Wibjorn,
I'm in Athens at the moment. Unless you're
referring specifically to the Arctic the temperature
curves in IPCC Ch 3 all include the oceans.
Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I'm
back next week, I'll be able to calculate the boxes that
encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this
region. As you're aware Anders did lots of the update
work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM
data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian
data if you want - either the sites used or their data
as well.
I guess you're attachments are in your direct email,
which I come to later.
One final thing - we are getting SST data in from some
of the new sea-ice free parts of the Arctic. We are not
using these as we've yet to figure out how to as
we don't have normals for these 'mostly covered by sea ice
in the 1961-90' areas.
Cheers
Phil
> Hi Wibjorn
> It appears that your concern is mainly with the surface temprature record,
> and my co lead author in IPCC, Phil Jones, is best able to address those
> questions.  However the IPCC only uses published data plus their
> extensions and in our Chapter the sources of the data are well documented,
> along with their characteristics.  I offer a few more comments below (my
> comments are limited as I am on vacation and away from my office).
>
>
>>
>>
>> Uppsala 17 September 2008,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Kevin,
>>
>>
>>
>> In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the
>> temperature
>> curves in IPCC and also published in e.g.  Forster, P. et al. 2007:
> Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
>>
>>
>>
>> In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the
> early
>> 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another
> increase
>> to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s.
>>
>>
>>
>> A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940
>> is
>> reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent
> increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible
> human
>> influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase
>> above
>> the late 1930s.
>>
>
> This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large
> gaps spatially.  How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome.
> In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and
> character.  In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of
> inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent
> years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment
> but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008.  Anomalies of over 5C
> are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if
> there was ice there previously.  These and other indicators show that
> there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC.
>
>>
>>
>> In my letter to \u201cKlass V\u201d I included diagram showing the mean annual
> temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net
> by
>> the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological
> institutes
>> in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an
>> increase
>> after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None
> demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6
> areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.
>>
>>
>
> Results will also depend on the exact region.
>
>>
>> I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas
> using
>> data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13
> stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.
> The
>> pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows
> 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojansk
> and
>> Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5
> deg
>> C
>> above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the
> temperature
>> has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the
> last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent
> temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.
>>
>>
>>
>> In preparation of some talks I have been invited to give, I have
> expanded
>> the Nordic area both west and east. The area of similar change in
> climate
>> is
>> vast. Only a few stations near Bering Strait deviates (e.g. St Paul,
> Kodiak,
>> Nome, located south of 65 deg. N).
>>
>>
>>
>> My studies include Africa, a study which took me most of a summer
> because
>> there are a large number of stations in the NASA records.  I found 11
> stations including data from 1898-1975 and 16 stations including
> 1950-2003.
>> The data sets could in a convincing way be spliced. However, I noticed
>> that
>> some persons were not familiar with \u201csplicing\u201d technique so I have
>> accepted
>> to reduce the study to the 7 stations including data from the whole
> period
>> between 1898-2003. The results are similar as to the spiced data set and
> also, surprisingly similar to the variability of the Nordic data.
> Regression
>> indicates a minor (if any) decrease in temperature (I have used all
> stations
>> independent of location, city location or not).
>>
> Africa is notorious for missing and inaccurate data and needs careful
> assessment.
>>
>>
>> Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the
> period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based
> on?
>> If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period
> (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially.
>>
>>
>
> The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps
> of changes and trends.
>
>
>>
>> There are more examples, but I think this is much enough for my present
> point:
>>
>>
>>
>> How has the laboratories feeding IPCC with temperature records selected
> stations?
>>
> See our chapter and the appendices.
>>
>>
>> I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect
> (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major
> cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC?  Lennart
> Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but
> from
>> what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic
>>
>
> Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very
> local.
>
>>
>>
>> Next step has been to compare my results with temperature records in the
> literature. One interesting figures is published by you in:
>>
>>
>>
>> Trenberth, K., 2005:  Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming.
>> Science
>> 308: 1753-1754.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you obviously know, the recent increase in temperature above the
> 1940s
>> is
>> minor between 10 deg N and 20 deg N and only slightly larger above the
> temperature maximum in the early 1950s. Booth the increases in
> temperature
>> in the 1930s and in the 1980s to 1990s is of similar amplitude and
> similar
>> steepness, if any difference possibly slightly less steep in the
> northern
>> area than in the southern (the eddies slow down the warm water
>> transport?).
>> Your diagram describes a limited area of the North Atlantic because you
>> are
>> primarily interested in hurricanes. The complexity of sea surface
> temperature increases and decreases is seen in e.g. Cabanes, C, et al.
> 2001
>> (Science 294: 840-842).
>>
>
> As we discuss, there is a lot of natural variability in the North Atlantic
> but there is also a common component that relates to global changes.  See
> my GRL article with Shea for more details.
> Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2006: Atlantic hurricanes and natural
> variability in 2005.  Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12704,
> doi:10.1029/2006GL026894.
>
>>
>>
>> One example of sea surface temperature is published by:
>>
>>
>>
>> Goldenberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas-Nuñez, A.M. and Gray, W.M.,
> 2001:
>> The recent increases in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and
>> implications. Science 293: 474-479.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, there is a marked increase in temperature in the 1930s and 1950s
> (about 1 deg C), a decrease to approximately the level in the 1910s and
> thereafter a new  increase to a temperature slightly below the level in
> the1940s.
>>
>>
>> One example of published data not supporting a major temperature
> increase
>> during recent time is:
>>
>>
>> Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony,
> R.L.,
>> Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and
> Trends
>> of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875\u20132000.
> Journal
>> of Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067\u20132077.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of
>> temperatures
>> N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find evidence of a
>> drastic
>> warming of the Arctic.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban
> areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase
> in
>> temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole are is urbanised
> (see
>> e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology \u2013 the biology of darkness. Global
> change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring
> temperature
>> increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming
> seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned
> correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a
> factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is
> solar
>> irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation
> but
>> papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2
> release
>> will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
> expensive).
