo again to find out what they used. I realized over the weekend that what GISS use for SST in their analysis is the same as what was used to force ERA-40 and NCEP. ERA-INTERIM changed this slightly but only in the last few years. Cheers Phil At 16:17 08/11/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id nA8GI6M5031238 Phil, I have sorted some of this out -- see attached. In fact, this is very interesting and kinda cool. The ocean cooling is exactly 0.2C more than the land cooling ('exact' is partly a fluke of course). So this is a nice check on the ocean error. Has this been pointed out before? Also, the fact that land warming has only begun to accelerate relative to the ocean over the past 30 years fits beautifully with the suggestion Sarah and I made in 1987 that the early 20th century warming was a YHC effect. And this all fits with the minimal effect of the Sun for this period, as I have noted before. I do not this this is generally appreciated. I mentioned Hurrell. I'll attach his paper. It is strange (sloppy?) that he does not compare the NCAR data set with HadCRU or HADSST2. We do need to mention this paper in our Clim Ch ms. In fact, we should compare his data with our data. Tom. Here is my text on the early 20th century warming ... "This small solar contribution applies equally to the early 20th century (191040) warming. The observed warming over this interval is about 0.5oC (see Figure 1 and Table 1), while the solar-induced change is either close to zero, perhaps even a cooling (assuming no secular TSI component), or a warming of about 0.02oC with a secular component (Figure 8). At most, therefore, the solar contribution to early 20th century warming is about 4% (even when one assumes a high value for the climate sensitivity). This minimal solar effect has been noted previously by Foukal et al. (2004). So, what caused the early 20th century warming? A possible explanation is that it is the result of a major increase in the rate of formation of NADW (Wigley and Raper, 1987), an idea that is supported by the pattern of warming which is a maximum in the North Atlantic (Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1995). We noted earlier that the fact that this warming is similar for the land and the ocean (in fact, the 1910 to 1940 trend over the ocean is greater than over the land) suggests that it is not externally forced (since this would normally lead to warming over the land that was greater than over the ocean), and that it originates in the ocean. This also helps to explain why the land/ocean warming differential that one would expect as a consequence of external forcing has only become evident over the past three decades." Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3179. 2009-11-09 10:14:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 9 10:14:41 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AGG items to: Richard Thigpen , "Stephan Bojinski (E-Mail)" Dick, Attached is a ppt for tomorrow. Let me know when you're going to call me. I'll be at +44 1603 592090 It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes at the very most. Cheers Phil At 11:31 23/10/2009, Richard Thigpen wrote: Hi Phil, Did you want to run this past the AGG or its so easy that's not necessary? I will certainly try to get all the data I can from Cuba. You are correct, some NCDC reports are not always correct. The lead Centers complain a lot! No Pakistan does not use Indian sondes. I'll review options for GCOS-73 with Stephan next week and we'll let you know. Cheers Dick Phil Jones wrote: Dick, It is probably worth agreeing to all 4 from Cuba as they are well spaced out. It would be just good if they began issuing CLIMATs, so if only for that score it is useful. An issue is whether NCDC really do have the historic CLIMATs for all of them. I've looked at what we in CRU have and we only have them up to 1970. It would be useful to try and get their historic CLIMATS (just their monthly averages and totals) if you go. Karachi for the GUAN sounds OK - I presume they don't use Indian sondes. Maybe we should put GCOS-73 on the AOPC agenda. Better still we could send the latest version around and you could flag up the issues you have below. If there is nothing much more on GUAN and the GSN then conf call may not be that necessary. Cheers Phil At 13:54 22/10/2009, Richard Thigpen wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id n9MCtnqa030757 Hello Phil, A few things we should discuss either by phone or by e mail as you prefer: Cuba has offered several stations for GSN. "I like to inform you that meteorological stations of Cabo de San Antonio (78310) at the western tip of Cuba, Casa Blanca (78325) at Havana City, Camagey (78355) in the middle of the country and Maisi (78369) at the eastern tip, are the proposes of the Institute of Meteorology for incorporating to GCOS." None report CLIMAT today but they say they will start in February 2010 (with January CLIMAT). We probably do not need all four. I attach a map but cannot find two stations yet. They are not part of Cuba's RBCN. I'll get them on the map soon. I think I can find them in Vol A and insert them. They all send SYNOP and NCDC has history since 1940's. They say they are willing to prepare and send CLIMAT for all of 2009 once they get started. They want me to come, perhaps in February, and I can get more info then. But we have been trying to get them for years so perhaps we would want to add them in the January change cycle? Otherwise we wait a year. I am in contact with the PR and the head of the Climate department. Karachi, Pakistan is offered for GUAN. Seems like a good choice to me. They work well and we need better coverage in this region. The PR offered it. At some point I will bring up Lima again and suggest dropping it AGAIN! There's no way I can get it going. Its a political issue in Peru and the Met Service does not operate the station. They no longer respond to me as they are simply tired of my questions. For GCOS-73 I think maybe we should try a working session at the next AOPC. All of us have chipped in a bit but I am not sure it is now very readable. Surely Stephan could make it readable but there are a few other issues to me. We have changed the GUAN requirements which suggests we need to advise the operators of GUAN stations. Perhaps they no longer agree. And we have that statement that a certification/commitment from the NMHS is a minimum requirement. If we really want that we need to consider the implementation. I also think we need to consider the advertising/distribution of the new version. Just posting it on our web site may not be all we want. If we actually send a copy with a cover telling them the essentials we might get a better support from the operators. (And maybe not!) Again I could set up an AGG conference call if you wish. Cheers Dick Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 448. 2009-11-10 04:59:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: stocker@climate.unibe.ch, qdh@cma.gov.cn, barros@at.fcen.uba.ar, cfield@ciw.edu, plattner@ipcc.unibe.ch, krisebi@ipcc-wg2.gov, midgley@ipcc.unibe.ch, tignor@ipcc.unibe.ch, wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch, tsu@ipcc-wg2.gov date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:59:07 +0100 (CET) from: "IPCC WGI TSU" subject: IPCC Draft Good Practice Guidance Paper on Detection and Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id nAA3xK1S014515 Dear Participants of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection & Attribution, dear Colleagues, Please find attached the draft version of the Good Practice Guidance Paper (GPGP) which has been prepared by the Core Writing Team (CWT) following the IPCC joint WGI/II Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution. Gabi, Ove, Camille, David, Gino, Marty, Peter, and Sari, have been working very hard to meet the TSU deadline and have managed to provide the Co-Chairs with the attached draft version right in time for presentation at the IPCC Plenary in Bali the last week of October. We all owe them our sincere thanks for the efforts put into the preparation of this document. Logistics: We would now like to invite all participants of the Geneva Expert Meeting to review the GPGP and to provide comments and suggestions on the attached draft within 2 weeks from today (i.e. by *November 24*). If you do plan to provide your inputs, please prepare your comments in a separate document (word or plain text) in order to facilitate the handling of the comments from potentially ~30 participants. Submission of the files will be by email to the WGI TSU at wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch. We will collect all the reviews, combine them into an easily manageable format and will then forward them to the CWT. The task of the CWT will then be to consider all your comments and revise the GPGP accordingly. We do not plan to send the Guidance Paper out for a second round of comments, but trust that the CWT will make every effort to take your suggestions into account as much as possible. Changes to terminology discussed in Geneva: Please note that the CWT, after intense discussions, had to make a few changes to the language used in the "approved" documents from the last day's final plenary. One of the changes is the change from "direct" to "single step" attribution. Given the level of discussion created within the CWT and also during the meeting, the CWT felt it was more constructive NOT to insinuate which methods are better or stronger and so strived for neutral language, particularly as the views about what constitutes a strong method differed between groups (not only IPCC WGs). Note that the word direct already had created discussion during the final plenary of the Geneva meeting and was flagged as unresolved in the material sent to the CWT by the WGI TSU. As a consequence, the CWT has then changed "sequential" to "multi-step" to keep language consistent. The CWT has highlighted in the text by brackets where language was changed in order to maintain maximum transparency. Material to be included in the Expert Meeting Report: The GPGP will be part of the full meeting report which we are currently preparing at the WGI TSU. The full meeting report will include all the materials from the conference documentation, i.e. abstracts, participants list, agenda, etc. In Geneva, we also discussed to include additional science background material going along with the Guidance Paper. In light of the substantial GPGP we currently have, it seems sufficient to add a few (2-3) practical examples of D&A to the report which would illustrate and clarify in concrete terms the different points raised in the GPGP. As such examples are of a different nature than the GPGP text, we propose to present them in separate boxes. Our proposal is that the CWT will work on these D&A examples while the participants are commenting on the GPGP, and while the WGI TSU works on preparing the full meeting report. A further science element to be included in the full meeting report would be a non-comprehensive bibliography of D&A literature added at the end of the report (see separate email following). I hope this way forward is acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your continued efforts and contributions to this important IPCC activity. We are looking forward to your inputs, Cheers, Kasper IPCC WGI TSU -------------------------------------------------- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I Technical Support Unit University of Bern Zaehringerstrasse 25 3012 Bern, Switzerland ph: +41 31 631 56 16 fx: +41 31 631 56 15 http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch -------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCC_Guidance_DA_v081109.pdf" 924. 2009-11-10 08:47:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:47:42 -0700 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: CC Essay to: Phil Jones Ah ha --- thanks. Tom. ++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: > > Tom, > This was related to whether the CC Essay should say anything about > global T estimated from Reanalyses. > I did send you a paper while ago about ERA-INTERIM from 1989-2008. > The extended reanalysis (by Gil Compo) is from 1891-2005. It uses > only SST and surface pressure as input. > Bottom line is this extended reanalysis (20CRv2) gets about the same > trend as HadCRUT3 for the 105 year period. The model gets the SSTs, but > also changes in forcing due to CO2, volcanoes and the sun. It uses the > SST that NCEP got. So it isn't using the newer SST dataset that Jim > Hurrell et al talked about. It is, though, the extended reanalysis that > Jim talked about at the end of his paper in J. Climate in 2008 - > attached this. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:29 10/11/2009, you wrote: >> Phil, >> >> I can't remember what this is in response to. >> Can you remind me? >> >> Tom. >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Tom, >>> I've got some info back from Gil Compo. I can't pass on though, >>> but I can summarize. >>> I've given him loads of suggestions to track down some of the >>> differences. As large-zonal-band time series none are that large, but >>> he needs to look at maps. >>> On trends though for 50S to 70N (for land) his extended reanalyses >>> are very similar to HadCRUT3 and to GISS. For some reason he's yet to >>> use the NCDC series. >>> Correlations between his series (20CRv2) and HadCRUT3 for this >>> large domain is 0.85 and for GISS it is 0.81. GISS/HadCRUT3 >>> correlate (all over 1891-2005) to 0.98. The correlation reduce to >>> 0.69, 0.60 and 0.95 if you detrend them. They'd also drop a little >>> further (by about 0.02) if you looked at 20-70N. Correlations would >>> be improved if you could drop the 1890s. >>> Despite always being pressure only they give better agreement from >>> the 1960s onwards. I suspect this is just down to more input surface >>> pressure data then. >>> The odd periods are the 1920s and the period from 1940-60. For the >>> latter if the SSTs were adjusted they would look much better. The >>> 1900s, 1910s for some reason look amazingly good. >>> It looks as though there won't be a paper to refer before we have >>> to submit the CC piece. I've asked him to plot land minus ocean when >>> he has some time. >>> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 942. 2009-11-10 09:18:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Nov 10 09:18:48 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: LvsO to: Tom Wigley Tom, The separate land and ocean datasets are merged around coasts and islands (at least for HadCRUT3). This means that you can't get back to the separate versions from the combined. If you look at the grids for a particular month you'll see many points the same in the separate land and ocean datasets, but weighted averages around the coasts and islands. We've been doing this since the early 1990s. We have altered how we do it. The next version will go back to a simpler weighting method than used in Borhan et al. (2006). Some grid boxes are in both. Differences will likely vary from year to year and within years due to sea ice. As for Anders Moberg's paper, I've no idea what NHT series he used. I'm presuming you mean his reconstruction as opposed to the instrumental series against which he calibrated the proxies. Splitting the variance into high and low probably has serious problems. All the high freq (<80 years) comes from trees with all the low freq coming from the other essentially uncalibrated proxies. Anders is OK, but I don't think he'd want to revisit this series. He tried to consider the implications of variance splitting in the attached paper. I recall it not being very convincing. Cheers Phil At 21:25 09/11/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Hi Phil, Re land versus ocean, there is an interesting problem here, which may apply to all data sets. If I weight L and O "correctly" (not straightforward) then the weighted sum of L (CRUTEM3v) and O (HADSST2), as a global-mean time series will not be the same as the global mean direct from HadCRUT3v. This is because (I think) there are some gridpoints that appear in both the L and O data. Is this correct? I was rather surprised at how much my two versions of the L and O averages differed. However they were merged, I'm sure it could be done better, so as to minimize any inconsistencies like the one noted above. ----- On another point, what do you think of the Moberg (2005) series for NHT? I know you have worked with him, so he can't be all bad -- but this series is not only rubbish in terms of its variability, but it has been used by some arch skeptics to support their own silly ideas. Perhaps there is a chance that Moberg could re-do his series better? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3735. 2009-11-10 12:40:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One to: Gil Compo Gil, One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series. This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away from the ocean. This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases. Cheers Phil Gil, These will do for my purpose. I won't pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft paper. As you're fully aware you're going to have to go some ways to figuring out what's causing the differences. You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don't think it is going to make much difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought to include the NCDC dataset as well. [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset. In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the NH20-70 land domain. The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967 or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th century (the 1900s). The longer periods are those you've noticed - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the HadCRUT3/GISS average. Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you might have? One final thing - don't worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues. Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft! Cheers Phil At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, 1. I didn't get the attached. Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice. 2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949, "observed" after that) are specified. Attached is a research figure. Please do not share. In it, I have plotted the annual average (top panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from GISTEMP 1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. The ensemble mean is the thick gray curve. Averages are July-June. (middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is the same. (bottom panel) same as middle panel but for Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N). Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU (HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black. No data has been masked by another dataset's observational availability, but missing values are not included in that dataset's area-weighted average. Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer seems to be the case in the late 19th century but not the early 1920's. Note that the only thermometer data in the magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over oceans. The two landonly panels are independent of thermometers, aside from the specified SSTs. There are some very interesting differences, particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and WWII. Correlations (I told you this was research, right?). The second pair is for linearly detrended data. GLOBE (70N-50S) reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808 hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088 hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383 GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S) reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152 cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050 cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316 NH Land (20N-70N) reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900 cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001 cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880 I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 were high for an independent dataset this long. I think that these are higher than the proxies? The global isn't that fair because we have the HadISST. The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha (2008), What is causing the variability in global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23712, doi:10.1029/2008GL035984. It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change. Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material. best wishes, gil Phil Jones wrote on 11/9/09 2:55 AM: Gil, A couple of questions. 1. See the attached. Is this paper providing the SST input to 20CRv2? 2. Do you change greenhouse gases in the run? Apologies if these are answered elsewhere. Do you have any pre-draft plots without subsampling to get some idea of how good the agreement? I'm asking these questions as I'm writing an essay for Climate Change. There are no diagrams in this, but showing the agreement with 20CRv2 will be a nice way to finish the paper. Paper briefly documents the magnitude of all the problems in global temperature data - such as SST biases, exposure issues, urbanization and site changes (in order of importance). Site changes for global averages are the least important. Trying to point to a few home truths to skeptics who keep on going on about the land data. Cheers Phil At 15:39 03/11/2009, Gil Compo wrote: Phil, Already calculated. We don't suffer from some of the issues that you and Adrian raised because we use only surface pressure. In the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the agreement with the various (yours, GISTEMP, NOAA) thermometer-based near surface T is high, but in the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere, there are discrepancies, particularly over Africa and South America. The 20CRv2 does not have the intensity of the Siberia warming. There are also discrepancies in the WWII period. I have not subset the reanalysis to correspond to a particular dataset's missing mask as all 3 have different coverages. I'll be making plots for the paper (with a draft coming) soon. best wishes, gil [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote on 11/3/09 3:37 AM: Gil, I'm sitting in a meeting in Bristol with Rob Allan. We've had a thought. When you finish v2 will you be quickly calculating the global T average for the 1891-2006 period? Do you expect this to look like the real global T, or do you expect it to not show the longer timescale change that NCEP from 1948 showed? I can send a paper with Adrian Simmons from JGR in 2004 on this when I'm back in Norwich tomorrow. Cheers Phil Dear Colleagues, Courtesy of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division and University of Colorado CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center, at [3]ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_Rean/provisionalV2/ , please find temporary netCDF files from the 20th Century Reanalysis version 2 (1891-2006). These yearly files are for the ensemble mean analysis (means) and ensemble standard deviation (spreads) of selected variables. Colleagues from organizations contributing to the 20th Century Reanalysis version 2 or the International Surface Pressure Databank version2.2, the observational input dataset, are welcome to investigate these preliminary files. Colleagues on the Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth Working Group 3 Verification and Validation of reanalyses are also welcome to begin working with these files. We are working with our distribution partners at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory and NOAAs National Climatic Data Center on wider availability and documentation. A rough draft of important documentation is attached. Also, please see our new homepage at [4]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/ which includes access to images of 6-hourly sea level pressure and 500 geopotential maps generated from the version 2 data. When production is complete, the 20CR version 2 will span 1871 to present. The references for the dataset are Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, N. Matsui, R.J. Allan, X. Yin,B.E. Gleason, R.S. Vose, G. Rutledge, P. Bessemoulin, S. Brnnimann, M. Brunet, R.I. Crouthamel, A.N. Grant, P.Y. Groisman, P.D. Jones, M. Kruk, A.C. Kruger, G.J. Marshall, M. Maugeri, H.Y. Mok, . Nordli, T.F. Ross, R.M. Trigo, X.L. Wang, S.D. Woodruff, S.J. Worley, 2009: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Quarterly J. Roy. Met. Soc., in preparation. Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: The 20th Century Reanalysis Project. Third WCRP International Conference on Reanalysis, 28 January 2008, Tokyo, Japan < [5]http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/Reanalysis2008/Documents/V5-511_ea.pdf >. Compo,G.P., J.S. Whitaker, and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2006: Feasibility of a 100 year reanalysis using only surface pressure data. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87, 175-190. Whitaker, J.S., G.P.Compo, X. Wei, and T.M. Hamill 2004: Reanalysis without radiosondes using ensemble data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 1190-1200. Please let us know of any questions about the dataset. And, thank you for your contributions to its development. Best wishes, Gil Compo [6] Jeffrey S. Whitaker [7] 20th Century Reanalysis Project leads -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [8]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [9]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [10]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [11]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [12]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [13]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [14]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 520. 2009-11-10 14:23:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500 from: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section subject: Letter to Atmospheric Sciences members to: Dear Atmospheric Sciences Section members, First, I would like to remind you of three very close deadlines: Nov. 12, Discounted registration for AGU Fall Meeting. Register at [1]https://www.associationsciences.org/agu/meet_demog.jsp, and sign up for our Atmospheric Sciences banquet on Dec. 15. Nov. 13, Vote yes on AGU governance changes, [2]http://www.agu.org/governancevote/ Nov. 13, Please respond to [3]stacyjackson@berkeley.edu if you are willing to volunteer your expertise to help answer questions during the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (see below). Second, I would like to give you some information about where your contributions to AGU go. Last year, members of the Atmospheric Sciences Section contributed $43,410 to AGU's Voluntary Contribution Campaign. In 2008, due largely to member donations like these, AGU facilitated career development events attended by 600 students, hosted 75 K-12 teachers at Fall Meeting workshops, and sponsored 31 members' visits with U.S. policy makers. Additionally, voluntary contributions allowed AGU to provide travel grants to 135 deserving students to present their research for the first time at an AGU meeting. These programs are essential for AGU's relevance and vitality. I know Atmospheric Science members want AGU to do more. Please join me in supporting AGU's efforts to strengthen our scientific society by making a gift to the 2010 Voluntary Contribution Campaign. Unrestricted contributions are used to support AGU's greatest needs, but you can directly support students pursuing Atmospheric Sciences by making a gift to the David Hofmann Travel Grant, Holton-Kaufman Grant, or Namias Travel Grant. You can make your gift when you renew your AGU membership, or you can give today at: [4]https://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/making_your_gift.php Sincerely, Alan Robock President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, AGU [5]robock@envsci.rutgers.edu AGU Climate Scientists, We are writing to encourage hundreds of you to participate in a unique opportunity to improve the public's climate knowledge during the week before and the week of this year's AGU Fall Meeting. As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the American public's "belief" in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the earth according to the Pew Center's October poll), and December's media blitz provides an opportunity to reverse the trend. Your participation is needed to ensure that climate science coverage across media channels is accurate, fact-based, and nuanced. Provided that enough AGU members sign up to participate, we will be offering the opportunity for journalists reporting during the Copenhagen conference to submit their questions on-line and receive a response from a climate expert before an article goes to press. We are asking each of you to sign up for two hours over the course of those two weeks (12/7-18) to respond to questions from journalists. You will be able to choose which queries to answer based on your expertise, and there will be an option to double-team when questions span multiple areas of expertise. We will be setting up the appropriate logistics to enable both virtual participation and a central work area at the AGU meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to email Stacy Jackson at the email address below. If you are willing to participate, please respond in the affirmative by Friday November 13th to [6]stacyjackson@berkeley.edu. Given the magnitude of the media coverage, we are seeking several hundred willing climate scientists. More details will be forthcoming. Thanks in advance, Alan Robock, President, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section Anne Thompson, President-Elect, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section 2773. 2009-11-11 21:22:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Bartlett Jane Mrs (ODG)" , "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , "Ruth.Phillips@htspe.com" date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:22:24 +0000 from: "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" subject: Revised text for the bid to: "greg.kaser@htspe.com" , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" Dear Greg Please find attached suggested text for inclusion in the sections indicated- particularly the background and general approach section but also further text explaining the research themes and how comissioned research would be assessed. Beyond this in general I think it is also worth emphasising more strongly the key strengths text we submitted a month or so ago which identified comparative advantages of our bid over our rivals (credibility in policy and research circles, embedded in many of the relevant existing networks- less chance of duplication, reduced time and transaction costs of having to establish these ties, direct channels to policy through our work with IPCC, UNDP, GEF etc etc ). Other bids cannot claim this to anything like the same extent. Anyhow I'm teaching all day tomorrow and in Oxford all day Friday so I doubt I can make many more contributions. Thanks for getting us this far and fingers crossed (I think!) Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [1]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [2]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [3]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [4]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Text for CDKN proposal 11-11-09.doc" 5034. 2009-11-12 13:02:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:02:44 -0600 from: "Gilbert Compo" subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data to: Phil Jones On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:12:04 +0000, Phil Jones wrote > Gil, > Sounds good re reliability. > > On the USHCN adjustments it is important to > distinguish the TOB (Time of Observation Bias) > adjustments from the homogeneity adjustments. TOB > causes most of the differences, but TOB is unique > to the US. Elsewhere there has never been this > switch from afternoon to morning reading of Tx > and Tn. The rest of the world has always done things in the morning. Good point. > > In the BAMS paper I sent there is a figure on the effect of TOB. thanks! I haven't had a chance to look at that yet. Oh, the picture I sent has an error in the models. The wrong east-west domain was used for the CMIP3 models. I am generating a correction. This will effect dtrended results in particular. Ah, research. best wishes, gil > > Cheers > Phil > > At 19:08 11/11/2009, you wrote: > > >Phil, > > > >I'm on vacation today. I'll get back to you with more thoughts. Thanks for > >these ideas. One thing that I was thinking is that the Menne et al (Menne > >and Vose?) USHCN adjustments altered the sign of the US trend in Tmax and > >Tmin in some regions. I have no idea what that does to individual year large > >area averages. > > > >In the QJ paper my goal is going to be to put some statements about how > >reliable we think that the various variables are and during which periods. > > > >thanks, > >gil > > > >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:20:21 +0000, Phil Jones wrote > > > Gil, > > > A few thoughts. I looked at the uncertainty > > > of the ensemble filter for some dates in the > > > 1920s and 1930s, and also the 1910s. The less > > > certain blue areas seem like the Arctic High > > > problem from one of my papers long long ago. The > > > region affected in blue (larger in winter and > > > less in summer) is the Canadian archipelago, the > > > north of Greenland and the Beaufort Sea. > > > There doesn't appear to be any observational > > > dots in this region. One way of checking the > > > temperatures reproduced here would be to look at > > > this paper by Vinther et al (2006) - also attached. > > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/ > > > If you go here you can download the long > > > temperature series for 3 sites. The most northern > > > one is Illulisat - previously known as > > > Jakobshavn. I've also attached Upernivik which > > > is 72N on West Greenland. Probably worth > > > comparing 20CRv2 with these two series. > > > These NW Greenland series are the longest > > > series I'm aware of in this data sparse region. > > > It seems as if any MSLP data these W Greenland sites recorded hasn't > > > gone in? > > > > > > Another thought is to block out this area > > > when calculating large scale averages. You are > > > sort of doing this by only going to 70N in your zonal bands. > > > > > > As for getting temperature series > > > pre-homogenization/pre-adjustment this isn't > > > going to make any difference. The number of > > > series adjusted is fairly small and adjustment > > > depends on a reasonable network as well. The > > > skeptics are after us to do this, but it is going > > > to be a lot of work for no reward, as it makes no > > > difference to large-scale averages! Look at > > > Figure 6 and the inset numbers, which show the > > > effect of homogeneity adjustments for the > > > contiguous US - see Menne et al attached. There > > > is a similar plot in Brohan et al (2006) for the > > > rest of the world - including Canadian > > > adjustments. We're using Lucie Vincent's adjusted > > > series for the whole of Canada. > > > > > > I agree that the 1955-65 should be as good as the 1990s. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > At 20:46 10/11/2009, you wrote: > > > >Phil Jones wrote on 11/10/09 5:35 AM: > > > >> > > > >> Gil, > > > >> These will do for my purpose. I won't pass > > > >> them on. I am looking forward to the draft > > > >> paper. As you're fully aware you're going to > > > >> have to go some ways to figuring out what's causing the differences. > > > >> You will have to go down the sub-sampling, > > > >> but I don't think it is going to make much > > > >> difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS > > > >> is amazing good, as already know. You ought to > > > >> include the NCDC dataset as well. > > > >> > > > >>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html > > > >>the ERSST3b dataset. > > > >We will put the NOAA ERSST3b in, too. I left it off the plot for > >simplicity. > > > >> > > > >> In the lower two plots there appear to be > > > >> two types of differences, clearer in the NH20-70 land domain. > > > >> The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a > > > >> single year (like a year in the last 1960s, > > > >> 1967 or 1968) and then when it differs for > > > >> about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps > > > >> coming back. For individual years there are a > > > >> couple of years in the first decade of the 20th century (the 1900s). > > > >Is there a way to get back to the original > > > >series (pre-homogenization and adjustments) that > > > >are used in the gridbox averages? > > > >> > > > >> The longer periods are those you've noticed > > > >> - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also > > > >> something up with the period 1955-65 and the > > > >> 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off > > > >> again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best > > > >> thing to try and isolate some of the reasons > > > >> would be maps for decades or individual years. > > > >> For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to be > > > >> coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I > > > >> think the 1890s might be just down to sparser > > > >> coverage. The 1890s is the only period where > > > >> the difference brings your pink line back > > > >> towards the long-term zero. All the others > > > >> have the pink line more extreme than the HadCRUT3/GISS average. > > > >I think that the 1955-65 is going to turn out to > > > >be very reliable. There is no a priori reason > > > >why 1990-2000 should be "better" than that > > > >period. In the 1970's the ships turn out to have > > > >larger error than we specified, although that > > > >should not affect the land temperatures very much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned > > > >> this to him. He suggested maps of data input > > > >> during these times. He also suggested looking > > > >> at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey > > > >> spread is sort of this, but this is a > > > >> different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you might have? > > > >The maps of the data input aren't that helpful > > > >because the dynamics distributes the > > > >information. What is helpful is the reanalysis ensemble spread. > > > >This is not the same as the grey shading. The > > > >ensemble filter produces its own estimate of > > > >uncertainty for every variable at every time. We > > > >have 56 equally-like maps for every variable for > > > >every time. For SLP and 500 mb height, see the coloring in the maps at > > > > > >http://www.esr > >l.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/hem_images.html > > > >blue is less certain, white is more certain. > > > > > > > >The grey shading is the 90% range of the 25 > > > >CMIP3 model integrations I am using (only 25 > > > >runs can be cleanly extended including volcanic, solar, and aerosol > >forcing). > > > > > > > >I need to calculate the reanalysis uncertainty > > > >for annual and area averages. For that, I need > > > >to recover the every-member files, which I am > > > >now offloading from the mass store - this will > > > >take a Long Time. I can use the individual > > > >6-hourly uncertainty fields, but it isn't > > > >exactly the same because of correlations in the > > > >uncertainty co-variance matrix. > > > > > > > >I hoping for a draft sooner. Keep your fingers crossed! > > > > > > > >best wishes, > > > >gil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> One final thing - don't worry too much about > > > >> the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be > > > >> changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with > > > >> more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also > > > >> a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) > > > >> to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues. > > > >> > > > >> Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll > > > >> send me a Christmas Present of the draft! > > > >> > > > >> Cheers > > > >> Phil > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote: > > > >>>Phil, > > > >>> > > > >>>1. I didn't get the attached. > > > >>>Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice. > > > >>> > > > >>>2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and > > > >>>solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949, > > > >>>"observed" after that) are specified. > > > >>> > > > >>>Attached is a research figure. Please do not share. > > > >>> > > > >>>In it, I have plotted the annual average (top > > > >>>panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m > > > >>>temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature > > > >>>from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from GISTEMP > > > >>>1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air > > > >>>temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be > > > >>>extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. > > > >>>The ensemble mean is the thick gray curve. Averages are July-June. > > > >>> > > > >>>(middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m > > > >>>temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from > > > >>>CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is > >the same. > > > >>> > > > >>>(bottom panel) same as middle panel but for > > > >>>Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N). > > > >>> > > > >>>Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. > > > >>>period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU > > > >>>(HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black. > > > >>> > > > >>>No data has been masked by another dataset's > > > >>>observational availability, but missing values > > > >>>are not included in that dataset's area-weighted average. > > > >>> > > > >>>Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer > > > >>>seems to be the case in the late 19th century but not the early 1920's. > > > >>> > > > >>>Note that the only thermometer data in the > > > >>>magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over > > > >>>oceans. The two landonly panels are > > > >>>independent of thermometers, aside from the specified SSTs. > > > >>> > > > >>>There are some very interesting differences, > > > >>>particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and WWII. > > > >>> > > > >>>Correlations (I told you this was research, > > > >>>right?). The second pair is for linearly detrended data. > > > >>> > > > >>>GLOBE (70N-50S) > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088 > > > >>> > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383 > > > >>> > > > >>>GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S) > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316 > > > >>> > > > >>>NH Land (20N-70N) > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880 > > > >>> > > > >>>I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 > > > >>>were high for an independent dataset this > > > >>>long. I think that these are higher than the proxies? > > > >>>The global isn't that fair because we have the HadISST. > > > >>> > > > >>>The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See > > > >>>Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha > > > >>>(2008), What is causing the variability in > > > >>>global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. > > > >>>Lett., 35, L23712, doi:10.1029/2008GL035984. > > > >>> > > > >>>It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change. > > > >>> > > > >>>Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material. > > > >>> > > > >>>best wishes, > > > >>> > > > >>>gil > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Phil Jones wrote on 11/9/09 2:55 AM: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Gil, > > > >>>> A couple of questions. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. See the attached. Is this paper providing the SST input to 20CRv2? > > > >>>> 2. Do you change greenhouse gases in the run? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Apologies if these are answered elsewhere. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Do you have any pre-draft plots without > > > >>>> subsampling to get some idea of how good the agreement? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm asking these questions as I'm writing > > > >>>> an essay for Climate Change. There are no > > > >>>> diagrams in this, but showing the agreement > > > >>>> with 20CRv2 will be a nice way to finish the paper. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Paper briefly documents the magnitude of > > > >>>> all the problems in global temperature data > > > >>>> - such as SST biases, exposure issues, > > > >>>> urbanization and site changes (in order of > > > >>>> importance). Site changes for global > > > >>>> averages are the least important. Trying to > > > >>>> point to a few home truths to skeptics who > > > >>>> keep on going on about the land data. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers > > > >>>> Phil > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>At 15:39 03/11/2009, Gil Compo wrote: > > > >>>>>Phil, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Already calculated. We don't suffer from > > > >>>>>some of the issues that you and Adrian > > > >>>>>raised because we use only surface pressure. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>In the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the > > > >>>>>agreement with the various (yours, GISTEMP, > > > >>>>>NOAA) thermometer-based near surface T is > > > >>>>>high, but in the Tropics and Southern > > > >>>>>Hemisphere, there are discrepancies, > > > >>>>>particularly over Africa and South > > > >>>>>America. The 20CRv2 does not have the intensity of the Siberia > >warming. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>There are also discrepancies in the WWII > > > >>>>>period. I have not subset the reanalysis to > > > >>>>>correspond to a particular dataset's missing > > > >>>>>mask as all 3 have different coverages. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>I'll be making plots for the paper (with a draft coming) soon. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>best wishes, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>gil > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote on 11/3/09 3:37 AM: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Gil, > > > >>>>>> I'm sitting in a meeting in Bristol with Rob Allan. We've > > > >>>>>>had a > > > >>>>>>thought. When you finish v2 will you be quickly calculating the > >global > > > >>>>>>T average for the 1891-2006 period? Do you expect this to look like > >the > > > >>>>>>real global T, or do you expect it to not show the longer timescale > > > >>>>>>change that NCEP from 1948 showed? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I can send a paper with Adrian Simmons from JGR in 2004 on > > > >>>>>>this when > > > >>>>>>I'm back in Norwich tomorrow. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers > > > >>>>>> Phil > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Dear Colleagues, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Courtesy of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical > >Sciences > > > >>>>>>>Division and University of Colorado CIRES Climate Diagnostics > >Center, at > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_Rean/provisionalV2/ , > > > >>>>>>>please find temporary netCDF files from the 20th Century Reanalysis > > > >>>>>>>version 2 (1891-2006). These yearly files are for the ensemble mean > > > >>>>>>>analysis (means) and ensemble standard deviation (spreads) of > >selected > > > >>>>>>>variables. Colleagues from organizations contributing to the 20th > > > >>>>>>>Century Reanalysis version 2 or the International Surface Pressure > > > >>>>>>>Databank version2.2, the observational input dataset, are welcome to > > > >>>>>>>investigate these preliminary files. Colleagues on the Atmospheric > > > >>>>>>>Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth Working Group 3 > > > >>>>>>>Verification and Validation of reanalyses are also welcome to begin > > > >>>>>>>working with these files. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>We are working with our distribution partners at the National > >Center for > > > >>>>>>>Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric > > > >>>>>>>Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory and NOAAs > > > >>>>>>>National Climatic Data Center on wider availability and > >documentation. > > > >>>>>>>A rough draft of important documentation is attached. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Also, please see our new homepage at > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/ which includes access > > > >>>>>>>to > > > >>>>>>>images of 6-hourly sea level pressure and 500 geopotential maps > > > >>>>>>>generated from the version 2 data. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>When production is complete, the 20CR version 2 will span 1871 to > > > >>>>>>>present. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>The references for the dataset are > > > >>>>>>> Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, N. Matsui, R.J. > >Allan, > > > >>>>>>>X. Yin,B.E. Gleason, R.S. Vose, G. Rutledge, P. Bessemoulin, S. > > > >>>>>>>Brnnimann, M. Brunet, R.I. Crouthamel, A.N. Grant, P.Y. Groisman, > >P.D. > > > >>>>>>>Jones, M. Kruk, A.C. Kruger, G.J. Marshall, M. Maugeri, H.Y. Mok, . > > > >>>>>>>Nordli, T.F. Ross, R.M. Trigo, X.L. Wang, S.D. Woodruff, S.J. > >Worley, > > > >>>>>>>2009: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Quarterly J. Roy. > >Met. > > > >>>>>>>Soc., in preparation. > > > >>>>>>> Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: The 20th > >Century > > > >>>>>>>Reanalysis Project. Third WCRP International Conference on > >Reanalysis, > > > >>>>>>>28 January 2008, Tokyo, Japan > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>< > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/Reanalysis2008/Documents/V5- > >511_ea.pdf > > > >>>>>>> >. > > > >>>>>>> Compo,G.P., J.S. Whitaker, and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2006: > >Feasibility of > > > >>>>>>>a 100 year reanalysis using only surface pressure data. Bull. Amer. > >Met. > > > >>>>>>>Soc., 87, 175-190. > > > >>>>>>> Whitaker, J.S., G.P.Compo, X. Wei, and T.M. Hamill 2004: > >Reanalysis > > > >>>>>>>without radiosondes using ensemble data assimilation. Mon. Wea. > >Rev., > > > >>>>>>>132, 1190-1200. > > > >>>>>>>Please let us know of any questions about the dataset. And, thank > >you > > > >>>>>>>for your contributions to its development. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Best wishes, > > > >>>>>>>Gil Compo > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Jeffrey S. Whitaker > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>20th Century Reanalysis Project leads > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>-- > > > >>>>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>>>>>University of Colorado > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>>>>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>>>>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>>>>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>>>>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>>>>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>>>>>> Job 37:34 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>-- > > > >>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>>>University of Colorado > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>>>> Job 37:34 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Prof. Phil Jones > > > >>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > >>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > >>>>University of East Anglia > > > >>>>Norwich Email > > > >>>>p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > >>>>NR4 7TJ > > > >>>>UK > > > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >----- > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>-- > > > >>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>University of Colorado > > > >>> > > > >>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>> > > > >>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>> Job 37:34 > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>Prof. Phil Jones > > > >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > >>University of East Anglia > > > >>Norwich Email > > > >>p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > >>NR4 7TJ > > > >>UK > > > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >--- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >University of Colorado > > > > > > > >Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > > > >http://www.esrl.noaa.go > >v/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > > Job 37:34 > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >- > > > > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > >University of Colorado > > > >Mail :CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > >NOAA ESRL > >325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > >Email: compo@colorado.edu > >Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > >http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"Do you know the balancings of the clouds, > >the wondrous works of Him who is perfect > >in knowledge?" Job 37:16 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail :CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA ESRL 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?" Job 37:16 1962. 2009-11-12 15:04:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:04:45 -0500 from: "Peter.M.Steurer" subject: Fwd: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop to: _NOAA SAB DAARWG All, Below is an invitation from the NOAA Administrator to attend a strategic plan stakeholder workshop. Pte -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:06:07 -0500 From: John Longenecker [1] To: [2]Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov CC: [3]laura.furgione@noaa.gov, 'Edward Johnson' [4] Cynthia: In order to ensure all the NOAA Stakeholders are properly invited and given the opportunity to participate in the NGSP for NOAA, would it be possible for you to forward the imbedded message to the SAB members as well as working group members? Unfortunately, there may be some duplication of notification, but in the attempt notify all constituents, resending to your distribution list would alleviate any gaps. Thanks for your help. John Subject: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:08:01 -0500 From: Dr. Jane Lubchenco [5] To: [6]HDQ.NOAA.Constituents@noaa.gov Dear NOAA Stakeholder: Since assuming the position of NOAA Administrator, I have had the privilege of leading an agency of talented and dedicated employees committed to our overarching goals of science, services, and stewardship, and to interact with hundreds of NOAA's constituents who are dedicated to working with us to improve our nation's environment and economy. As I wrote earlier this year, "Now is the time.for NOAA to spur the creation of new jobs and industries, revive our fisheries and the economies and communities they support, improve weather forecasting and disaster warnings, provide credible information about climate change and ocean acidification to Americans, and protect and restore our coastal waters and ecosystems." These are lofty goals, but President Obama has challenged all of us to aim high as we seek to address the pressing issues of our times. NOAA is committed to meeting the President's challenge, and we need your help to do so. In an effort to refine its strategic priorities, NOAA has worked for the past several months on developing its Next Generation Strategic Plan (NGSP). To date, NOAA has reached out to stakeholders across the country seeking input, and we are now prepared to build upon this work as we finalize the NGSP. Because you are an important NOAA stakeholder, I now seek your participation in our NGSP Stakeholder Forum. This meeting builds upon a series of regional roundtables and will help us create a plan that will guide the agency into the future. Please join me on December 2, 2009, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the George Washington University Marvin Center (Cafritz Conference Center-3rd floor), Washington, D.C.; Foggy Bottom Station on the Blue and Orange Lines. Details on the NGSP, registration, and an agenda are available at [7]www.noaa.gov/ngsp. Please register for the forum by November 20, 2009, if you or a representative of your organization can attend. Thank you for your past support of NOAA. I look forward to seeing you on December 2. Sincerely, Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere ______________________________________________________________ This message was generated for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator by the NOAA Information Technology Center/Financial and Administrative Computing Division -- ********************************************* Cynthia J. Decker, Ph.D Executive Director NOAA Science Advisory Board SSMC3, Room 11230 1315 East-West Hwy. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Ph. 301-734-1156 Fax 301-734-1459 Email: [8]cynthia.decker@noaa.gov ********************************************* -- Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D. Director, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Lead, NOAA Climate Services Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 [9]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov 4027. 2009-11-13 08:22:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Nov 13 08:22:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission] to: Tom Wigley Tom, I've had a few more emails from ISI about this. The papers only get picked for this exercise if they have climate change or global warming in the titles or in their key words. I've pointed out that this is a very poor way of determining who write well cited papers in the field. I see lower down that the person at ISI has just sent me something else, so I may send something else this morning once I've read that. With ResearchID I have 16,600 cites from 1989 onwards and an H of 66 after having got rid of the other PDJs. I think I have this OK now, as I have 274 papers in the list and my own CV says 277. This doesn't get chapters in books. Cheers Phil At 21:16 12/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, This is weird. I used Web of Knowledge, "create citation report", and added 1999 thru 2009 numbers. Can't do you becoz of the too many PDJs problem. Here are 3 results ... Kevin Trenberth, 9049 Me, 5523 Ben, 2407 The max on their list has only 3365 cites over this period. Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Tom, The attached maybe of interest in relation to what the Greenland ice cores really show. This has been in the works for ages, so I may have sent this before. It now appears to be finally accepted. Diagrams will hopefully be better when it appears on the QSR site. Cheers Phil PS - on the citation counts I got this from another branch at ISI. Reattached their attachment. I've yet to look at this in detail. I'll try and find out who the top ten are in the this CC area. Hi Phil, While we are the same company that does ISIHighlyCited.com and ResearcherID, they're actually a separate departments from mine. However, if you like, I can shoot an inquiry over to them about your book chapter question -- I'm not sure what their inclusion criteria are. /ScienceWatch.com's/ Climate Change analysis can be found here: [1]http://sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/ <[2]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/f028/LOCALS~1/Temp/blocked::http://sciencewatch.com/ana/st/clima te/>. If you click on the Authors section, you will see that you are ranked at #4 by total cites. This is based on our analysis of papers published between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2009 containing the keywords "climate change*" or "global warm*" in the titles, abstracts, or keyword sections. The list of your papers that were picked up in our analysis is contained in the attached spreadsheet. You mentioned there was another PD Jones...I'm really hoping we don't have two PD Joneses tangled up in our analysis, but if we do, my apologies, and I'll see that it's sorted out! If you spot papers that aren't yours in the spreadsheet, just let me know which ones they are and I'll take care of things. Now, in terms of the actual interview, what we would like from you is to have you answer a few questions via email about your work, or to have a brief interview via telephone with one of our writers -- whichever fits best with your schedule and preferences. The timing is also very flexible. If you would be willing to do so, please let me know what your choice is, and I will set things up. In the meantime, if you have any other questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Jennifer *Jennifer L. Minnick *Editorial Coordinator,/ Essential Science Indicators/ *Thomson Reuters* _ jennifer.minnick@thomsonreuters.com <[3]mailto:jennifer.minnick@thomsonreuters.com>thomsonreuters.com <[4]http://www.thomsonreuters.com/>_[5]http://sciencewatch.com <[6]http://sciencewatch.com/> /This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. / X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:02:54 +0100 From: Bo Vinther User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , "Dorthe D. Jensen" , "Henrik B. Clausen" , "Sigfs J. Johnsen" , Katrine Krogh Andersen Subject: [Fwd: Your Submission] X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 2414683, limit: 512000) 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 Dear Katrine, Dorthe, Phil, Keith, Sigfs and Henrik Just a quick mail here form Christchurch, NZ, to let you know that our paper on seasonal stable isotope data has been accepted for publication in QSR. I have attached the latest version I have - QSR will make this version of the paper available (and give it a DOI-number) on their web-site within the next few days or so. Thank you very much for all your help drafting and revising this paper! Cheers.....Bo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Your Submission Date: 3 Nov 2009 17:07:35 +0000 From: Quaternary Science Reviews <[7]mailto:JQSR@elsevier.com> To: bo@gfy.ku.dk <[8]mailto:bo@gfy.ku.dk> Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-08-00106R1 Title: Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Dr. Bo M Vinther, I sent your paper out for re-review to one of the original referees, who has replied stating that she/he was very satisfied with the changes made. I have also been through the paper and appreciate the detailed responses to the issues raised. On this basis, I am pleased to confirm that your paper "Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland" has been accepted for publication in Quaternary Science Reviews. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. With kind regards, Antony Long Editor Quaternary Science Reviews Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1046. 2009-11-13 08:32:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Nov 13 08:32:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Land/Ocean to: Tom Wigley Tom, I put this in the revised CC essay piece, so have reattached this. If you get a chance to look through this, we can probably finish this off in a few iterations. Are you getting all my emails? GISS use HadISST1 and OIv2. OIv2 is this Reynolds, R.W., N.A. Rayner, T.M. Smith, D.C. Stokes, and W. Wang, 2002: An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis. J. Climate, 15, 1609-1625. HadISST1 is a Rayner et al paper - see attached. GISS are essentially using the same SSTs as Reanalysis input (what NCEP, ERA-40, ERA-INTERIM and Gil Compo's). So this is different from ERSST3b, but I don't think they will differ by much. From 1982 OIv2 must use the same SST data as ERSST3b. ERSST3b ought to differ a bit from HadISST1 for years before 1981. So GISS is using spatially infilled SSTs. How they combine these with their 80 boxes from the land is unclear. I've looked at the papers and the GISS web site, bt can't see it. They have their programs there, so this would be the ultimate way of finding out. I'd expect it is something like Global = a *GISSland + b*SST where a and b are roughly 0.3 and 0.7 for the globe. Watch for my next email! Cheers Phil At 21:59 12/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, Can you remind me what GISS uses for SSTs. I thought they used NCDC. Tom. +++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Tom, Sounds fine! Still no sight of the HC paper on the 1945-60 adjustments, so nothing also on the possible recent changes in SSTs. All just confirms what is said in the CC paper that SSTs are what's really important for global T. On Jim Hurrell's paper about the development of a new SST and Sea-Ice Edge dataset, it's not clear whether this has been used by any Reanalysis yet. It hasn't by ERA-INTERIM. What was used here is in that paper I sent you a few weeks ago by Adrian Simmons. Also clear that you need to put increases in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases into these reanalyses. I'll contact Gil Compo again to find out what they used. I realized over the weekend that what GISS use for SST in their analysis is the same as what was used to force ERA-40 and NCEP. ERA-INTERIM changed this slightly but only in the last few years. Cheers Phil At 16:17 08/11/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id nA8GI6M5031238 Phil, I have sorted some of this out -- see attached. In fact, this is very interesting and kinda cool. The ocean cooling is exactly 0.2C more than the land cooling ('exact' is partly a fluke of course). So this is a nice check on the ocean error. Has this been pointed out before? Also, the fact that land warming has only begun to accelerate relative to the ocean over the past 30 years fits beautifully with the suggestion Sarah and I made in 1987 that the early 20th century warming was a YHC effect. And this all fits with the minimal effect of the Sun for this period, as I have noted before. I do not this this is generally appreciated. I mentioned Hurrell. I'll attach his paper. It is strange (sloppy?) that he does not compare the NCAR data set with HadCRU or HADSST2. We do need to mention this paper in our Clim Ch ms. In fact, we should compare his data with our data. Tom. Here is my text on the early 20th century warming ... "This small solar contribution applies equally to the early 20th century (191040) warming. The observed warming over this interval is about 0.5oC (see Figure 1 and Table 1), while the solar-induced change is either close to zero, perhaps even a cooling (assuming no secular TSI component), or a warming of about 0.02oC with a secular component (Figure 8). At most, therefore, the solar contribution to early 20th century warming is about 4% (even when one assumes a high value for the climate sensitivity). This minimal solar effect has been noted previously by Foukal et al. (2004). So, what caused the early 20th century warming? A possible explanation is that it is the result of a major increase in the rate of formation of NADW (Wigley and Raper, 1987), an idea that is supported by the pattern of warming which is a maximum in the North Atlantic (Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1995). We noted earlier that the fact that this warming is similar for the land and the ocean (in fact, the 1910 to 1940 trend over the ocean is greater than over the land) suggests that it is not externally forced (since this would normally lead to warming over the land that was greater than over the ocean), and that it originates in the ocean. This also helps to explain why the land/ocean warming differential that one would expect as a consequence of external forcing has only become evident over the past three decades." Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- grids for a particular month you'll see many points the same in the separate land and ocean datasets, but weighted averages around the coasts and islands. We've been doing this since the early 1990s. We have altered how we do it. The next version will go back to a simpler weighting method than used in Borhan et al. (2006). Some grid boxes are in both. Differences will likely vary from year to year and within years due to sea ice. As for Anders Moberg's paper, I've no idea what NHT series he used. I'm presuming you mean his reconstruction as opposed to the instrumental series against which he calibrated the proxies. Splitting the variance into high and low probably has serious problems. All the high freq (<80 years) comes from trees with all the low freq coming from the other essentially uncalibrated proxies. Anders is OK, but I don't think he'd want to revisit this series. He tried to consider the implications of variance splitting in the attached paper. I recall it not being very convincing. Cheers Phil At 21:25 09/11/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Hi Phil, Re land versus ocean, there is an interesting problem here, which may apply to all data sets. If I weight L and O "correctly" (not straightforward) then the weighted sum of L (CRUTEM3v) and O (HADSST2), as a global-mean time series will not be the same as the global mean direct from HadCRUT3v. This is because (I think) there are some gridpoints that appear in both the L and O data. Is this correct? I was rather surprised at how much my two versions of the L and O averages differed. However they were merged, I'm sure it could be done better, so as to minimize any inconsistencies like the one noted above. ----- On another point, what do you think of the Moberg (2005) series for NHT? I know you have worked with him, so he can't be all bad -- but this series is not only rubbish in terms of its variability, but it has been used by some arch skeptics to support their own silly ideas. Perhaps there is a chance that Moberg could re-do his series better? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3735. 2009-11-10 12:40:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One to: Gil Compo Gil, One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series. This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away from the ocean. This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases. Cheers Phil Gil, These will do for my purpose. I won't pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft paper. As you're fully aware you're going to have to go some ways to figuring out what's causing the differences. You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don't think it is going to make much difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought to include the NCDC dataset as well. [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset. In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the NH20-70 land domain. The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967 or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th century (the 1900s). The longer periods are those you've noticed - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the HadCRUT3/GISS average. Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you might have? One final thing - don't worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues. Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft! Cheers Phil At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, 1. I didn't get the attached. Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice. 2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949, "observed" after that) are specified. Attached is a research figure. Please do not share. In it, I have plotted the annual average (top panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from GISTEMP 1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. The ensemble mean is the thick gray curve. Averages are July-June. (middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is the same. (bottom panel) same as middle panel but for Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N). Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU (HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black. No data has been masked by another dataset's observational availability, but missing values are not included in that dataset's area-weighted average. Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer seems to be the case in the late 19th century but not the early 1920's. Note that the only thermometer data in the magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over oceans. The two landonly panels are independent of thermometers, aside from the specified SSTs. There are some very interesting differences, particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and WWII. Correlations (I told you this was research, right?). The second pair is for linearly detrended data. GLOBE (70N-50S) reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284 reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808 hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088 hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383 GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S) reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469 reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152 cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050 cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316 NH Land (20N-70N) reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247 reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900 cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001 cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880 I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 were high for an independent dataset this long. I think that these are higher than the proxies? The global isn't that fair because we have the HadISST. The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha (2008), What is causing the variability in global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23712, doi:10.1029/2008GL035984. It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change. Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material. best wishes, gil Phil Jones wrote on 11/9/09 2:55 AM: Gil, A couple of questions. 1. See the attached. Is this paper providing the SST input to 20CRv2? 2. Do you change greenhouse gases in the run? Apologies if these are answered elsewhere. Do you have any pre-draft plots without subsampling to get some idea of how good the agreement? I'm asking these questions as I'm writing an essay for Climate Change. There are no diagrams in this, but showing the agreement with 20CRv2 will be a nice way to finish the paper. Paper briefly documents the magnitude of all the problems in global temperature data - such as SST biases, exposure issues, urbanization and site changes (in order of importance). Site changes for global averages are the least important. Trying to point to a few home truths to skeptics who keep on going on about the land data. Cheers Phil At 15:39 03/11/2009, Gil Compo wrote: Phil, Already calculated. We don't suffer from some of the issues that you and Adrian raised because we use only surface pressure. In the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the agreement with the various (yours, GISTEMP, NOAA) thermometer-based near surface T is high, but in the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere, there are discrepancies, particularly over Africa and South America. The 20CRv2 does not have the intensity of the Siberia warming. There are also discrepancies in the WWII period. I have not subset the reanalysis to correspond to a particular dataset's missing mask as all 3 have different coverages. I'll be making plots for the paper (with a draft coming) soon. best wishes, gil [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote on 11/3/09 3:37 AM: Gil, I'm sitting in a meeting in Bristol with Rob Allan. We've had a thought. When you finish v2 will you be quickly calculating the global T average for the 1891-2006 period? Do you expect this to look like the real global T, or do you expect it to not show the longer timescale change that NCEP from 1948 showed? I can send a paper with Adrian Simmons from JGR in 2004 on this when I'm back in Norwich tomorrow. Cheers Phil Dear Colleagues, Courtesy of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division and University of Colorado CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center, at [3]ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_Rean/provisionalV2/ , please find temporary netCDF files from the 20th Century Reanalysis version 2 (1891-2006). These yearly files are for the ensemble mean analysis (means) and ensemble standard deviation (spreads) of selected variables. Colleagues from organizations contributing to the 20th Century Reanalysis version 2 or the International Surface Pressure Databank version2.2, the observational input dataset, are welcome to investigate these preliminary files. Colleagues on the Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth Working Group 3 Verification and Validation of reanalyses are also welcome to begin working with these files. We are working with our distribution partners at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory and NOAAs National Climatic Data Center on wider availability and documentation. A rough draft of important documentation is attached. Also, please see our new homepage at [4]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/ which includes access to images of 6-hourly sea level pressure and 500 geopotential maps generated from the version 2 data. When production is complete, the 20CR version 2 will span 1871 to present. The references for the dataset are Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, N. Matsui, R.J. Allan, X. Yin,B.E. Gleason, R.S. Vose, G. Rutledge, P. Bessemoulin, S. Brnnimann, M. Brunet, R.I. Crouthamel, A.N. Grant, P.Y. Groisman, P.D. Jones, M. Kruk, A.C. Kruger, G.J. Marshall, M. Maugeri, H.Y. Mok, . Nordli, T.F. Ross, R.M. Trigo, X.L. Wang, S.D. Woodruff, S.J. Worley, 2009: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Quarterly J. Roy. Met. Soc., in preparation. Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: The 20th Century Reanalysis Project. Third WCRP International Conference on Reanalysis, 28 January 2008, Tokyo, Japan < [5]http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/Reanalysis2008/Documents/V5-511_ea.pdf >. Compo,G.P., J.S. Whitaker, and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2006: Feasibility of a 100 year reanalysis using only surface pressure data. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87, 175-190. Whitaker, J.S., G.P.Compo, X. Wei, and T.M. Hamill 2004: Reanalysis without radiosondes using ensemble data assimilation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 1190-1200. Please let us know of any questions about the dataset. And, thank you for your contributions to its development. Best wishes, Gil Compo [6] Jeffrey S. Whitaker [7] 20th Century Reanalysis Project leads -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [8]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [9]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [10]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [11]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [12]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA Physical Sciences Division Earth System Research Laboratory 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: [13]compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 [14]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:34 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 520. 2009-11-10 14:23:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500 from: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section subject: Letter to Atmospheric Sciences members to: Dear Atmospheric Sciences Section members, First, I would like to remind you of three very close deadlines: Nov. 12, Discounted registration for AGU Fall Meeting. Register at [1]https://www.associationsciences.org/agu/meet_demog.jsp, and sign up for our Atmospheric Sciences banquet on Dec. 15. Nov. 13, Vote yes on AGU governance changes, [2]http://www.agu.org/governancevote/ Nov. 13, Please respond to [3]stacyjackson@berkeley.edu if you are willing to volunteer your expertise to help answer questions during the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (see below). Second, I would like to give you some information about where your contributions to AGU go. Last year, members of the Atmospheric Sciences Section contributed $43,410 to AGU's Voluntary Contribution Campaign. In 2008, due largely to member donations like these, AGU facilitated career development events attended by 600 students, hosted 75 K-12 teachers at Fall Meeting workshops, and sponsored 31 members' visits with U.S. policy makers. Additionally, voluntary contributions allowed AGU to provide travel grants to 135 deserving students to present their research for the first time at an AGU meeting. These programs are essential for AGU's relevance and vitality. I know Atmospheric Science members want AGU to do more. Please join me in supporting AGU's efforts to strengthen our scientific society by making a gift to the 2010 Voluntary Contribution Campaign. Unrestricted contributions are used to support AGU's greatest needs, but you can directly support students pursuing Atmospheric Sciences by making a gift to the David Hofmann Travel Grant, Holton-Kaufman Grant, or Namias Travel Grant. You can make your gift when you renew your AGU membership, or you can give today at: [4]https://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/making_your_gift.php Sincerely, Alan Robock President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, AGU [5]robock@envsci.rutgers.edu AGU Climate Scientists, We are writing to encourage hundreds of you to participate in a unique opportunity to improve the public's climate knowledge during the week before and the week of this year's AGU Fall Meeting. As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the American public's "belief" in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the earth according to the Pew Center's October poll), and December's media blitz provides an opportunity to reverse the trend. Your participation is needed to ensure that climate science coverage across media channels is accurate, fact-based, and nuanced. Provided that enough AGU members sign up to participate, we will be offering the opportunity for journalists reporting during the Copenhagen conference to submit their questions on-line and receive a response from a climate expert before an article goes to press. We are asking each of you to sign up for two hours over the course of those two weeks (12/7-18) to respond to questions from journalists. You will be able to choose which queries to answer based on your expertise, and there will be an option to double-team when questions span multiple areas of expertise. We will be setting up the appropriate logistics to enable both virtual participation and a central work area at the AGU meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to email Stacy Jackson at the email address below. If you are willing to participate, please respond in the affirmative by Friday November 13th to [6]stacyjackson@berkeley.edu. Given the magnitude of the media coverage, we are seeking several hundred willing climate scientists. More details will be forthcoming. Thanks in advance, Alan Robock, President, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section Anne Thompson, President-Elect, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section 2773. 2009-11-11 21:22:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Few Roger Dr (ODG)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Bartlett Jane Mrs (ODG)" , "Adger Neil Prof (ENV)" , "Ruth.Phillips@htspe.com" date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:22:24 +0000 from: "Newell Peter Prof (DEV)" subject: Revised text for the bid to: "greg.kaser@htspe.com" , "Trott Katharine Ms (ODG)" , "Martin Adrian Dr (DEV)" , "Brown Katrina Prof (DEV)" Dear Greg Please find attached suggested text for inclusion in the sections indicated- particularly the background and general approach section but also further text explaining the research themes and how comissioned research would be assessed. Beyond this in general I think it is also worth emphasising more strongly the key strengths text we submitted a month or so ago which identified comparative advantages of our bid over our rivals (credibility in policy and research circles, embedded in many of the relevant existing networks- less chance of duplication, reduced time and transaction costs of having to establish these ties, direct channels to policy through our work with IPCC, UNDP, GEF etc etc ). Other bids cannot claim this to anything like the same extent. Anyhow I'm teaching all day tomorrow and in Oxford all day Friday so I doubt I can make many more contributions. Thanks for getting us this far and fingers crossed (I think!) Best wishes Peter Professor Peter Newell School of International Development University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44(0)1603 593724 Fax: +44(0)1603 591170 E-Mail: [1]P.Newell@uea.ac.uk Web page: [2]www.uea.ac.uk/dev/Newell ESRC Climate Change Leadership Fellow [3]www.clean-development.com Find out more about our Msc in Climate Change and International Development [4]http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/MScCCID Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Text for CDKN proposal 11-11-09.doc" 5034. 2009-11-12 13:02:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:02:44 -0600 from: "Gilbert Compo" subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data to: Phil Jones On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:12:04 +0000, Phil Jones wrote > Gil, > Sounds good re reliability. > > On the USHCN adjustments it is important to > distinguish the TOB (Time of Observation Bias) > adjustments from the homogeneity adjustments. TOB > causes most of the differences, but TOB is unique > to the US. Elsewhere there has never been this > switch from afternoon to morning reading of Tx > and Tn. The rest of the world has always done things in the morning. Good point. > > In the BAMS paper I sent there is a figure on the effect of TOB. thanks! I haven't had a chance to look at that yet. Oh, the picture I sent has an error in the models. The wrong east-west domain was used for the CMIP3 models. I am generating a correction. This will effect dtrended results in particular. Ah, research. best wishes, gil > > Cheers > Phil > > At 19:08 11/11/2009, you wrote: > > >Phil, > > > >I'm on vacation today. I'll get back to you with more thoughts. Thanks for > >these ideas. One thing that I was thinking is that the Menne et al (Menne > >and Vose?) USHCN adjustments altered the sign of the US trend in Tmax and > >Tmin in some regions. I have no idea what that does to individual year large > >area averages. > > > >In the QJ paper my goal is going to be to put some statements about how > >reliable we think that the various variables are and during which periods. > > > >thanks, > >gil > > > >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:20:21 +0000, Phil Jones wrote > > > Gil, > > > A few thoughts. I looked at the uncertainty > > > of the ensemble filter for some dates in the > > > 1920s and 1930s, and also the 1910s. The less > > > certain blue areas seem like the Arctic High > > > problem from one of my papers long long ago. The > > > region affected in blue (larger in winter and > > > less in summer) is the Canadian archipelago, the > > > north of Greenland and the Beaufort Sea. > > > There doesn't appear to be any observational > > > dots in this region. One way of checking the > > > temperatures reproduced here would be to look at > > > this paper by Vinther et al (2006) - also attached. > > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/ > > > If you go here you can download the long > > > temperature series for 3 sites. The most northern > > > one is Illulisat - previously known as > > > Jakobshavn. I've also attached Upernivik which > > > is 72N on West Greenland. Probably worth > > > comparing 20CRv2 with these two series. > > > These NW Greenland series are the longest > > > series I'm aware of in this data sparse region. > > > It seems as if any MSLP data these W Greenland sites recorded hasn't > > > gone in? > > > > > > Another thought is to block out this area > > > when calculating large scale averages. You are > > > sort of doing this by only going to 70N in your zonal bands. > > > > > > As for getting temperature series > > > pre-homogenization/pre-adjustment this isn't > > > going to make any difference. The number of > > > series adjusted is fairly small and adjustment > > > depends on a reasonable network as well. The > > > skeptics are after us to do this, but it is going > > > to be a lot of work for no reward, as it makes no > > > difference to large-scale averages! Look at > > > Figure 6 and the inset numbers, which show the > > > effect of homogeneity adjustments for the > > > contiguous US - see Menne et al attached. There > > > is a similar plot in Brohan et al (2006) for the > > > rest of the world - including Canadian > > > adjustments. We're using Lucie Vincent's adjusted > > > series for the whole of Canada. > > > > > > I agree that the 1955-65 should be as good as the 1990s. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > At 20:46 10/11/2009, you wrote: > > > >Phil Jones wrote on 11/10/09 5:35 AM: > > > >> > > > >> Gil, > > > >> These will do for my purpose. I won't pass > > > >> them on. I am looking forward to the draft > > > >> paper. As you're fully aware you're going to > > > >> have to go some ways to figuring out what's causing the differences. > > > >> You will have to go down the sub-sampling, > > > >> but I don't think it is going to make much > > > >> difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS > > > >> is amazing good, as already know. You ought to > > > >> include the NCDC dataset as well. > > > >> > > > >>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html > > > >>the ERSST3b dataset. > > > >We will put the NOAA ERSST3b in, too. I left it off the plot for > >simplicity. > > > >> > > > >> In the lower two plots there appear to be > > > >> two types of differences, clearer in the NH20-70 land domain. > > > >> The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a > > > >> single year (like a year in the last 1960s, > > > >> 1967 or 1968) and then when it differs for > > > >> about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps > > > >> coming back. For individual years there are a > > > >> couple of years in the first decade of the 20th century (the 1900s). > > > >Is there a way to get back to the original > > > >series (pre-homogenization and adjustments) that > > > >are used in the gridbox averages? > > > >> > > > >> The longer periods are those you've noticed > > > >> - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also > > > >> something up with the period 1955-65 and the > > > >> 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off > > > >> again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best > > > >> thing to try and isolate some of the reasons > > > >> would be maps for decades or individual years. > > > >> For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to be > > > >> coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I > > > >> think the 1890s might be just down to sparser > > > >> coverage. The 1890s is the only period where > > > >> the difference brings your pink line back > > > >> towards the long-term zero. All the others > > > >> have the pink line more extreme than the HadCRUT3/GISS average. > > > >I think that the 1955-65 is going to turn out to > > > >be very reliable. There is no a priori reason > > > >why 1990-2000 should be "better" than that > > > >period. In the 1970's the ships turn out to have > > > >larger error than we specified, although that > > > >should not affect the land temperatures very much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned > > > >> this to him. He suggested maps of data input > > > >> during these times. He also suggested looking > > > >> at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey > > > >> spread is sort of this, but this is a > > > >> different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you might have? > > > >The maps of the data input aren't that helpful > > > >because the dynamics distributes the > > > >information. What is helpful is the reanalysis ensemble spread. > > > >This is not the same as the grey shading. The > > > >ensemble filter produces its own estimate of > > > >uncertainty for every variable at every time. We > > > >have 56 equally-like maps for every variable for > > > >every time. For SLP and 500 mb height, see the coloring in the maps at > > > > > >http://www.esr > >l.