Tom,
Agreed that NCDC must have some data gaps - but this isn't very clear from the web
site.
GISS is inferior - not just because it doesn't use back data. They also impose some
urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don't think is
very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land
only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year
variability - when I last looked.
I assume NCDC should add the back data in - although there isn't the need if infilling
is going on OK.
I've never looked to see if NCDC changes from year to year.
I think you can say that GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3.  In Ch 3 of AR4 I put the station
number counts in.
GISS and NCDC have more, but almost all of this is more data in the US. Their non-use of a
base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use
very short series that we can't (as they don't have base periods) but with short series it
is impossible to assess for homogeneity. So some of their extra series may be very short
ones as well. As you know the more important thing is where the stations are (and in time).
The paper I sent you by Adrian Simmons shows great agreement with CRUTEM3 when
subsampled according to CRU grid boxes. Also shows that ERA-INTERIM is very good.
ERA-INTERIM's absolute is also within 0.2 deg C of the CRU 14 deg C value. It would give
about 13.8 for 1961-90. Sometime I should write this up as more and more people seem to be
using 15 deg C.
Away from tomorrow till next Tuesday.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:23 05/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks again.
Re ENSO/volcs, it was me who did this first ...
Wigley, T.M.L., 2000:  ENSO, volcanoes and record breaking temperatures.
Geophysical Research Letters 27, 41014104.
Then in a paper with Ben (with you as a co-author) ...
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E.,
Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001:
Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled
and observed temperature trends.  Journal of Geophysical Research 106,
2803328059.
I think my iterative method is better than Thompson's method. He has some weird volcano
results. Removing the dynamic bit is not much use
in my view.
So I have all these series with volc and ENSO removed (or just ENSO
removed, but accounting for volcano obfuscation). I also use running approx. 20-year
regressions usually -- as you know, the ENSO-globalT link breaks down in the 1930s, so
using a relationship that comes from
a (e.g.) 100-year regression would impose a spurious anti-ENSO signal
on the data in the 1930s. I think this is important -- ignored by
Thompson. The reason for this breakdown is obscure, but I think it is because, for some
reason, the N34/SOI link (i.e., really the SST/Walker circulation link) weakens in the
1930s. We need to look at this more fully in models.
I also have these series for different regions of the globe. I need
to revise and update these. It is tricky to get the regional volc
signal because of SNR problems at the smaller spatial scale.
I wrote all this up more than 10 years ago, but have not got around to finalizing it to
submit for publication. (I have a number of other papers like this. Once I get done with
an issue to a certain level I
get sidetracked on other issues.)
The amplification *does* work for warming and cooling. Theory says about
+30% for TLT/surface. This works for overall variability, and for RSS
trend. But oddly the ENSO and volc amplification seems to be greater than this. I've
asked Ben for his thoughts on why.
Re NCDC, it seems that there *must* be data gaps. This is the only
way that global can differ from (N+S)/2.
It also seems that the NCDC data must be ERSST3b. But their web site
is not clear on this. perhaps Ben knows.
Thanks for the GISS info. So this means that their series does not change from year to
year, whereas HadCRU does (albiet by only small
amounts). Does NCDC change each year? The GISS thing means that it
must be inferior to HadCRU and NCDC. Should I say this in my report
to EPRI?
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++
Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
I don't think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get
the pdf of the chapter from here [1] . This
amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers - mainly Ben's.
The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo
that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the
amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino?
Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out
ENSO and volcanoes might help in isolating this.
[2]
where there is a link to the paper and also the data
[3]~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/
It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit.
Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well.
A thought might be to take Dave Thompson's ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then
scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small
issue of base periods to sort out
and assume there is no lag.
Need to do this with NCDC surface as well - have to use Dave T's numbers here. This
can't do the 20N-20S - just the globe.
It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong.
A couple of minor things in the paper
- the amplification should work for a cooling as well - not just warming trends?
In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO.  This is in Fig 4 as well.
By the way - meant to add this to the earlier email.
NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2
won't equal the global average that NCDC calculate.
I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a
cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the
previous month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back
data and they don't get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of
the following month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus
some in Africa.
I'll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I'll ask him about their cut offs. I think
they don't change a month later. This won't lose you much data though.  It was Tom who
told me about the data they can't use.
