Great. I'll play with both the composite series and the three
individuals. I was hoping to get some spatially distributed
information, so might include all three. I will also subdivide by
proxy time and use PCA to examine spatial patterns.  I'll take a stab
at revising the text to include a few sentences about how we chose
the tree-ring series.  Then maybe you can take a look on Monday.
Have a good weekend. Darrell
On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:54 AM, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> Darell
> the short answer is yes - you need to give the appropriate weight
> to the
> Eurasian aggregate series though ie this one series should count as
> 3 in
> an average of all high -latitude (e.g. compared to Rosanne D'Arrigo
> west
> N. American series) unless you use the 3 separate
> series(Fennoscania,Yamal, Taimyr) individually. I would use my single
> average series as is though. While you are doing this work , I
> suggest you
> also produce separate proxy type series (ice, lakes, trees) - for
> explicit
> comparison and perhaps separate half-hemisphere (US side and Eurasian
> side) though not sure if Greenland ice should go in either. Cheers
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>  directlty> Keith:
>> Thanks for the update. I'd like to revise the composite proxy record
>> over the weekend (my only spare time). Can I assume that I need to
>> omit the three tree-ring series that I took from  Mann et al. (2008)
>> because they were not processed to retain the low frequency signal,
>> and that I should replace the Euraisan series with the three from
>> your recent Phil Trans paper (using the data on your website)?
>>
>> If you agree, I can work on revising all of the calculations and
>> figures and we can modify the text early next week.
>>
>> Would that work?
>> Darrell
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Darrell
>>> REALLY sorry - have not done this yet - had back
>>> to back meetings for 2 days and am due to leave
>>> now for the weekend - couple of days away from
>>> computer - my comments are nothing earth
>>> shattering or voluminous but I would still like
>>> to make them for your consideration. I will  try
>>> to do this on Monday now - if too late - just ignore me . Sorry
>>> again
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> thanks for your consideration
>>> cheers
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> At 15:01 03/03/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Keith:
>>>> I appreciate your willingness to squeeze this in on such short
>>>> notice. If you could get your comments to me by the end of the
>>>> week,
>>>> that would be more than I had hoped for. Thank you.  Darrell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Darrell
>>>>> I would like to make some comments but the
>>>>> earliest I can get to this is Thursday (we have
>>>>> visitors here all day tomorrow. In short I would
>>>>> like to be involved - but I would rather wait and
>>>>> see the basis of your reaction to my initial
>>>>> thoughts when I get a Tracked changes version
>>>>> back to you. You are correct that  there are
>>>>> clear limitations in the preservation of trend
>>>>> over two millennia in SOME of the data Mann et al
>>>>> used  - and in the current series you cite for
>>>>> Yamal (Hantemirov et al) . I do believe that the
>>>>> composite series in our Phil Trans paper is a
>>>>> convenient representation of the circum-western
>>>>> Eurasian Arctic tree-line data - though the Grudd
>>>>> and Nauzbaev papers are virtually similar to our
>>>>> data for their areas. However I have a few
>>>>> reservations/comments on other aspects of the
>>>>> manuscript that I believe any likely referee
>>>>> might pick up on . Is it ok to wait til Thursday
>>>>> or will this not be acceptable for getting
>>>>> comments back? I know how these time lines are crucial. Best
>>>>> wishes
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>> At 14:15 02/03/2009, you wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Keith:
>>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and Phil (via Ray), it's
>>>>>> clear that I should have come to you sooner. I am now well along
>>>>>> on a
>>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy temperature
>>>>>> records
>>>>>> from the Arctic (attached). The impetus for the paper is the new
>>>>>> compilation of high-resolution lake records that my group
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>> published in J Paleolimnology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that I should not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> used the series from the Mann et al. compilation, and I hadn't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> your 2008 Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as I can
>>>>>> tell, the only records that meet the criteria for this study are
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> three new RCS series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of Alaska
>>>>>> record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's series in Mann et al.