>>
>
> You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and
> you need to have a basis, which you have not established.  You seem to
> doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are
> very wrong.  But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at
> one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.
>
>
>>
>>
>> In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the
>> release
>> of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in
>> the
>> future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
>>
> I disagree.
>>
>>
>> I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that
> winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100
> years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been
> repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is
> not
>> supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have numerous diagrams illustrating the discussion above. I don\u2019t
>> include
>> these in an e-mail because my computer can only handle a few at a time.
> If
>> you would like to see some, I can send them by air mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am often asked about why I don\u2019t publish about my views. I have. Just
>> one
>> example of among 100 other I could select is:  Karlén, W., 2001: Global
> temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio
> 30(6):
>> 349-350.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>>
>>
>>
>> Wibjörn
>>
>>
>>
>> Geografiska Annaler
>>
>> Professor em Wibjörn Karlén
>>
>> Department of Social and Economic Geography
>>
>>
>> Geografiska Annaler Ser. A
>>
>> Box 513
>>
>> SE-751 20  Uppsala
>>
>> SWEDEN
>>
>>
>>
>> Wibjorn.Karlen@kultgeog.uu.se
>>
>
> I trust that Phil Jones may also respond
> Regards
> Kevin Trenberth
>
>
> ___________________
> Kevin Trenberth
> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
> PO Box 3000
> Boulder CO 80307
> ph 303 497 1318
>
>
>
>
>


Dear all
Jacquie had sounded very positive about this back in August, but it sounds like CSERGE are
as stretched as much as people in CRU.
I'm afraid it's looking like we're not going to be able to get anything together on this
unless Rob is able to take a lead. But I think that we would still be lacking the
interdisciplinary research team that AXA are stressing.
Clare
PS Rob - sorry not to have been in touch with you sooner about this, but I didn't know
until Tuesday that you were interested/had been approached.
Subject: RE: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:32:25 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Thread-Index: AckXVyDtvdPNCFYaR+WQsE/hzBjNYgCCW77g
From: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)"
To: "Goodess Clare Dr \(ENV\)"
Hi Clare I dont think weve got the capacity to take this on at this stage.  Never mind
there will always be other opportunities.
Best wishes
Jacquie
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Clare Goodess [[1] mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 15 September 2008 18:19
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Alexander Jan Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Harpham Colin Dr (ENV); Busby Simon
Mr (ENV)
Subject: RE: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Dear Jacquie
I'm afraid that I've not had time to do anything about this call since returning from
holiday. The deadline is rapidly approaching - 3 October and after this week, I'm away
at meetings until after the deadline. I also have two ARCC proposals and a DCMS tender
to get sorted out this week.
So, I am not going to be able to take any kind of a lead on this even if we think its
worth trying to get a last minute proposal together. No-one else from CRU has time to
take a leading role, but Colin and Maureen are interested. Colin has been working on the
CRU weather generator which will be an integral part of the UKCIP08 user interface and
Maureen has a broader impacts perspective and is lead author on the climate chapter in
the forthcoming CII report.  Simon Busby might also be interested - and has good
experience of working with climate model outputs (although for a rather different
purpose). One task for CRU would be to extend some of the validation work of the
ENSEMBLES RCM runs. I should also be able to read and comment on material and provide
some short draft sections of text (e.g., on ENSEMBLES, PRUDENCE, MICE and STARDEX) - I
will have at least sporadic email access while away I hope.
But I think this is only going to be viable if somebody from CSERGE or the
decision-making group is able to co-ordinate things. And we don't have the capacity for
hydrological modelling in CRU - so again, this would need input from others. Though
there is also the requirement in the call to assess the quality of flood modelling tools
currently licensed by insurers - about which I know nothing. If it would be helpful to
have a quick meeting this week, Iet me know.
Best wishes, Clare
At 16:30 12/08/2008, you wrote:
Dear Clare,
Many thanks for this I think it would be an excellent opportunity for a CRU + other
parts of the School response.  I know Jan Alexander has already got a European bid
through to second stage on floods.  We could certainly put something together with the
environmental decision-making components too.  Lets discuss when you get back from
holiday.
Best wishes
Jacquie
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Clare Goodess [ [2]mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 12 August 2008 14:58
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Agnew Maureen Dr (ENV); Harpham
Colin Dr (ENV)
Subject: Fwd: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Dear Jacquie
CRU is interested in putting in a proposal under this call.  As you can see, as well as
the climate science aspects, there is also a need to work on economic issues - so this
could be a good opportunity for putting in a joint proposal with people in CSERGE or
other parts of ENV.  There are also additional collaborators on the climate and flooding
aspects that we could involve both in the UK and Germany.
I'm away from tomorrow for a couple of weeks, but the CRU people copied in on this email
are also all interested in a potential proposal.  Though currently we're not sure which
if any of us has time to lead on this at least immediately.
Best wishes, Clare
Subject: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:18:02 +0200
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AXA Research Fund: launch of a new call for projects
Thread-Index: AcjsHuVgYlR8ndbHSHiv/kWz02+NeQ==
From: "CHOUX Mathieu"
To:
Cc: "appelaprojets"
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f034)
X-Spam-Score: 4.10 (****) [Tag at 5.00] DEAR_SOMETHING,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f034 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 6808857 - c6a2c2ad9106
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[3]
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[4]
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [5]
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
Hello Clare,
AXA recently launched a call for projects to academic institutions focused on the
flooding risk and the impacts of climate change. The Climatic Research Unit may have
been approached with the email reproduced below, and I just wanted to make sure you
received the information.
Sincerely Yours,
Mathieu Choux
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Madam/Sir,
The AXA Research Fund has been created in order to encourage research in a number of
disciplines that touch on the risks, challenges and major transformations that affect
our rapidly changing world. The Fund will award 100 million Euros over five years to
finance innovative research.