Cheers
Phil
At 05:25 04/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Hi Phil,
I'm writing a report for EPRI where I have to discuss the
instrumental temperature record. What they are particularly
concerned with is/are the criticisms that have been leveled
at the surface record, especially differences from MSU data.
I think CCSP 1.1 does a good job on this -- not sure about
AR4 (which I need to re-check). But things have changed since
CCSP 1.1 and AR4, and I think I can make a better case against
UAH than either of these reports.
Could you please look at the attached and give me your opinion
and comments (tracked if that makes it easier)? In my view, the
evidence that the UAH data are flawed is overwhelming -- but I
want to make the case in a logical and balanced way. Have I
succeeded? The audience level for this is IPCC report level,
perhaps a bit lower. So I need to be relatively simple, but authoritative.
The MSU issue also comes up later in my report where I discuss
the IJOC Santer et al. paper -- which is only mentioned briefly
in the attached extract.
One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two
surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the
warmest year in the GISS record -- do you trust GISS? I've
not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest?
Thanks for your help.
By the way, this report was due to EPRI last week. I'm hoping
to get it to them by Friday (9 Oct.)
Best wishes,
Tom
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3. ~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/


Hello, everyone,
Additional info provided below.-Viva
------------------------------------------------------------
ERSST refers only to the ocean temperature fields. Smith et al. (2008) described the
updates to create ERSST version 3.  This included the use of in situ and satellite data.
The paper also presented updates to the Land Surface Temperature (LST) product and
culminated in the computation of  the Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature product.
However, since ca. Nov 2008, satellite data was removed from the analysis, and was called
v3b, but the methodology is essentially the same as in the paper.  The reason was that
there was a residual cold bias in the satellite data. This caused problems for users
concerned with rankings.  We do not handle the page for the LST and Merged ST product, and
perhaps there should be more coordination among these webpages.  We have noticed the
confusion about the ERSST v3 and v3b in several articles, are in the process of updating
the webpage.
The in situ data used for the ERSSTv3b is ICOADS.  The current v3b was computed using
ICOADS release 2.4 (1784-2007).  In July 2009, a new release was made with additional data
pre-1900's and during the war years, but we have no plans yet to reprocess.  It is during
such a reprocessing that we will include any missed data.  Operationally, we run the code
on the 3rd of each month using the available GTS data.
The baseline for the ERSST anomalies is 1971-2000.  For the LST, the GHCN box averages are
provided to us as anomalies already, so I am not sure what the baseline is (I just started
3 months ago so I have not worked a lot on the Merged product codes yet). In the programs,
there is an adjustment of the LST anomaly to a 1971-2000 base.  So the final merged ST
anomaly has a 1971-2000 base period.  The best practice would be to reconstruct the
original ST by adding the 1971-2000 base.  Then compare or adjust or change baselines as
you please.
BTW, my last name is BANZON, no R.  Alas I am not related to the 261st richest person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--
[NOTE: The opinions expressed in this email are those of the author alone, and do not
necessarily reflect official NOAA, Department of Commerce, or US government policy.]
Patria Viva F. Banzon
Physical Scientist, Remote Sensing & Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NESDIS)
151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC  28801-5001
(828) 271 4453 (Tel.)  828-271-4328 (FAX)
[1]Viva.Banzon@noaa.gov
[2]Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov wrote:
Dear Tom,
Phil Jones, who is sitting next to me here in southern Spain and
also checking email, explained what you are working on and it sounds
like a potentially very insightful analysis.  I wish you luck.
Viva Branson (cc'd) is our new/improved keeper of ERSST.  We
sometimes refer to her as Dick Reynolds version b (Dick is cc'd as
well).  She will be able to answer your questions more accurately than
I.  But if I recall correctly from talking to them Monday, to avoid
confusion they are trying to only make the latest (and therefore best)
version of ERSST available.  So the version you downloaded should be 3b.
But Viva can verify this for you. I don't know which reference is
currently the recommended one to use.
A decade ago, NCDC did a global land analysis and a global ocean
analysis and then combined them with a weighting of 30/70.  This could
also arguably be the most accurate way to combine spatially incomplete
data so that the world is not inappropriately weighted more towards the
ocean than land (which tends to have larger gaps).  Once we used Tom
Smith's more spatially complete analysis, we went with a simple global
average.  While the data are more spatially complete, they are not
complete.  Data are set to missing over sea ice, much of the world north
of 75N and Antarctica (Viva and I are currently reevaluating options for
those last two).