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/hem_images.html > > > >blue is less certain, white is more certain. > > > > > > > >The grey shading is the 90% range of the 25 > > > >CMIP3 model integrations I am using (only 25 > > > >runs can be cleanly extended including volcanic, solar, and aerosol > >forcing). > > > > > > > >I need to calculate the reanalysis uncertainty > > > >for annual and area averages. For that, I need > > > >to recover the every-member files, which I am > > > >now offloading from the mass store - this will > > > >take a Long Time. I can use the individual > > > >6-hourly uncertainty fields, but it isn't > > > >exactly the same because of correlations in the > > > >uncertainty co-variance matrix. > > > > > > > >I hoping for a draft sooner. Keep your fingers crossed! > > > > > > > >best wishes, > > > >gil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> One final thing - don't worry too much about > > > >> the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be > > > >> changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with > > > >> more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also > > > >> a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) > > > >> to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may be down to SST issues. > > > >> > > > >> Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll > > > >> send me a Christmas Present of the draft! > > > >> > > > >> Cheers > > > >> Phil > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote: > > > >>>Phil, > > > >>> > > > >>>1. I didn't get the attached. > > > >>>Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice. > > > >>> > > > >>>2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and > > > >>>solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949, > > > >>>"observed" after that) are specified. > > > >>> > > > >>>Attached is a research figure. Please do not share. > > > >>> > > > >>>In it, I have plotted the annual average (top > > > >>>panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m > > > >>>temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature > > > >>>from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from GISTEMP > > > >>>1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air > > > >>>temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be > > > >>>extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. > > > >>>The ensemble mean is the thick gray curve. Averages are July-June. > > > >>> > > > >>>(middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m > > > >>>temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from > > > >>>CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is > >the same. > > > >>> > > > >>>(bottom panel) same as middle panel but for > > > >>>Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N). > > > >>> > > > >>>Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. > > > >>>period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU > > > >>>(HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black. > > > >>> > > > >>>No data has been masked by another dataset's > > > >>>observational availability, but missing values > > > >>>are not included in that dataset's area-weighted average. > > > >>> > > > >>>Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer > > > >>>seems to be the case in the late 19th century but not the early 1920's. > > > >>> > > > >>>Note that the only thermometer data in the > > > >>>magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over > > > >>>oceans. The two landonly panels are > > > >>>independent of thermometers, aside from the specified SSTs. > > > >>> > > > >>>There are some very interesting differences, > > > >>>particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and WWII. > > > >>> > > > >>>Correlations (I told you this was research, > > > >>>right?). The second pair is for linearly detrended data. > > > >>> > > > >>>GLOBE (70N-50S) > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088 > > > >>> > > > >>>hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383 > > > >>> > > > >>>GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S) > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316 > > > >>> > > > >>>NH Land (20N-70N) > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247 > > > >>> > > > >>>reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001 > > > >>> > > > >>>cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun > > > >>>gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880 > > > >>> > > > >>>I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 > > > >>>were high for an independent dataset this > > > >>>long. I think that these are higher than the proxies? > > > >>>The global isn't that fair because we have the HadISST. > > > >>> > > > >>>The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See > > > >>>Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha > > > >>>(2008), What is causing the variability in > > > >>>global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. > > > >>>Lett., 35, L23712, doi:10.1029/2008GL035984. > > > >>> > > > >>>It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change. > > > >>> > > > >>>Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material. > > > >>> > > > >>>best wishes, > > > >>> > > > >>>gil > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Phil Jones wrote on 11/9/09 2:55 AM: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Gil, > > > >>>> A couple of questions. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. See the attached. Is this paper providing the SST input to 20CRv2? > > > >>>> 2. Do you change greenhouse gases in the run? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Apologies if these are answered elsewhere. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Do you have any pre-draft plots without > > > >>>> subsampling to get some idea of how good the agreement? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm asking these questions as I'm writing > > > >>>> an essay for Climate Change. There are no > > > >>>> diagrams in this, but showing the agreement > > > >>>> with 20CRv2 will be a nice way to finish the paper. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Paper briefly documents the magnitude of > > > >>>> all the problems in global temperature data > > > >>>> - such as SST biases, exposure issues, > > > >>>> urbanization and site changes (in order of > > > >>>> importance). Site changes for global > > > >>>> averages are the least important. Trying to > > > >>>> point to a few home truths to skeptics who > > > >>>> keep on going on about the land data. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers > > > >>>> Phil > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>At 15:39 03/11/2009, Gil Compo wrote: > > > >>>>>Phil, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Already calculated. We don't suffer from > > > >>>>>some of the issues that you and Adrian > > > >>>>>raised because we use only surface pressure. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>In the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the > > > >>>>>agreement with the various (yours, GISTEMP, > > > >>>>>NOAA) thermometer-based near surface T is > > > >>>>>high, but in the Tropics and Southern > > > >>>>>Hemisphere, there are discrepancies, > > > >>>>>particularly over Africa and South > > > >>>>>America. The 20CRv2 does not have the intensity of the Siberia > >warming. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>There are also discrepancies in the WWII > > > >>>>>period. I have not subset the reanalysis to > > > >>>>>correspond to a particular dataset's missing > > > >>>>>mask as all 3 have different coverages. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>I'll be making plots for the paper (with a draft coming) soon. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>best wishes, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>gil > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote on 11/3/09 3:37 AM: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Gil, > > > >>>>>> I'm sitting in a meeting in Bristol with Rob Allan. We've > > > >>>>>>had a > > > >>>>>>thought. When you finish v2 will you be quickly calculating the > >global > > > >>>>>>T average for the 1891-2006 period? Do you expect this to look like > >the > > > >>>>>>real global T, or do you expect it to not show the longer timescale > > > >>>>>>change that NCEP from 1948 showed? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I can send a paper with Adrian Simmons from JGR in 2004 on > > > >>>>>>this when > > > >>>>>>I'm back in Norwich tomorrow. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers > > > >>>>>> Phil > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Dear Colleagues, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Courtesy of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical > >Sciences > > > >>>>>>>Division and University of Colorado CIRES Climate Diagnostics > >Center, at > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_Rean/provisionalV2/ , > > > >>>>>>>please find temporary netCDF files from the 20th Century Reanalysis > > > >>>>>>>version 2 (1891-2006). These yearly files are for the ensemble mean > > > >>>>>>>analysis (means) and ensemble standard deviation (spreads) of > >selected > > > >>>>>>>variables. Colleagues from organizations contributing to the 20th > > > >>>>>>>Century Reanalysis version 2 or the International Surface Pressure > > > >>>>>>>Databank version2.2, the observational input dataset, are welcome to > > > >>>>>>>investigate these preliminary files. Colleagues on the Atmospheric > > > >>>>>>>Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth Working Group 3 > > > >>>>>>>Verification and Validation of reanalyses are also welcome to begin > > > >>>>>>>working with these files. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>We are working with our distribution partners at the National > >Center for > > > >>>>>>>Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric > > > >>>>>>>Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory and NOAAs > > > >>>>>>>National Climatic Data Center on wider availability and > >documentation. > > > >>>>>>>A rough draft of important documentation is attached. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Also, please see our new homepage at > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/ which includes access > > > >>>>>>>to > > > >>>>>>>images of 6-hourly sea level pressure and 500 geopotential maps > > > >>>>>>>generated from the version 2 data. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>When production is complete, the 20CR version 2 will span 1871 to > > > >>>>>>>present. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>The references for the dataset are > > > >>>>>>> Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, N. Matsui, R.J. > >Allan, > > > >>>>>>>X. Yin,B.E. Gleason, R.S. Vose, G. Rutledge, P. Bessemoulin, S. > > > >>>>>>>Brnnimann, M. Brunet, R.I. Crouthamel, A.N. Grant, P.Y. Groisman, > >P.D. > > > >>>>>>>Jones, M. Kruk, A.C. Kruger, G.J. Marshall, M. Maugeri, H.Y. Mok, . > > > >>>>>>>Nordli, T.F. Ross, R.M. Trigo, X.L. Wang, S.D. Woodruff, S.J. > >Worley, > > > >>>>>>>2009: The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Quarterly J. Roy. > >Met. > > > >>>>>>>Soc., in preparation. > > > >>>>>>> Compo, G.P., J.S. Whitaker, P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: The 20th > >Century > > > >>>>>>>Reanalysis Project. Third WCRP International Conference on > >Reanalysis, > > > >>>>>>>28 January 2008, Tokyo, Japan > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>< > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/Reanalysis2008/Documents/V5- > >511_ea.pdf > > > >>>>>>> >. > > > >>>>>>> Compo,G.P., J.S. Whitaker, and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2006: > >Feasibility of > > > >>>>>>>a 100 year reanalysis using only surface pressure data. Bull. Amer. > >Met. > > > >>>>>>>Soc., 87, 175-190. > > > >>>>>>> Whitaker, J.S., G.P.Compo, X. Wei, and T.M. Hamill 2004: > >Reanalysis > > > >>>>>>>without radiosondes using ensemble data assimilation. Mon. Wea. > >Rev., > > > >>>>>>>132, 1190-1200. > > > >>>>>>>Please let us know of any questions about the dataset. And, thank > >you > > > >>>>>>>for your contributions to its development. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Best wishes, > > > >>>>>>>Gil Compo > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Jeffrey S. Whitaker > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>20th Century Reanalysis Project leads > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>-- > > > >>>>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>>>>>University of Colorado > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>>>>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>>>>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>>>>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>>>>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>>>>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>>>>>> Job 37:34 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>-- > > > >>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>>>University of Colorado > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>>>> Job 37:34 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Prof. Phil Jones > > > >>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > >>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > >>>>University of East Anglia > > > >>>>Norwich Email > > > >>>>p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > >>>>NR4 7TJ > > > >>>>UK > > > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >----- > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>-- > > > >>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >>>University of Colorado > > > >>> > > > >>>Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >>>NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >>>Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >>>325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >>>Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >>>Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > >>> > > > >>>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > >>> Job 37:34 > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>Prof. Phil Jones > > > >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > >>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > >>University of East Anglia > > > >>Norwich Email > > > >>p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > >>NR4 7TJ > > > >>UK > > > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >--- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > > > >University of Colorado > > > > > > > >Mail : CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > > > >NOAA Physical Sciences Division > > > >Earth System Research Laboratory > > > >325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > > > >Email: compo@colorado.edu > > > >Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > > > > > >http://www.esrl.noaa.go > >v/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >"Stop and consider the wondrous works of God." > > > > Job 37:34 > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > University of East Anglia > > > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > >- > > > > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES > >University of Colorado > > > >Mail :CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center > >NOAA ESRL > >325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > >Email: compo@colorado.edu > >Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 > >http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"Do you know the balancings of the clouds, > >the wondrous works of Him who is perfect > >in knowledge?" Job 37:16 > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gil Compo, Research Scientist, CIRES University of Colorado Mail :CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center NOAA ESRL 325 Broadway R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 Email: compo@colorado.edu Phone: (303) 497-6115 Fax: (303) 497-6449 http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?" Job 37:16 1962. 