The AXA Research Fund team is delighted to announce the launch of a new call for
projects on climate change impacts on the risk of flooding in
Europe (see attached document) .
All the information needed to apply can be found on our internet site:
[6]
Please make sure this information is communicated within your institution. The results
of the selection process will be communicated to them as of January 15, 2009 .
Sincerely,
The AXA Research Fund Team
[7]appelaprojets@axa.com
Mathieu CHOUX
Risk Analyst - Catastrophe Modeling Department
AXA Group
GIE AXA - 9 av. de Messine - Paris, France
[8]mathieu.choux@axa.com
Tel. : +33 1 40 75 55 68 - Fax : +33 1 40 75 58 27
AXA redefining / standards
Please consider the environment before printing this message
Ce message
est
confidentiel; Son contenu
ne represente en
aucun
cas
un engagement de la part
de
AXA  sous reserve de
tout accord
conclu
par ecrit  entre
vous
et  AXA.  Toute
publication,
utilisation
ou
diffusion,
meme
partielle,  doit
etre
autorisee
prealablement.
Si
vous  n'etes pas
destinataire  de ce
message,
merci  d'en
avertir
immediatement
l'expediteur.
This message is
confidential;
its  contents
do
not
constitute
a
commitment by AXA
except where provided for
in a written
agreement
between you and AXA.
Any unauthorised
disclosure,
use
or
dissemi-
nation, either whole
or
partial,  is
prohibited. If you are
not
the
intended recipient of
the
message,  please
notify
the
sender
imme-
diately.
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]
[10]~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]
[12]~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: [13]
[14]~clareg/clare.htm
References
1. mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk
3.
4.
5.
6. blocked::
7. mailto:appelaprojets@axa.com
8. mailto:mathieu.choux@axa.com
9.
10. ~clareg/clare.htm
11.
12. ~clareg/clare.htm
13.
14. ~clareg/clare.htm


Ben,
Good news. Endnote types is a much better option
than in the text - not as good as footnotes.
Yes the paper you attached does look crap. I will read it though
even if the journal is even worse.
This paper has come out.  The plot of London and Vienna temps,
although an aside, is something I need to follow up more.
London has a UHI, but it doesn't mean any more warming in
the 20th century!
Hope all is well with you.
Cheers
Phil
PS Attached another paper - has some nice photos!
At 17:12 18/09/2008, you wrote:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to give you a brief update on the status of our IJoC manuscript.
I received the page proofs about three weeks ago. Unfortunately, IJoC did not allow us
to employ footnotes. You may recall that we made liberal use of footnotes in order to
present technical information that would have interfered with the "flow" of the main
text. The IJoC copy editors simply folded all footnotes into the main text. This was
done without any regard for context. It made the main text very difficult to read. After
lengthy negotiations with IJoC editors, we decided on a compromise solution. While IJoC
was unwilling to accept footnotes (for reasons that are still unclear to me), they did
agree to accept endnotes. The footnotes have now been transferred to an Appendix 2
entitled "Technical Notes". While this is not an optimal solution, it's a heck of a lot
better than IJoC's original "assimilate in main text" solution.
Now that the footnote issue has been resolved, I'm hoping that online publication of our
paper will happen within the next several weeks. I'll let you know as soon as I receive
a publication date from IJoC. LLNL (and probably NOAA, too) will be working on press
releases for the paper. I'll also be drafting a one-page, plain English "fact sheet",
which will address why we initiated this study, what we learned, why I'll never do this
again, etc. I'll circulate this fact sheet for your comments early next week.
With best regards,
Ben
(P.S.: David Douglass and John Christy continue to publish crappy papers. For their
latest science fiction, please see:
[1] )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Hi Phil
Thanks for the comments on the Briefing report. You say "There is no evidence with London
of any change in the amount of the UHI over the last 40 years. The UHI is clear, but it's
not getting any worse" and sent a paper to show this.  By coincidence I also got recently a
paper from Rob which says "London's UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp
during spring and summer". Its not something I need to sort out for UKCIP08, but I thought
you both might like to be aware of each others findings. I didn't keep a copy of Rob's PDF
after I printed it off but I am sure you can swap papers. I don't need to be copied in to
any discussion.
Cheers
Geoff


Dear folks,
Here is the next version of the press release for our IJoC paper. I
received a number of comments from you (many thanks!), and have tried
hard to incorporate them without increasing the length of the release.
Peter Thorne suggested that it might be useful to delete the explicit
reference to the UR/UAH group, and instead refer to the Douglass et al.
IJoC paper in a footnote. After some internal debate, I have not done
that. Anne Stark advised me that footnotes are not often used in press
releases (they tend to get ignored by reporters). Furthermore, I
couldn't see an easy way of getting rid of the "UR/UAH" acronym, yet
still making a clear distinction between their results and our results,
their test and our test, etc., etc.
I've tried to capture the spirit if not the letter of your suggested
edits. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the time to iterate for days
on the press release - we really need to finalize this tomorrow. We will
have a little more time to finalize the "fact sheet".
So please let me know as soon as possible if there's anything you can't
live with in the press release.
One final point. Peter also asked whether it might be useful to include
the telephone numbers of co-authors in the final paragraph of the press
release. Anne and I would prefer not to do that. If you are agreeable to
fielding press inquiries about the paper, please let me know, and send
me a telephone number under which you can be reached in the next few
days. We'll then compile a list (with contact information) of co-authors
willing to discuss the paper with interested reporters.
I hope to send you a revised version of the fact sheet later tomorrow.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_IJC_Sept_2008_v7.doc"


have not been approached - but I think it really
does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for.
I get the feeling this is the sort of potential
contact ENV would wish to take over.