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> processed in a way that would preserve the millennial trend, and
>>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the manuscript. Before I do, I
>>>>>> want to be sure that I get it right this time and hope that you
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help guide the tree-ring
>>>>>> component of the synthesis. I see that you have posted the Phil
>>>>>> Trans
>>>>>> data on your website, but would much prefer to have your
>>>>>> involvement
>>>>>> before using the data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an issue. I am
>>>>>> leading a
>>>>>> 12-PI proposal that is currently pending and would benefit
>>>>>> greatly if
>>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I realize needs
>>>>>> substantial revisions, and let me know if you have time and
>>>>>> interest
>>>>>> in getting involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>> ï¿¼
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman
>>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
>>>>>> Northern Arizona University
>>>>>> 928-523-7192
>>>>>> ~dsk5/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Keith:
>>>>>> Following the recommendations of Malcolm and
>>>>>> Phil (via Ray), it's clear that I should have
>>>>>> come to you sooner. I am now well along on a
>>>>>> manuscript that summarizes 2000-year-long proxy
>>>>>> temperature records from the Arctic (attached).
>>>>>> The impetus for the paper is the new compilation
>>>>>> of high-resolution lake records that my group
>>>>>> recently published in J Paleolimnology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the tree-ring side, it's clear to me now that
>>>>>> I should not have used the series from the Mann
>>>>>> et al. compilation, and I hadn't see your 2008
>>>>>> Phil Trans paper until just last week. As far as
>>>>>> I can tell, the only records that meet the
>>>>>> criteria for this study are your three new RCS
>>>>>> series from Eurasia and D'Arrigo's Gulf of
>>>>>> Alaska record. Apparently, none of the Malcolm's
>>>>>> series in Mann et al. were processed in a way
>>>>>> that would preserve the millennial trend, and
>>>>>> these should be omitted from the synthesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I now need to substantially revamp the
>>>>>> manuscript. Before I do, I want to be sure that
>>>>>> I get it right this time and hope that you will
>>>>>> be interested in joining as co-author to help
>>>>>> guide the tree-ring component of the synthesis.
>>>>>> I see that you have posted the Phil Trans data
>>>>>> on your website, but would much prefer to have
>>>>>> your involvement before using the data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the timing for submission is an
>>>>>> issue. I am leading a 12-PI proposal that is
>>>>>> currently pending and would benefit greatly if
>>>>>> this paper were accepted for publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please have a look at the manuscript, which I
>>>>>> realize needs substantial revisions, and let me
>>>>>> know if you have time and interest in getting involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darrell S. Kaufman
>>>>>> Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
>>>>>> Northern Arizona University
>>>>>> 928-523-7192
>>>>>>
~dsk5/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Dear Keith,
I'm very sorry to hear that both you and Sarah have not been well. I
hope that both of you are feeling better soon. While I understand your
decision, it's very sad that you won't be there on June 19th. I was
really looking forward to a reunion of the "CRU gang". Despite its
relatively small size, CRU has had (and continues to have!) a rather
remarkable "fingerprint" in the world of climate science. The times we
spent together while Tom was Director of CRU were exciting and
extraordinary. It would have been fun to get together and celebrate
those times, and to celebrate CRU's achievements under Tom's leadership.
Once again, best wishes to you and Sarah. Get well soon, and please let
me know if you reconsider.
With best regards,
Ben
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Ben and Phil
> Sorry but I am going to decline the invitation. You will know the
> respect I have for Tom and the high personal regard I have for him. I
> will send him a personal message explaining my decision. Sorry for the
> time it has taken to come to this decision but I had to think hard about
> it . At  this moment I do not know whether Sarah will make it. She like
> me has not been well over the Christmas/New Year period but she has not
> yet managed a single day back at work yet.  I will have to leave it to
> her to let you know her thoughts on this.