ERSST is updated monthly.  The SST portion is already updated for
September and the land portion will wait another week or so for more
data to come in.    (I realize I've been assuming you are using ERSST as
shorthand for NCDC's merged land/ocean data set, equivalent to HadCRU -
if you're only asking about SSTs, Viva and Dick are the people to ask).)
The base period used for calculation of anomalies from the grid box
mean of ERSST is, I believe, the 30 years 1961-90 (as that had the most
data). So if you are using a gridded field, that is the relevant number
- though Viva can verify my memory on the dates). But when we make
global averaged temperature time series, we adjust the time series up or
down so that the zero line is the mean of 1900-1999.
Viva, Dick, do you have anything to add (or correct)?
Tom, I've also cc'd Deke Arndt, the head of our Climate Monitoring
Branch because if you find this confusing, he will probably want to make
sure the web pages you read are made clearer.
Regards,
Tom P.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Wigley [3]
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009 2:16 am
Subject: ERSST
Dear Toms,
Could you please clarify a few things for me ...
(1) Is the currently downloadable ERSST data version 3, or 3b?
It seems to be 3b -- but the web page is not entirely clear.
In one place it says that v.3 will be used from July, but
elsewhere it says 3b will be used from July.
If it is v.3b, then does this mean that the Smith et al.
reference is not (quite) appropriate?
(2) Is ERSST spatially complete? I think not. If it were, then
(NH+SH)/2 should equal GL, but this is not the case. I'm
sure you know that HadCRU uses (NH+SH)/2 for the global mean
(arguably superior to a straight global area average). It
seems odd that this issue has been glossed over.
(3) How often will ERSST be updated? I presume you are aware
that HadCRU updates annually to get the late data in. It seems
that ERSST only updates with new numbered versions -- so it
misses late data. (GISS is worse.)
(4) What is the reference period? I think I saw somewhere on
the web page that it is 1900-99? But methodologically perhaps
it is difficult to define a reference period?
Thanks,
Tom
References
1. mailto:Viva.Banzon@noaa.gov
2. mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov
3. mailto:wigley@ucar.edu


Dear Steve,
I was made aware of this yesterday (see forwarded email).
Best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Account-Key: account1
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path:
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:44 -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 n991Sh62016185;
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:28:43 -0700
X-Attachments: None
Received: from dione.llnl.gov ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2009 18:28:44 -0700
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:42 -0700
From: Ben Santer
Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Piltz
CC: Tom Wigley
, Tom Karl
,
Jim Hansen
,
Bob Watson
,
Mike MacCracken
,
"'John F. B. Mitchell'"
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding  with
charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of  global temperature
record
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Rick,
I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
influence" conclusions.
Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
[One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
test of time.]
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
global-mean temperature changes.
As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
of our professional societies.
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you've got it.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
issues.
With best regards,
Ben
Rick Piltz wrote:
> Gentlemen--
>
> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
> record as scientifically legitimate.  I have attached the petition in
> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>
> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
> response to their allegations.
>
> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
> some collective coherence.
>
> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately.  I am most interested in
> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish.  Will
> someone please explain this to me?
>
> Best regrads,
> Rick
>
>
>     *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
>     'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>
>     *
>
>
>           *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>
> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
> health and welfare.
>
> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
>
> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>
> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>
> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
> homogenized) data."
>
> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>
> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>
> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
>
, Sept. 27, 2007).
>
> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>
> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>
> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
> endangerment proposal.
>
> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
> underlying the finding.
>
> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
> technical support document.
>
> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
> vets its data.
>
> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
> challenging the IPCC data.
>
> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
> the mainstream science community."
>
> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
> scientific merit of the research data.
>
> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
> of relying upon flawed data.
>
> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
> scientific information."
>
> Rick Piltz
> Director, Climate Science Watch
> 301-807-2472
> www.*climatesciencewatch.org
>
>
Climate Science Watch is a
> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>
> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
> --Albert Einstein
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Phil,
I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>    Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is. I forwarded the message
> to Rick. So if you want to add anything else feel free to do so.
>    We have more stations going into the latest CRU data than we did in the
> 1980s.