Keith
At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
>Hi CRU Board,
>
>I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham
>from the International Development Team at Price
>Waterhouse Cooper.  They get lots of DfID
>(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department
>for International Development) funding.
>
>They've heard that DfID are likely to call for
>expressions of interest for a new centre
>focussing on international climate
>change.  Their idea is to fund a centre that
>would be the first point of call for advice and
>for commissioning research related to climate
>change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate.
>
>He was talking about £15 million per year for 5
>years!  Not sure how much would be from DfID and
>how much raised from other donors (and hence
>uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front
>versus how much spent later on specific research
>projects organised via this centre.
>
>Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in.
>
>He was clearly just testing the water with us,
>so not sure that they definitely wish to involve
>us.  He may want to meet to talk through things,
>if they decide to ask us to join their
>proposal.  He said he'd email me later -- I'll
>forward this when it arrives.  They're also
>contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes.
>
>Has anyone else in CRU been approached?
>
>Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually
>issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall
>greatly.  But CRU can offer a significant
>contribution -- especially data and scenarios
>developed for specific (developing) countries --
>and this should be seen as independent from
>Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall
>contribution.  There's also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      ~timo/
>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


Prof. Douglass,
You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the calculations
we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome to do so.
We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to
calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric
levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those displayed
in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our "numerical quantities" in
order to determine whether we have correctly calculated zonal-mean
trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric amplification of
surface temperature changes.
Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
"synthetic" MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for
calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselves
and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already
demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of
computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output.
Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already
successfully replicated our "model average" synthetic MSU temperature
trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report).
In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data
that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that
you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our
IJoC paper are sound or unsound.
You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against
me "with the journal and other scientific bodies". If I were you, Dr.
Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious
error in the "robust statistical test" that you applied to compare
modeled and observed temperature trends.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC
paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They deserve to
be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Ben Santer
David Douglass wrote:
> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and
> should not be a personal matter.
> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with conclusions
> based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As another scientist,
> I challenge the value of those quantities. These values can not be
> authenticated by my calculating them because I have nothing to compare
> them to.
>
> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I
> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other
> scientific bodies.
>
> David Douglass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi all, I assume this is general interest, not IDAG meeting - I think the
meeting would be a bit too big and complicated if we would try to resolve
IPCC type issues - on the other hand, involving Chris Field and maybe
Tom Stocker may be an interesting way to vent the scientific issues in
a relaxed setting. But I would suggest to avoid agency type things -
can be convinced otherwise if you feel strongly. we do have a limited
budget, too!
Gabi
Quoting "Bamzai, Anjuli"
:
> Myles,
>
> The Dept of State is the U.S. lead on IPCC,  Conference of Party
> discussions, etc.  USAID does the bulk of adaptation assistance at the
> international level. At the national level, there are various CCSP
> agencies, e.g. Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Interior, EPA, who are more
> on the 'application' side of the CCSP.
>
>  I'd need to ask someone in those agencies on how they are approaching
> the issues you raise. Perhaps Chris Miller knows someone there...?
>
> Programs such as NOAA Climate Change Data Detection (CCDD), and DOE
> Climate Change Prediction Program(CCPP)  focus almost exclusively on
> IPCC WG I type of questions.
>
> Anjuli
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myles Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:00 AM
> To: claudia tebaldi; Gabi Hegerl
> Cc: Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett;
> Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa;
> Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner;
> Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson;
> Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S; Tara Torres
> Subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23
>
> Hi All,
>
> That is a very good idea indeed. I was talking to Tom Stocker last week,
> arguing that resolving the differences in the definition of attribution
> between WG1 and WG2 was going to be one of the key challenges for AR5,
> particularly as attribution of impacts becomes a live topic as countries
> start to make the case for adaptation assistance. How about we invite
> the co-Chair of WG1 along as well?
>
> If we are going to invite Chris Field, we should definitely also invite
> someone from the "double attribution" community, or it will seem a bit
> like WG1 lecturing to the co-Chair of WG2. Any suggestions, David?
>
> Anjuli, has anyone in the US State Department (or whichever department
> will handle this) started addressing the question of how the US
> government will distinguish "impacts of climate change" from
> "vulnerability to natural climate variability" in allocating resources
> for adaptation assistance? If anyone has even started thinking about
> this problem, it would be very interesting to hear from them to know
> what questions they are likely to need answering. We could also try and
> find out if anyone in the European Commission is worrying about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Myles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: claudia tebaldi
> Sent: 13 October 2008 20:46
> To: Gabi Hegerl
> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario];
> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly;
> Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; stoned@csag.uct.ac.za; Richard Smith; Nathan
> Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli;
> Chris Miller; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S;
> Tara Torres
> Subject: Re: Meeting Jan 21-23
>
> Hi Gabi et al.
>
> I wonder if we could try to get Chris Field, who is going to be the
> chair of working group 2 for AR5...I don't know how likely it is to get
> him but it may be interesting to get his perspective on what was done in
> AR4 WG2 and what he would like to see in AR5  WG2.
>
> c
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gabi Hegerl
> wrote:
>> Hi IDAG people,
>>
>> Its time to start planning our next IDAG meeting in detail. A
> provisional
>>  coarse agenda is attached. Please feel free to email me suggestions
>> to improve/update this, and if there is a topic you would
> love
>> to see covered but that isn;t please get in touch as well.
>> Also, we should have one topic related to the impacts review paper
> that is
>> to be written in year 2 of the grant. Therefore, if you have a
>> suggestion of a guest that would help us elucidate the
> challenges in
>> impact attribution but also to move forward on this, please let me
>> know!
>> Tara Torres from UCAR (tara@ucar.edu) will help us to plan the
> meeting.
>> Also, I hope to hire a student helper at Duke to get our meeting
> webpage
>> going, keep track of agenda items etc, but please bear with me and
>> tolerate a bit of chaos before we have succeeded with this!