>  Best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:58 30/01/2009, you wrote:
>> Dear Keith,
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> Phil and I would like to send out a general announcement in the next
>> few weeks, so that folks can put the Symposium on their calendars. It
>> would be nice if we could send out a list of confirmed speakers
>> together with the general announcement. So I'd be very grateful if you
>> could get back to me in the next week or two.
>>
>> Once again, just let me say that it would be great to see you and
>> Sarah in Boulder...
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>> Ben
>>> I can not confirm . Sorry. Everything you say is true. It didn't need
>>> saying, but things may not be straight forward. Will get back to you.
>>> I am not saying no for the present. I know you need to know one way
>>> or the other. Best wishes
>>> Keith
>>> At 22:30 29/01/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Dear Keith,
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to check with you regarding your availability for
>>>> Tom's Symposium on June 19th. I'm really hoping that you'll be able
>>>> to attend. It would be great to see you in Boulder, and I know that
>>>> Tom would be delighted if both you and Sarah could make it.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, Tom had a big impact on the scientific careers of
>>>> many people, but particularly on the scientific lives of you, me,
>>>> Phil, and Sarah.
>>>>
>>>> Tom and I may not have seen eye-to-eye on everything - but Tom
>>>> taught me how to be a scientist, and the lessons I learned at CRU
>>>> have helped me through subsequent difficult times. I view the
>>>> Symposium as a means of saying "thanks". It would be nice to say
>>>> thanks in the company of Tom's friends and colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to share a few beers in Boulder, and reminisce
>>>> about our infrequent "play 'til you drop" squash games at UEA...
>>>>
>>>> Hope you and Sarah and Amy and Kerstie are all well.
>>>>
>>>> With best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin D. Santer
>>>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>>>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>>>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>>>> Tel:   (925) 422-3840
>>>> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
>>>> email: santer1@llnl.gov
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>> -- Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>> http://  www.  cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http:// www. cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Phil, Thanks for this. Here is a support letter from Matt Collins that you can use as a
guide on what to say. It was forwarded to me by Lowell. Cheers, Ed
================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director,
Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email:
drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152
================================== On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > > Ed, >
I can do this. Do you have any details of what you'd like me to > say? > Does Lowell have
any in yet? > Away all next week. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 03:09 17/03/2009, you wrote:
>> Hi Phil, >> >> I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a >>
fairly massive NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that >> will be submitted
in mid-April. The STC would be the Center for >> Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This
is a 5-year, $25 million >> dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth
>> Science, University of Southern California). It is multi- >> institutional >> with both
climate modelers and palaeoclimatologists (including me) >> involved in an effort to
develop skillful climate prediction >> capability on decadal time scales. See the attached
project summary >> from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full >>
proposal >> to be submitted. If you are willing to write a letter of support, it >> is
probably best that it be written to Lowell: >> >> Dr. Lowell Stott >> Department of Earth
Science >> University of Southern California >> Los Angeles, CA 90089 >> >> However, you
should send the letter to me for forwarding on to >> Lowell. >> The letter emailed to me as
a pdf with electronic signature works >> fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am
happy to answer any >> questions you might have as well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ed >> >>
================================== >> Dr. Edward R. Cook >> Doherty Senior Scholar and >>
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >> Palisades, New York
10964 USA >> Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu >> Phone: 845-365-8618 >> Fax: 845-365-8152
>> ================================== >> >> >> >> Hi Phil, >> >> I wonder if you would be
willing to write a letter of support for a >> fairly massive NSF Science and Technology
Center (STC) proposal >> that will be submitted in mid-April. The STC would be the Center
>> for Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25 >> million dollar,
effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of >> Earth Science, University of Southern
California). It is multi- >> institutional with both climate modelers and
palaeoclimatologists >> (including me) involved in an effort to develop skillful climate >>
prediction capability on decadal time scales. See the attached >> project summary from the
pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF >> for a full proposal to be submitted. If you
are willing to write a >> letter of support, it is probably best that it be written to
Lowell: >> >> Dr. Lowell Stott >> Department of Earth Science >> University of Southern
California >> Los Angeles, CA 90089 >> >> However, you should send the letter to me for
forwarding on to >> Lowell. The letter emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature >>
works fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am happy to >> answer any questions you
might have as well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ed >> >> >> ================================== >>
Dr. Edward R. Cook >> Doherty Senior Scholar and >> Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >>
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory >> Palisades, New York 10964 USA >> Email:
drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu >> Phone: 845-365-8618 >> Fax: 845-365-8152 >>
================================== > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone
+44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University
of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Phil,
Thanks for this. Here is a support letter from Matt Collins that you can use as a guide on
what to say. It was forwarded to me by Lowell.