>
>   In Lecce next week for 2 days at a GKSS summer school led by Hans VS!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>> Dear Rick,
>>
>> I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
>>
>> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>>
>> First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
>> colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
>> intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
>> in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
>>
>> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
>> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
>> influence" conclusions.
>>
>> Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
>> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
>> 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
>> might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
>> Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
>> scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
>> global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
>> here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
>> Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
>> Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
>> completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
>> process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
>> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
>> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
>> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
>> changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
>>
>> I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
>> his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
>> Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
>> withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
>> computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
>>
>> I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
>> every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
>> temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
>> preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
>> generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
>>
>> [One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
>> had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
>> scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
>> out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
>> global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
>> test of time.]
>>
>> The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
>> They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
>> available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
>> every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
>> vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
>> understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
>> every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
>>
>> The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
>> like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
>> also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
>> observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
>> changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
>> obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
>> global-mean temperature changes.
>>
>> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
>> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>> Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
>> Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
>> performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
>> temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
>> atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
>> runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
>> temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
>> Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
>> that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
>> we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
>> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
>> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
>> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>>
>> Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
>> behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
>> being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
>> influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
>> publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
>> out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
>> as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
>> on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
>> Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
>> others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
>> of our professional societies.
>>
>> The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
>> our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
>> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
>> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
>> have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
>> construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
>> dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
>> transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
>> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
>> various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
>> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
>> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
>> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
>> the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
>> for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
>> the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
>>
>> The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
>> allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
>> and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
>> can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
>> from me - you've got it.
>>
>> I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
>> the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
>> issues.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Rick Piltz wrote:
>>> Gentlemen--
>>>
>>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
>>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
>>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
>>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
>>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
>>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
>>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
>>> record as scientifically legitimate.  I have attached the petition in
>>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>>>
>>> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
>>> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
>>> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
>>> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
>>> response to their allegations.
>>>
>>> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
>>> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
>>> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
>>> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
>>> some collective coherence.
>>>
>>> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
>>> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately.  I am most interested in
>>> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
>>> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish.  Will
>>> someone please explain this to me?
>>>
>>> Best regrads,
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>     *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
>>>     'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>>>
>>>     *
>>>
>>>
>>>           *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>>>
>>> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
>>> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
>>> health and welfare.
>>>
>>> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
>>> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
>>>
>>> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
>>> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
>>> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>>>
>>> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
>>> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
>>> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
>>> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
>>> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
>>> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
>>> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
>>> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
>>> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
>>> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
>>> homogenized) data."
>>>
>>> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
>>> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
>>> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
>>> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
>>> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
>>> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
>>> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>>>
>>> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
>>> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
>>> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
>>> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>>> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>>>
>>> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
>>> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
>>> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
>>> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
>>> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
>>>
, Sept. 27, 2007).
>>>
>>> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
>>> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>>>
>>> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
>>> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
>>> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>>>
>>> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
>>> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
>>> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
>>> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
>>> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
>>> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
>>> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
>>> endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
>>> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
>>> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
>>> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
>>> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
>>> underlying the finding.
>>>
>>> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
>>> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
>>> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
>>> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
>>> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
>>> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
>>> technical support document.
>>>
>>> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
>>> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
>>> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
>>> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
>>> vets its data.
>>>
>>> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
>>> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
>>> challenging the IPCC data.
>>>
>>> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
>>> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
>>> the mainstream science community."
>>>
>>> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
>>> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
>>> scientific merit of the research data.
>>>
>>> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
>>> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
>>> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
>>> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
>>> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
>>> of relying upon flawed data.
>>>
>>> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
>>> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
>>> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
>>> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
>>> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
>>> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
>>> scientific information."
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz
>>> Director, Climate Science Watch
>>> 301-807-2472
>>> www.**climatesciencewatch.org
>>>
>>>
Climate Science Watch is a
>>> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
>>> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
>>> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
>>> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>>>
>>> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
>>> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
>>> --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel:   (925) 422-3840
>> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
>> email: santer1@llnl.gov
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rick,
What you've  put together seems fine from a quick read. I'm in Lecce in
the heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK by
Wednesday.
The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we
had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start
with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of
time though. I may get around to it some time. As you've said, the
documentation of what we've done is all in the literature.