>>
>> What I need from you is to please
>> - let me know if you can make it, and what you would vaguely like to
> speak
>> about (you can do the first now and postpone the second)
>> - get in touch with Tara to book your travel - ideally, towards the
> end of
>> October / or in early November (she is a bit buried right now)
>> - get in touch with me when you have suggestions, or want to bring
> somebody
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>> --
>> Dr Gabriele Hegerl School of GeoSciences The University of Edinburgh
>> Grant Institute, The King's Buildings West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9
>> 3JW Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668
> 3184
>> Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claudia Tebaldi
> Research Scientist, Climate Central
>
> currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR
> PO Box 3000
> Boulder, CO 80305
> tel. 303.497.2487
>
>
>
>
--
Gabriele Hegerl
School of GeoSciences
University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


thanks Phil--this all makes sense. I'll be intrigued to hear more about how the melting sea
ice issue is going to be dealt with. no question there is a lot of warming going on up
there.
hope to see you one of these days,
mike
On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Hi Mike, Judith and Yousif,
Mike has basically answered the question. The GISS group average surface T data into
80 equal area boxes across the world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into
5 by 5 degree lat/long boxes, as does NCDC. These griddings don't allow so much
extrapolation of data - no extrapolation beyond the small grid box. The US groups also
calculate the globe as one domain, whereas we in the UK use (NH+SH)/2.  This also
makes some difference as most of the missing areas are in the SH, and currently the NH
is warmer than the SH with respect to 1961-90. Our rationale for doing what we do is that
it is better to estimate the missing areas of the SH (which we do by tacitly assuming they
are the average of the rest of the SH) from the rest of the SH as opposed to the rest of
the world.
The Arctic is a problem now. With less sea ice, we are getting SST data in for regions
for which we have no 1961-90 averages - because it used to sea ice (so had no
measurements).
We are not using any of the SST from the central Arctic in summer.
So we are probably underestimating temperatures in the recent few years. We're working
on what we can do about this. There are also more general SST issues in recent years.
In 1990, for example, almost all SST values came from ships. By 2000 there were about
20% from Buoys and Drifters, but by 2008 this percentage is about 85%. We're also
doing comparisons of the drifters with the ships where both are plentiful, as it is
likely that drifters measure a tenth of one degree C cooler than ships, and the 1961-90
period is ship-based average.
New version of the dataset coming in summer 2009.
All the skeptics look at the land data to explain differences between datasets and
say urbanization is responsible for some or all of the warming. The real problem is
the marine data at the moment.
Attaching a recent paper on urbanization and effects in China.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:08 15/10/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Judith,
Its nice to hear from you, been too long (several years??).  My understanding is that
the differences arise largely from how missing data are dealt with.  For example, in Jim
et al's  record the sparse available arctic data are interpolated over large regions,
whereas Phil an co. either use the available samples or in other versions (e.g. Brohan
et al) use optimal interpolation techniques. The bottom line is that Hansen et al 'j05 I
believe weights the high-latitude warming quite a bit more, which is why he gets a
warmer '05, while Phil and co find '98 to be warmer.
But Phil can certainly provide a more informed and complete answer!
mike
p.s. see you at AGU this year??
On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Judith Lean wrote:
Hi Yousif,
Many apologies for not replying sooner to your email - but I've only just returned from
travel and am still catching up with email.
Unfortunately, I am simply a "user" of the surface temperature data record and not an
expert at all, so cannot help you understand the specific issues of the analysis of the
various stations that produce the differences that you identify. I too would like to
know the reason for the differences.
Fortunately, there are experts who can tell us, and I am copying this email to Mike Mann
and Phil Jones who are such experts.
Mike and Phil (hi! hope you are both well!), can you please, please help us to
understand these differences that Yousif points out in the GISS and Hadley Center
surface temperature records (see two attached articles).
Many thanks, for even a brief answer, or some reference.
Judith
On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Yousif K Kharaka wrote:
Judith:
I hope you are doing well (these days OK would be good!) at work and personally.
Can you help me to understand the huge discrepancy (see below) between the temperature
data from the Hadley Center and GISS? Any simple explanations, or references that I can
read on this topic? I certainly would appreciate your help on this.
Best regards. Yousif Kharaka
Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist      Phone: (650) 329-4535
U. S. Geological Survey, MS 427                   Fax: (650) 329-4538
345, Middlefield Road                                       Mail: [1]ykharaka@usgs.gov
Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
----- Forwarded by Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI on 10/08/2008 10:42 AM -----
Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI
10/06/2008 02:07 PM
To
"Dr David Jenkins"
cc
[3]allyson_anderson@energy.senate.gov, [4]drahovzal@uky.edu, [5]dvance@arcadis-us.com,
[6]ebarron@jsg.utexas.edu, "'Gene Shinn'"
,
[8]jarmenrock@gmail.com, [9]jblank@aapg.org, [10]Jeffrey@LevineOnLine.com,
[11]jjones@vanoperating.com, [12]julie.kupecz@shell.com, [13]pgrew@unlnotes.unl.edu,
[14]rick-bsr@tyler.net, [15]scott.tinker@beg.utexas.edu, [16]tpaexpl@aol.com,
[17]w.a.morgan@conocophillips.com
Subject
Why are the temperature data from Hadley different from NASA? [18]Link
David and all:
One advantage (or great disadvantage if you are very busy!) of membership in GCCC is
that you are forced to investigate topics outside your areas of expertise. For some time
now, I have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British Hadley
Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS, especially in the last 10 years.
GISS reports that 2005 was the warmest year (see first attachment) on record, and that
2007 tied 1998 for the second place. The Hadley group continues reporting 1998 (a strong
El Nino year) as having the highest global temperature, and then showing temperature
decreases thereafter. The two groups report their temperatures relative to different
time intervals (1951-1980 for GISS; 1961-1990 for Hadley), but much more important is
the fact that GISS data include temperatures from the heating Arctic that are excluded
by others (see second attachment).  If you are interested in the topic of sun spots, the
11-year irradiance cycle, and solar forcing versus AGHGs, see the first attachment for
what NASA has to say.