2009-11-12 15:04:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:04:45 -0500 from: "Peter.M.Steurer" subject: Fwd: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop to: _NOAA SAB DAARWG All, Below is an invitation from the NOAA Administrator to attend a strategic plan stakeholder workshop. Pte -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:06:07 -0500 From: John Longenecker [1] To: [2]Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov CC: [3]laura.furgione@noaa.gov, 'Edward Johnson' [4] Cynthia: In order to ensure all the NOAA Stakeholders are properly invited and given the opportunity to participate in the NGSP for NOAA, would it be possible for you to forward the imbedded message to the SAB members as well as working group members? Unfortunately, there may be some duplication of notification, but in the attempt notify all constituents, resending to your distribution list would alleviate any gaps. Thanks for your help. John Subject: Invitation to Dec 2 NOAA Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:08:01 -0500 From: Dr. Jane Lubchenco [5] To: [6]HDQ.NOAA.Constituents@noaa.gov Dear NOAA Stakeholder: Since assuming the position of NOAA Administrator, I have had the privilege of leading an agency of talented and dedicated employees committed to our overarching goals of science, services, and stewardship, and to interact with hundreds of NOAA's constituents who are dedicated to working with us to improve our nation's environment and economy. As I wrote earlier this year, "Now is the time.for NOAA to spur the creation of new jobs and industries, revive our fisheries and the economies and communities they support, improve weather forecasting and disaster warnings, provide credible information about climate change and ocean acidification to Americans, and protect and restore our coastal waters and ecosystems." These are lofty goals, but President Obama has challenged all of us to aim high as we seek to address the pressing issues of our times. NOAA is committed to meeting the President's challenge, and we need your help to do so. In an effort to refine its strategic priorities, NOAA has worked for the past several months on developing its Next Generation Strategic Plan (NGSP). To date, NOAA has reached out to stakeholders across the country seeking input, and we are now prepared to build upon this work as we finalize the NGSP. Because you are an important NOAA stakeholder, I now seek your participation in our NGSP Stakeholder Forum. This meeting builds upon a series of regional roundtables and will help us create a plan that will guide the agency into the future. Please join me on December 2, 2009, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the George Washington University Marvin Center (Cafritz Conference Center-3rd floor), Washington, D.C.; Foggy Bottom Station on the Blue and Orange Lines. Details on the NGSP, registration, and an agenda are available at [7]www.noaa.gov/ngsp. Please register for the forum by November 20, 2009, if you or a representative of your organization can attend. Thank you for your past support of NOAA. I look forward to seeing you on December 2. Sincerely, Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere ______________________________________________________________ This message was generated for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator by the NOAA Information Technology Center/Financial and Administrative Computing Division -- ********************************************* Cynthia J. Decker, Ph.D Executive Director NOAA Science Advisory Board SSMC3, Room 11230 1315 East-West Hwy. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Ph. 301-734-1156 Fax 301-734-1459 Email: [8]cynthia.decker@noaa.gov ********************************************* -- Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D. Director, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Lead, NOAA Climate Services Veach-Baley Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Tel: (828) 271-4476 Fax: (828) 271-4246 [9]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov 4027. 2009-11-13 08:22:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Nov 13 08:22:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission] to: Tom Wigley Tom, I've had a few more emails from ISI about this. The papers only get picked for this exercise if they have climate change or global warming in the titles or in their key words. I've pointed out that this is a very poor way of determining who write well cited papers in the field. I see lower down that the person at ISI has just sent me something else, so I may send something else this morning once I've read that. With ResearchID I have 16,600 cites from 1989 onwards and an H of 66 after having got rid of the other PDJs. I think I have this OK now, as I have 274 papers in the list and my own CV says 277. This doesn't get chapters in books. Cheers Phil At 21:16 12/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, This is weird. I used Web of Knowledge, "create citation report", and added 1999 thru 2009 numbers. Can't do you becoz of the too many PDJs problem. Here are 3 results ... Kevin Trenberth, 9049 Me, 5523 Ben, 2407 The max on their list has only 3365 cites over this period. Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Tom, The attached maybe of interest in relation to what the Greenland ice cores really show. This has been in the works for ages, so I may have sent this before. It now appears to be finally accepted. Diagrams will hopefully be better when it appears on the QSR site. Cheers Phil PS - on the citation counts I got this from another branch at ISI. Reattached their attachment. I've yet to look at this in detail. I'll try and find out who the top ten are in the this CC area. Hi Phil, While we are the same company that does ISIHighlyCited.com and ResearcherID, they're actually a separate departments from mine. However, if you like, I can shoot an inquiry over to them about your book chapter question -- I'm not sure what their inclusion criteria are. /ScienceWatch.com's/ Climate Change analysis can be found here: [1]http://sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/ <[2]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/f028/LOCALS~1/Temp/blocked::http://sciencewatch.com/ana/st/clima te/>. If you click on the Authors section, you will see that you are ranked at #4 by total cites. This is based on our analysis of papers published between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2009 containing the keywords "climate change*" or "global warm*" in the titles, abstracts, or keyword sections. The list of your papers that were picked up in our analysis is contained in the attached spreadsheet. You mentioned there was another PD Jones...I'm really hoping we don't have two PD Joneses tangled up in our analysis, but if we do, my apologies, and I'll see that it's sorted out! If you spot papers that aren't yours in the spreadsheet, just let me know which ones they are and I'll take care of things. Now, in terms of the actual interview, what we would like from you is to have you answer a few questions via email about your work, or to have a brief interview via telephone with one of our writers -- whichever fits best with your schedule and preferences. The timing is also very flexible. If you would be willing to do so, please let me know what your choice is, and I will set things up. In the meantime, if you have any other questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Jennifer *Jennifer L. Minnick *Editorial Coordinator,/ Essential Science Indicators/ *Thomson Reuters* _ jennifer.minnick@thomsonreuters.com <[3]mailto:jennifer.minnick@thomsonreuters.com>thomsonreuters.com <[4]http://www.thomsonreuters.com/>_[5]http://sciencewatch.com <[6]http://sciencewatch.com/> /This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. / X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:02:54 +0100 From: Bo Vinther User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , "Dorthe D. Jensen" , "Henrik B. Clausen" , "Sigfs J. Johnsen" , Katrine Krogh Andersen Subject: [Fwd: Your Submission] X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 2414683, limit: 512000) 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 Dear Katrine, Dorthe, Phil, Keith, Sigfs and Henrik Just a quick mail here form Christchurch, NZ, to let you know that our paper on seasonal stable isotope data has been accepted for publication in QSR. I have attached the latest version I have - QSR will make this version of the paper available (and give it a DOI-number) on their web-site within the next few days or so. Thank you very much for all your help drafting and revising this paper! Cheers.....Bo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Your Submission Date: 3 Nov 2009 17:07:35 +0000 From: Quaternary Science Reviews <[7]mailto:JQSR@elsevier.com> To: bo@gfy.ku.dk <[8]mailto:bo@gfy.ku.dk> Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-08-00106R1 Title: Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Dr. Bo M Vinther, I sent your paper out for re-review to one of the original referees, who has replied stating that she/he was very satisfied with the changes made. I have also been through the paper and appreciate the detailed responses to the issues raised. On this basis, I am pleased to confirm that your paper "Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland" has been accepted for publication in Quaternary Science Reviews. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. With kind regards, Antony Long Editor Quaternary Science Reviews Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1046. 2009-11-13 08:32:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Nov 13 08:32:28 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Land/Ocean to: Tom Wigley Tom, I put this in the revised CC essay piece, so have reattached this. If you get a chance to look through this, we can probably finish this off in a few iterations. Are you getting all my emails? GISS use HadISST1 and OIv2. OIv2 is this Reynolds, R.W., N.A. Rayner, T.M. Smith, D.C. Stokes, and W. Wang, 2002: An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis. J. Climate, 15, 1609-1625. HadISST1 is a Rayner et al paper - see attached. GISS are essentially using the same SSTs as Reanalysis input (what NCEP, ERA-40, ERA-INTERIM and Gil Compo's). So this is different from ERSST3b, but I don't think they will differ by much. From 1982 OIv2 must use the same SST data as ERSST3b. ERSST3b ought to differ a bit from HadISST1 for years before 1981. So GISS is using spatially infilled SSTs. How they combine these with their 80 boxes from the land is unclear. I've looked at the papers and the GISS web site, bt can't see it. They have their programs there, so this would be the ultimate way of finding out. I'd expect it is something like Global = a *GISSland + b*SST where a and b are roughly 0.3 and 0.7 for the globe. Watch for my next email! Cheers Phil At 21:59 12/11/2009, you wrote: Phil, Can you remind me what GISS uses for SSTs. I thought they used NCDC. Tom. +++++++++ Phil Jones wrote: Tom, Sounds fine! Still no sight of the HC paper on the 1945-60 adjustments, so nothing also on the possible recent changes in SSTs. All just confirms what is said in the CC paper that SSTs are what's really important for global T. On Jim Hurrell's paper about the development of a new SST and Sea-Ice Edge dataset, it's not clear whether this has been used by any Reanalysis yet. It hasn't by ERA-INTERIM. What was used here is in that paper I sent you a few weeks ago by Adrian Simmons. Also clear that you need to put increases in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases into these reanalyses. I'll contact Gil Compo again to find out what they used. I realized over the weekend that what GISS use for SST in their analysis is the same as what was used to force ERA-40 and NCEP. ERA-INTERIM changed this slightly but only in the last few years. Cheers Phil At 16:17 08/11/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id nA8GI6M5031238 Phil, I have sorted some of this out -- see attached. In fact, this is very interesting and kinda cool. The ocean cooling is exactly 0.2C more than the land cooling ('exact' is partly a fluke of course). So this is a nice check on the ocean error. Has this been pointed out before? Also, the fact that land warming has only begun to accelerate relative to the ocean over the past 30 years fits beautifully with the suggestion Sarah and I made in 1987 that the early 20th century warming was a YHC effect. And this all fits with the minimal effect of the Sun for this period, as I have noted before. I do not this this is generally appreciated. I mentioned Hurrell. I'll attach his paper. It is strange (sloppy?) that he does not compare the NCAR data set with HadCRU or HADSST2. We do need to mention this paper in our Clim Ch ms. In fact, we should compare his data with our data. Tom. Here is my text on the early 20th century warming ... "This small solar contribution applies equally to the early 20th century (191040) warming. The observed warming over this interval is about 0.5oC (see Figure 1 and Table 1), while the solar-induced change is either close to zero, perhaps even a cooling (assuming no secular TSI component), or a warming of about 0.02oC with a secular component (Figure 8). At most, therefore, the solar contribution to early 20th century warming is about 4% (even when one assumes a high value for the climate sensitivity). This minimal solar effect has been noted previously by Foukal et al. (2004). So, what caused the early 20th century warming? A possible explanation is that it is the result of a major increase in the rate of formation of NADW (Wigley and Raper, 1987), an idea that is supported by the pattern of warming which is a maximum in the North Atlantic (Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1995). We noted earlier that the fact that this warming is similar for the land and the ocean (in fact, the 1910 to 1940 trend over the ocean is greater than over the land) suggests that it is not externally forced (since this would normally lead to warming over the land that was greater than over the ocean), and that it originates in the ocean. This also helps to explain why the land/ocean warming differential that one would expect as a consequence of external forcing has only become evident over the past three decades." Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------