Cheers,
Ed
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Axel_support.doc"
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964  USA
Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Ed,
I can do this. Do you have any details of what you'd like me to say?
Does Lowell have any in yet?
Away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:09 17/03/2009, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a
fairly massive NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that
will be submitted in mid-April. The STC would be the Center for
Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25 million
dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth
Science, University of Southern California). It is multi-institutional
with both climate modelers and palaeoclimatologists (including me)
involved in an effort to develop skillful climate prediction
capability on decadal time scales. See the attached project summary
from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full proposal
to be submitted. If you are willing to write a letter of support, it
is probably best that it be written to Lowell:
Dr. Lowell Stott
Department of Earth Science
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
However, you should send the letter to me for forwarding on to Lowell.
The letter emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature works
fine. Thanks for any help you can give me. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have as well.
Cheers,
Ed
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964  USA
Email: [2]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
Hi Phil,
I wonder if you would be willing to write a letter of support for a fairly massive NSF
Science and Technology Center (STC) proposal that will be submitted in mid-April. The
STC would be the Center for Regional Decadal Climate Projections. This is a 5-year, $25
million dollar, effort spearheaded by Lowell Stott (Department of Earth Science,
University of Southern California). It is multi-institutional with both climate modelers
and palaeoclimatologists (including me) involved in an effort to develop skillful
climate prediction capability on decadal time scales. See the attached project summary
from the pre-proposal that was was accepted by NSF for a full proposal to be submitted.
If you are willing to write a letter of support, it is probably best that it be written
to Lowell:
Dr. Lowell Stott
Department of Earth Science
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
However, you should send the letter to me for forwarding on to Lowell. The letter
emailed to me as a pdf with electronic signature works fine. Thanks for any help you can
give me. I am happy to answer any questions you might have as well.
Cheers,
Ed
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964  USA
Email: [3]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
2. mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
3. mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk


Gavin, Mike,
See the link below! Don't alert anyone up to this for a while. See if they figure it
out for themselves.
I've sent this to the Chief Exec of the RMS, who said he was considering
changing data policy with the RMS journals. He's away till next week. I just
wanted him to see what a load of plonkers he's dealing with!  I'm hoping
someone will pick this up and put it somewhere more prominently.
The responses are even worse than you get on CA.
I've written up the London paper for the RMS journal Weather,
but having trouble with their new editor. He's coming up with the same
naive comments that these responders are.  He can't understand
that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since 1900.
I'm away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
[1]
by-a-major-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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.


Mike,
I want to get the more extensive London paper in first.
I hope my missive to the Chief Exec of the RMS does something next week.
By the way the HC doesn't have a Director.
John Mitchell is Head of Climate Science
Chris Gordon is Deputy Director of the HC.
It has never had a Director with that particular title.
It is impossible for anyone to find this on their web site. Only if you
were on the HC Scientific Review Group would you be aware.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:24 19/03/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
HI Phil,
thanks, we've already seen numerous comments about this at RealClimate. Its a paper that
is easily misunderstood and/or intentionally misrepresented by contrarians (or both).
One possibility is that you might consider writing a guest article for RC placing this
in proper perspective. What do you think?
mike
On Mar 19, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
See the link below! Don't alert anyone up to this for a while. See if they figure it
out for themselves.