We may need help on this complex topic from a "true climate scientists", such as Judith
Lean!
Cheers. Yousif Kharaka
Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist      Phone: (650) 329-4535
U. S. Geological Survey, MS 427                   Fax: (650) 329-4538
345, Middlefield Road                                       Mail: [19]ykharaka@usgs.gov
Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [20]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [21]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[22]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [23]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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:  [24]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [25]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:ykharaka@usgs.gov
2. mailto:jenkins@chartwood.com
3. mailto:allyson_anderson@energy.senate.gov
4. mailto:drahovzal@uky.edu
5. mailto:dvance@arcadis-us.com
6. mailto:ebarron@jsg.utexas.edu
7. mailto:eshinn@marine.usf.edu
8. mailto:jarmenrock@gmail.com
9. mailto:jblank@aapg.org
10. mailto:Jeffrey@LevineOnLine.com
11. mailto:jjones@vanoperating.com
12. mailto:julie.kupecz@shell.com
13. mailto:pgrew@unlnotes.unl.edu
14. mailto:rick-bsr@tyler.net
15. mailto:scott.tinker@beg.utexas.edu
16. mailto:tpaexpl@aol.com
17. mailto:w.a.morgan@conocophillips.com
18. Notes:///8825668F00670ABE/DABA975B9FB113EB852564B5001283EA/A93F684FF508B452872574D90044850F
19. mailto:ykharaka@usgs.gov
20. mailto:mann@psu.edu
21. ~mann/Mann/index.html
22.
23. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
24. mailto:mann@psu.edu
25. ~mann/Mann/index.html
26.
Hidden links:
27.


Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Mick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
> Sent: 24 October 2008 20:39
> To: Mick Kelly
> Subject: Re: Global temperature
>
>
>  Mick,
>   They have noticed for years - mostly wrt
>  the warm year of 1998. The recent coolish years
>  down to La Nina. When I get this question I
>  have 1991-2000 and 2001-2007/8 averages to hand.
>  Last time I did this they were about 0.2 different,
>  which is what you'd expect.
>    In Iceland at a meeting that Astrid invited me to.
>  Cold with snow on the ground, but things cheap as the
>  currency has gone down 30-40% wrt even the pound.
>
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
> > Hi Phil
> >
> > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a
> public talk and
> > noted
> > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or
> so and 2008
> > doesn't look too hot.
> >
> > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they
> haven't done
> > already, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation
> > anomalies
> > over this period? I haven't noticed anything consistent
> coming up in the
> > annual climate reviews but then I wasn't really looking.
> >
> > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
> >
> > Hope all's well with you
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > Mick Kelly
> > PO Box 4260                 Kamo
> > Whangarei 0141              New Zealand
> > email: mick.tiempo@gmail.com
> > web: www.tiempocyberclimate.org
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>


Ben,
It seems that Climate Audit has been discussing the paper. I ad
a look whilst I was in Iceland as I had nothing better to do a few times.
It was cold and snowy outside, there was internet.....
Seems as though they are making some poor assumptions; someone
is trying to defend us, but gets rounded upon and one of the co-authors
on the paper is in touch with McIntyre.
As it isn't me, and I can rule out a number of the others, my list of who
it might be isn't that long....
Looking forward to next week !!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
I thought you'd be interested in my reply to Gavin (see forwarded email).
Cheers,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path:
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700
Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m9V3Arh7024023;
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5419"; a="30418306"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,519,1220252400";
d="scan'208";a="30418306"
Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700
From: Ben Santer
Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Schmidt
CC: Karl Taylor
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Typo in equation 12 Santer.]
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Gavin,
There is no typo in equation 12. The first term under the square root in
equation 12 is a standard estimate of the variance of a sample mean
(see, e.g., "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research", Zwiers and
Storch, their equation 5.24, page 86). The second term under the square
root sign is a very different beast - an estimate of the variance of the
observed trend. As we point out, our d1* test is very similar to a
standard Student's t-test of differences in means (which involves, in
its denominator, the square root of two pooled sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation 12. It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities (see our comments in our point #3, immediately
before equation 12). The uncertainty in the estimates of both modeled
AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the design of
any statistical test comparing modeled and observed trends. Douglass et
al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed trends.
Our Figure 6A is not a statistical test. It does not show the standard
errors in the observed trends at discrete pressure levels (which would
have made for a very messy Figure, given that we show results from 7
different observational datasets). Had we attempted to show the observed
standard errors in Figure 6A, I suspect that standard errors from the
RICH, IUK, RAOBCORE-v1.3, and RAOBCORE 1.4 datasets would have
overlapped with the multi-model average trend at most pressure levels. I
can easily produce such a Figure if necessary.
With best regards,
Ben
Gavin Schmidt wrote:
> Ben, Just thought I'd check with you first. I don't think there is a
> problem - but I think the question is really alluding to is our comment
> about Douglass et al 'being wrong' in using sigma_SE - since if we use
> it in the denominator in the d1* test, it can't be wrong, see?
>
> My response would be that we are testing a number of different things
> here: d1* tests whether the ensemble mean is consistent with the obs
> (given their uncertainty). Whereas our figure 6 and the error bars shown
> there are testing whether the real world obs are consistent with a
> distribution defined from the model ensemble members.
>
> gavin
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
>
>> From: lucia liljegren
>> To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
>> Subject: Typo in equation 12 Santer.
>> Date: 20 Oct 2008 15:46:51 -0500
>>
>> Hi Gavin,
>>
>> Someone commenting at ClimateAudit is suggesting that equation 12
>> contains a typo. They are under the impression the 1/nm does not
>> belong in the circled term.  Rather than going back and forth with "is
>> not a typo", "is so a typo", I figured I'd just ask you. Is there a
>> typo in equaltion 12 below.