I think if it hadn't been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up
something else!
Cheers
Phil
> Phil and Ben--
>
> Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you're saying.
>
> I'm going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate
> Science Watch Web site. I'm sure others will weigh in on it in
> various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record
> quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant
> scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as
> part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on,
> and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as
> they do with everything.  No way to prevent that. But I would like to
> expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the
> record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective.
>
> I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and
> adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the
> hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions
> you might care to make, we could post your comments.  This requires
> no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to
> provide context.  Please take a look at this and RSVP:
>
> Ben's comment:
>
> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>
> First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
> are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
> intentionally, and suspiciously "destroyed" some of the raw surface
> temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
> temperature datasets.
>
> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible
> human influence" conclusions.
>
> Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
> over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
> station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
> Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
> by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
> estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In
> fact, a key point here is that other groups -- primarily at the NCDC
> [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] and at GISS [NASA Goddard
> Institute for Space Studies], but also in Russia -- WERE able to
> replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups.
> The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely
> independently. They made different choices in the complex process of
> choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface
> temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results.
>
> The second argument -- that "discernible human influence" findings
> are like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational
> dataset -- is also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
> considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale
> near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data
> alone - as is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which
> shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes.
>
> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science
> Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in
> the lower atmosphere: steps for understanding and reconciling
> differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate
> Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical fingerprint
> studies have now been performed with a whole range of climate
> variables -- and not with surface temperature only. Examples include
> variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor, surface
> specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level pressure
> patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature, tropopause
> height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic sea-ice
> extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is that
> natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes we
> have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>
> I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom
> Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers
> to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the
> HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
> transparent manner -- examining sensitivities to different gridding
> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use
> of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community --
> and to the planet -- by making gridded surface temperature datasets
> available for scientific research. They deserve medals -- not the
> kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving from Pat
> Michaels and the CEI.
>
>
> Phil's comment:
>
> No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up on the CRU web page.
> These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have
> done.
>

>
> Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as
> in the GHCN archive [Global Historical Climatology Network, used by
> the NOAA National Climate Data Center].
>
>
>
> If we have lost any data it is the following:
>
> 1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be
> affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were
> either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series
> in the region.
>
> 2. The original data for sites that we adjusted the temperature data
> [Phil: for known inhomogeneities, or what?] in the 1980s. We still
> have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other
> sites that didn't need adjusting.
>
> 3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and NMSs [National Meteorological
> Services] have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries,
> then we replaced the data we had with the better series.
>
>
> In the papers, I've always said that homogeneity adjustments are best
> produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie Vincent
> in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the 200+ sites
> she sorted out.
>
> The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and GISS [NASA
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies] data for the same domains.
>
>
> Apart from a figure in the IPCC AR4 [Fourth Assessment Report, 2007]
> showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research
> Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.
> [Vose et al paper]
>
> All best,
> Rick
>
>
> Rick Piltz
> Director, Climate Science Watch
> 301-807-2472
> www.climatesciencewatch.org
>
> Climate Science Watch is a sponsored project of the Government
> Accountability Project, Washington, DC, dedicated to holding public
> officials accountable for using climate science and related research
> effectively and with integrity in responding to the challenges posed
> by global climate disruption.
>
> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not
> conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.
> --Albert Einstein
>


Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?  As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F:  650 725 4387
Websites:  climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
To: "Stephen H Schneider"
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCâs reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that thereâs been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skepticsâ views.

te-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560


Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?  We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.  We
had 4 inches of snow.  The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low.  This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.  People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.  Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO.  It surely isn't decadal.  The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino.  The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007.   see
[2]
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.  its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?  As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F:  650 725 4387
Websites:  climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
To: "Stephen H Schneider"
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.
[5]
[6]
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [7]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [8]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9]
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [10]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
1.
2.
3. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
4. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
5.
6.
7. mailto:mann@psu.edu
8.
9.
10. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
11.


extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.  its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?  As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F:  650 725 4387
Websites:  climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
To: "Stephen H Schneider"
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics views.
[3]
[4]
imate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [5]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [6]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
2. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
3.
4.
5. mailto:mann@psu.edu
6. ~mann/Mann/index.html
7.
Hidden links:
8.


Dear folks,
You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?
Michaels' PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt
with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate
relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical
model showed that weather/climate  variations could explain 95%
of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been
correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it
was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships,
which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about
50% of inter-annual yield variability.
How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels'
regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common
way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It
turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability,
so that, in Michaels' regressions, weather/climate explains just 5
of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels' claim that
weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely
bogus.
Apparently, none of Michaels' thesis examiners noticed this. We
are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation
by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance.
As an historical note, I discovered this many years ago when working
with Dick Warrick and Tu Qipu on crop-climate modeling. We used a
spatial regression method, which we developed for the wheat belt of
southwestern Western Australia. We carried out similar analyses for
winter wheat in the USA, but never published the results.
Wigley, T.M.L. and Tu Qipu, 1983:  Crop-climate modelling using spatial
patterns of yield and climate:  Part 1, Background and an example from
Australia. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22, 1831–1841.
There never was a "Part 2".
Tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rick Piltz wrote:
> Just posted on Climate Science Watch Website.
> --RP
>
>
>
>
>     *Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on
>     temperature data record*
>
> /Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009
>
> /Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of East Anglia in the UK and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore
> National Laboratory comment in response to a petition to EPA by the
> Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels, which misleadingly
> seeks to obstruct EPA’s process in making an “endangerment” finding on
> greenhouse gases.  This new CEI tactic is to call into question the
> integrity of the global temperature data record and, by implication, the
> integrity of leading climate scientists.
>
> /E&E News PM/ reported on October 7 (“CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks
> data behind EPA ‘endangerment’ proposal”):
>
>     The Competitive Enterprise Institutea vocal foe of EPA’s efforts to
>     finalize its “endangerment finding”petitioned the agency this week
>     to reopen the public comment period on the proposal, arguing that
>     critical data used to formulate the plan have been destroyed and
>     that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>     At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
>     University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
>     temperature averages from weather stations around the world….
>     Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen
>     the public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate
>     the scientific merit of the research data….
>
> We talked with E&E News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at CEI
> and contrarian scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8
>
:
> “CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail EPA
> ‘endangerment’ finding”
>
> The process initiated by the CEI petition will, we suppose, produce an
> appropriate response for the record from EPA and relevant members of the
> science community. And while that process drags on, CEI and Michaels no
> doubt will use their petition as a basis for attempting to muddy the
> waters of scientific discourse, while sliming leaders of the
> international climate science community and questioning their motives.
>
> A few of those leaders have begun to comment on this attempt. We post
> below comments Climate Science Watch has received from Ben Santer at
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Prof. Phil Jones, Director of
> the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK:
>
> Comment by Benjamin D. Santer
>
, Program for
> Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National
> Laboratory:
>
>     As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>     First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
>     are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research
>     Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully,
>     intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface
>     temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
>     temperature datasets.
>     Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
>     temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible
>     human influence” conclusions.
>     Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
>     intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
>     over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
>     station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI
>     and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid
>     efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley
>     Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface
>     temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other
>     groupsprimarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
>     and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also
>     in RussiaWERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and
>     UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this
>     replication completely independently. They made different choices in
>     the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station
>     data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects,
>     changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time),
>     and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global
>     surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data
>     results.
>
>     The second argumentthat “discernible human influence” findings are
>     like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational
>     datasetis also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
>     considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale
>     near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data
>     aloneas is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which
>     shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes.
>     As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC
>     TAR and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science
>     Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1 (Temperature trends in
>     the lower atmosphere: Steps for understanding and reconciling
>     differences), and the state of knowledge report, Global Climate
>     Change Impacts on the United States, rigorous statistical
>     fingerprint studies have now been performed with a whole range of
>     climate variablesand not with surface temperature only. Examples
>     include variables like ocean heat content, atmospheric water vapor,
>     surface specific humidity, continental river runoff, sea-level
>     pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric temperature,
>     tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and Arctic
>     sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
>     that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate
>     changes we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us
>     an internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
>     reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
>     dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>     I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
>     antithesis of the secretive, “data destroying” character the CEI and
>     Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom
>     Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers
>     to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the
>     HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open
>     and transparent mannerexamining sensitivities to different gridding
>     algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects,
>     use of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with
>     changes in spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
>     comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction
>     choices. They have done a tremendous service to the scientific
>     communityand to the planetby making gridded surface temperature
>     datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medalsnot
>     the kind of deliberately misleading treatment they are receiving
>     from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
>
> (Santer has received several honors, awards and fellowships including
> the Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist Fellowship
>
,
> the E.O. Lawrence Award, and the “Genius Award” by the MacArthur
> Foundation.)