>>
>> ----
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW: I think Santer is pretty good paper.
>>
>> Thanks, Lucia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build
10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Dear Dr Santer,
Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 series)  used for
statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL.  I understand that your
version has been collated from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it
(I presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
Thank you for your attention,
Steve McIntyre


Dear Ben,
many thanks for the full response to my query.  I think my confusion arose from the
discussion on RealClimate (which prompted our earlier communication on this topic), which
clearly suggested that the observed trend should be expected to lie within the spread of
the models, rather than neccessarily being close to the mean as the models are stochastic
simulations (which seemed reasonable).  I've just re-read that post, the key paragraph from
[1] is as
follows:
"The interpretation of this is a little unclear (what exactly does the sigma refer to?),
but the most likely interpretation, and the one borne out by looking at their Table IIa, is
that sigma is calculated as the standard deviation of the model trends. In that case, the
formula given defines the uncertainty on the estimate of the mean - i.e. how well we know
what the average trend really is. But it only takes a moment to realise why that is
irrelevant. Imagine there were 1000's of simulations drawn from the same distribution, then
our estimate of the mean trend would get sharper and sharper as N increased. However, the
chances that any one realisation would be within those error bars, would become smaller and
smaller. Instead, the key standard deviation is simply sigma itself. That defines the
likelihood that one realisation (i.e. the real world) is conceivably drawn from the
distribution defined by the models."
I had therefore expected the test to use the standard deviations of both the models and the
observations (which would give a flat plot in 5B and there would be an obvious overlap of
the uncertainties in 6a at say 500hPa).
best regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer [[2]mailto:santer1@llnl.gov]
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 4:06 AM
To: Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Gavin Schmidt; Thorne, Peter; Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper
Dear Gavin,
Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent
paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no
error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the
questions that you posed.
The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard
estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical
Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch,
Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The
second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an
estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1*
test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in
means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled
sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both
modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the
design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed
trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed
trends.
I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no
inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12)
and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation
(12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure
of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite
sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding
whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend."
We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting
"imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that
the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made
very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2).
To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in
Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation
(12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on
N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20
smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of
the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1*
with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the
square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat.
In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the
components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A
does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete
pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors
at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy
Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational
datasets.
We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure
level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy
paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the
synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven
radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such
tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out,
the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT)
is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed
signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH,
IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the
formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed
in Figure 6.
Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the
delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of
email contact) for the past 10 days.
With best regards,
Ben
Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote:
>
>
> Dear Prof. Santer,
>
>    I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper
> "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models
> 1/n_m s{
}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{
}^2.  Firstly
> the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at
> the start of the first column of page 8.  Secondly, I can't see how the
> modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic
> is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m.  Thirdly,
> the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in
> Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at
> higher levels (400-850 hPa) using the confidence interval based on the
> standard error.  Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid
> treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt.
>
> I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have
> found most instructive!
>
> I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if
> this is the case.
>
> best regards
>
> Gavin
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov


" Subject: RE:
Possible error in recent IJC paper Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:46 -0000 Message-ID:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possible error in recent IJC paper Thread-Index:
Ack7DrU3+LlgMjttS5+lB1r2EiTAkAANYJtF References:
From: "Cawley Gavin Dr \(CMP\)" To: Cc: "Jones Philip Prof
\(ENV\)" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Thorne, Peter" , "Tom Wigley" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
ucar.edu
Dear Ben,
many thanks for the full response to my query.  I think my confusion arose from the
discussion on RealClimate (which prompted our earlier communication on this topic), which
clearly suggested that the observed trend should be expected to lie within the spread of
the models, rather than neccessarily being close to the mean as the models are stochastic
simulations (which seemed reasonable).  I've just re-read that post, the key paragraph from
[1] is as
follows:
"The interpretation of this is a little unclear (what exactly does the sigma refer to?),
but the most likely interpretation, and the one borne out by looking at their Table IIa, is
that sigma is calculated as the standard deviation of the model trends. In that case, the
formula given defines the uncertainty on the estimate of the mean - i.e. how well we know
what the average trend really is. But it only takes a moment to realise why that is
irrelevant. Imagine there were 1000's of simulations drawn from the same distribution, then
our estimate of the mean trend would get sharper and sharper as N increased. However, the
chances that any one realisation would be within those error bars, would become smaller and
smaller. Instead, the key standard deviation is simply sigma itself. That defines the
likelihood that one realisation (i.e. the real world) is conceivably drawn from the
distribution defined by the models."
I had therefore expected the test to use the standard deviations of both the models and the
observations (which would give a flat plot in 5B and there would be an obvious overlap of
the uncertainties in 6a at say 500hPa).
best regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer [[2]mailto:santer1@llnl.gov]
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 4:06 AM
To: Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)
Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Gavin Schmidt; Thorne, Peter; Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper
Dear Gavin,
Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent
paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no
error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the
questions that you posed.
The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard
estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical
Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch,
Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The
second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an
estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1*
test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in
means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled
sample variances).
In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model
average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to
use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their
statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain,
but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is
not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a
demonstrably false assumption.
Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a
sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the
estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT
appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between
two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both
modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the
design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed
trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed
trends.
I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no
inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12)
and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation
(12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure
of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite
sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding
whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend."
We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting
"imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that
the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made
very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2).
To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in
Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation
(12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on
N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20
smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of
the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1*
with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the
square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat.
In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the
components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A
does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete
pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors
at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy
Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational
datasets.
We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure
level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy
paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the
synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven
radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such
tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out,
the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT)
is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed
signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH,
IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the
formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed
in Figure 6.
Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the
delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of
email contact) for the past 10 days.