>
> Comment by Prof. Phil Jones
>
, Director, Climatic
> Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
> University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
>
>     No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up
>
on the CRU web
>     page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might
>     not have done.
>     Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
>     as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
>     by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here
>
and
>     here
].
>     The original raw data are not “lost.”  I could reconstruct what we
>     had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the
>     mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort
>     would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it
>     some time. The documentation of what we’ve done is all in the
>     literature.
>     If we have “lost” any data it is the following:
>     1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be
>     affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were
>     either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series
>     in the region.
>     2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate
>     adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our
>     adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that
>     didn’t need adjusting.
>     3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological
>     Services
(NMSs)
>     have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we
>     replaced the data we had with the better series.
>     In the papers, I’ve always said that homogeneity adjustments are
>     best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie
>     Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the
>     200+ sites she sorted out.
>     The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and NASA Goddard
>     Institute for Space Studies data
>
for the same domains.
>     Apart from a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
>     showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research
>     Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al.
>
>     Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.
>
>     I think if it hadn’t been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise
>     Institute would have dreamt up something else!
>


X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n9E71pl4015864
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?  We are
> asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
> days for the coldest days on record.  We had 4 inches of snow.  The high
> the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about 18F and also
> a record low, well below the previous record low.  This is January
> weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
> and then played last night in below freezing weather).
>
> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
> tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>
> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>
> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing system is inadequate.
>
> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.  People like CPC are
> tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.
> Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO.  It
> surely isn't decadal.  The PDO is already reversing with the switch to
> El Nino.  The PDO index became positive in September for first time
> since Sept 2007.   see
>
>
> Kevin
>
> Michael Mann wrote:
>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.  its
>> particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC
>> (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly
>> a weather person at the Met Office.
>>
>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
>> be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
>> ask Richard Black what's up here?
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and
>>> signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author"
>>> from the BBC?  As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the
>>> sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
>>> tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely
>>> be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money
>>> on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of
>>> global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest
>>> in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of
>>> the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably
>>> do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such
>>> "fun", Cheers, Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen H. Schneider
>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental
>>> Studies,
>>> Professor, Department of Biology and
>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
>>> Mailing address:
>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
>>> 473 Via Ortega
>>> Ph: 650 725 9978
>>> F:  650 725 4387
>>> Websites:  climatechange.net
>>>            patientfromhell.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
>
>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider"
>
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on
>>> climate change, on Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since
>>> 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next
>>> 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
>>> other skeptics’ views.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Narasimha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> PhD Candidate,
>>> Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
>>> Stanford University
>>> Tel: 415-812-7560
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
>>
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html
>>
>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ****************
> Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
> Climate Analysis Section,           www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
> NCAR
> P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
> Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>
> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wigley-RecentTemps.doc"


Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation.  What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go?  We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it?  Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)?  At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud.  But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data.  The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data.  The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up.  If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the  natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?
m
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.  We are not
close to balancing the energy budget.  The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!  It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?  We are asking that here
in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record.  We had 4 inches of snow.  The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.  This is January weather
(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our
observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.  People like CPC are tracking PDO on
a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.  Most of what they are seeing is
the change in ENSO not real PDO.  It surely isn't decadal.  The PDO is already reversing
with the switch to El Nino.  The PDO index became positive in September for first time
since Sept 2007.   see
[2]
g_current.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.  its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?  As we enter an El Nino
year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a
few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was
willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10
years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in
reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big
retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my
student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F:  650 725 4387
Websites:  climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"
>
To: "Stephen H Schneider"
>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics' views.
[7]
[8]
-climate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [9]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [14]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [15]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [16]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [17]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [21]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [22]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
1.
2.
3. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
4. mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu
5. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
6. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
7.
8.
9. mailto:mann@psu.edu
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12.
13.
14. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
15.
16. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
17.
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19.
20.
21. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
22.