With best regards,
Ben
Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote:
>
>
> Dear Prof. Santer,
>
>    I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper
> "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models
> 1/n_m s{
}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{
}^2.  Firstly
> the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at
> the start of the first column of page 8.  Secondly, I can't see how the
> modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic
> is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m.  Thirdly,
> the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in
> Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at
> higher levels (400-850 hPa) using the confidence interval based on the
> standard error.  Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid
> treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt.
>
> I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have
> found most instructive!
>
> I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if
> this is the case.
>
> best regards
>
> Gavin
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov


Dear Mr. McIntyre,
I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the gridded
model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are freely
available to researchers. You should have no problem in accessing
exactly the same model and observational datasets that we employed. You
will need to do a little work in order to calculate synthetic Microwave
Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model atmospheric
temperature information. This should not pose any difficulties for you.
Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been
published by ourselves and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You
will also need to calculate spatially-averaged temperature changes from
the gridded model and observational data. Again, that should not be too
taxing.
In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you require
in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our IJoC paper
are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do your work for you,
and provide you with derived quantities (zonal means, synthetic MSU
temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC
paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC.
I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of
the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather
that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your attention to the
2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an
egregious statistical error.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Ben Santer
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Steve McIntyre
> *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM
> *To:* ' (santer1@llnl.gov)'
> *Subject:* Santer et al 2008
>
> Dear Dr Santer,
>
> Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49
> series)  used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to
> a URL.  I understand that your version has been collated from PCMDI ; my
> interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I presume that the
> monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
>
> Thank you for your attention,
>
> Steve McIntyre
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Tom,
Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
"sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
employees between 2006 and October 2008".
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
very purpose of an audit.
I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
identical to our own.
McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
"start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
send to our scientific colleagues.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
charge of our paper at IJoC).
I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
"ClimateAudit" website.
With best personal wishes,
Ben
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
> listed below including Ben.
>
> Thanks
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	FOI Request
> Date: 	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:00 -0500
> From: 	Steve McIntyre
> To: 	FOIA@noaa.gov
> CC: 	Thomas R Karl
>
>
>
> Nov. 10, 2008
>
>
>
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>
> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>
> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>
> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>
> Room 10730
>
> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>
>
>
> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>
>
>
> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>
>
>
> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>
>
> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>
> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
> employees J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs
> of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by
> Benjamin Santer and associates.
>
>
>
> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models
> sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
> October 2008.
>
>
>
> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon, M.
> Free and T. R. Karl.
>
>
>
> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the
> applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed
> publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made
> a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel
> on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the
> Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and
> Commerce Committee.
>
>
>
> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
> Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group
> (DAARWG). http:// www.
> joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf.
>
>
>
>
> I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request
> is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the
> information should be easily located by the primary sources.
>
>
>
> I also include a telephone number (416-469-3034) at which I can be
> contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to
> discuss any aspect of my request.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this request.
>
>
>
> I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send
> me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl
> apologized as follows:
>
>
>
> due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the
> response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this
> oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen in
> the future.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen McIntyre
>
> 25 Playter Blvd
>
> Toronto, Ont M4K 2W1
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmmm. I note the following ,,,
"at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time"
Is this a 22 hour, or, for people with time machine, a negative 2 hour
window?
Joking aside, it seems as a matter of principle (albeit a principle yet
to be set by the courts) that provision of primary data sources that are
sufficient to reproduce the results of a scientific analysis is all that
is necessary under FOI.
It also seems that judgment of what correspondence is central to the
analysis can only be made by the persons involved. As a participant in
many of these inter-author communications, I do not recall any that
would give information not already contained in the published paper.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
> the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
> no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
> "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008".
>
> As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
> yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
> the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
> are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
> us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
> sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
> Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
> model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
> synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
> very purpose of an audit.
>
> I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
> calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
> Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
> temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
> identical to our own.
>
> McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
> monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
> al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
> how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
> co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
> probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
> our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
> 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
> have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
> "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
>
> My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
> and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
> justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
> is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
> from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
> have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
> by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
> explanations, etc., etc.
>
> Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
> the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
> unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
> frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
> McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
> Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
> al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
> conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
>
> I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
> Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
> scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
> has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
> currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
> scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
> McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
> send to our scientific colleagues.
>
> In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
> climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
> investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
> send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
> primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
> available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
> future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
> correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
> not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
>
> I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
> how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
> from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
>
> I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
> immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
> headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
> charge of our paper at IJoC).
>
> I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
> that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
> today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
> subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
> "ClimateAudit" website.
>
> With best personal wishes,
>
> Ben
>
> Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
>> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
>> listed below including Ben.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     FOI Request
>> Date:     Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:00 -0500
>> From:     Steve McIntyre
>> To:     FOIA@noaa.gov
>> CC:     Thomas R Karl
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov. 10, 2008
>>
>>
>>
>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>
>> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>>
>> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>>
>> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>>
>> Room 10730
>>
>> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>>
>>
>>
>> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>
>>
>> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>>
>> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
>> employees J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
>> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47
>> runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series
>> by Benjamin Santer and associates.
>>
>>
>>
>> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
>> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate
>> models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to
>> NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
>> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
>> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
>> October 2008.
>>
>>
>>
>> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante,  S. Solomon,
>> M. Free and T. R. Karl.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining
>> the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5
>> peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for
>> WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National
>> Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two
>> presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the
>> House Energy and Commerce Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
>> Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group
>> (DAARWG). http:// www.
>> joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request
>> is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the
>> information should be easily located by the primary sources.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also include a telephone number (416-469-3034) at which I can be
>> contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to
>> discuss any aspect of my request.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration of this request.
>>
>>
>>
>> I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to
>> send me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr
>> Karl apologized as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the
>> response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this
>> oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen
>> in the future.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen McIntyre
>>
>> 25 Playter Blvd
>>
>> Toronto, Ont M4K 2W1
>>
>>
>>
>
>