I've sent this to the Chief Exec of the RMS, who said he was considering
changing data policy with the RMS journals. He's away till next week. I just
wanted him to see what a load of plonkers he's dealing with!  I'm hoping
someone will pick this up and put it somewhere more prominently.
The responses are even worse than you get on CA.
I've written up the London paper for the RMS journal Weather,
but having trouble with their new editor. He's coming up with the same
naive comments that these responders are.  He can't understand
that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since 1900.
I'm away all next week.
Cheers
Phil
[1]
ng-by-a-major-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [2]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [3]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[4]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:mann@psu.edu
3. ~mann/Mann/index.html
4.


Ben,
I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would
send something to their Chief Exec.
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI
and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy
to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),
but that is where the measurements are from.  Heathrow has a bit
of a UHI and it has go bigger.
I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained
about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't
be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.
The paper is about London and its UHI!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with
that kind of crap.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
Paul,
I sent you this last night, but in another email. I should have sent you two
emails - apologies. The issues were not linked. This email is to bring your
attention to the link at the end.
The next few sentences repeat what I said last might.
I had been meaning to email you about the RMS and IJC issue of data availability
for numbers and data used in papers that appear in RMS journals. This results from
the issue that arose with the paper by Ben Santer et al in IJC last year. Ben has made
the data available that this complainant wanted. The issue is that this is intermediate
data. The raw data that Ben had used to derive the intermediate data was all fully
available. If you're going to consider asking authors to make some or all of the
data available, then they had done already. The complainant didn't want to have
to go to the trouble of doing all the work that Ben had done.
I hope this is clear.
Another issue that should be considered as well is this.
With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these
from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available
to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases.
This email came overnight - from Tom Peterson, who works at NCDC in Asheville.
[1]http://
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-ma
jor-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in JGR
last year. The paper is
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale
temperature records, with an emphasis on China. /J. Geophys. Res/. *113*, D16122,
doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
The paper clearly states where I work - CRU at UEA.  There is no mention of the Hadley
Centre!
There is also no about face as stated on the web page.
Sending this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing
with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS.
Several years ago I decided there was no point in responding to issues raised
on blog sites. Ben has made the same decision as well.
There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more main stream
in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider.  I just think you should
be aware of some of the background. CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the
beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well - many
related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes,
but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence
on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.
Cheers
Phil
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


With thanks to all. I'll let you know when I hear anything. Darrell ï¿¼ Darrell S. Kaufman
Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences Northern Arizona University 928-523-7192
~dsk5/
With thanks to all.
I'll let you know when I hear anything.
Darrell
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2k synthesis submitted.pdf"
Darrell S. Kaufman
Professor of Geology and Environmental Sciences
Northern Arizona University
928-523-7192
[1]~dsk5/
References
1. ~dsk5/


Dear friends,
The scoping of IPCC AR5 will happen in July this year. In the
community there have been opinions raised regarding paleo-science in
the next report, e.g. whether to have paleo-science dispersed into
various topical chapters, e.g. forcing, model-evaluation, sea level
etc., or whether it might be best to do as in AR4 to have a separate
Paleo-chapter.
There are good arguments for both options, and it is not the intent of
this email to voice a specific opinion. Rather it is important to let
the scoping process be aware of all the relevant new paleo-science
which whould be assessed in AR5, thereby leading to the need for a
strong presence of paleoclimate scientists in the LA-team of AR5,
particularly in WG1, but also in WG2.
In order to make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly
relevant for IPCC, Peck and I have agreed to be the editors of a Slide-
series (ppt style) which can be used to make the case in the scoping,
and which of course could be a useful product for various outreach
activities of PAGES and the paleoclimate community at large.
The PAGES office will asssist in producing the slides
We therefore send this email to you who worked as LAs in AR4 or who
are on SSC or other relevant PAGES panels and ask for your input.
What we hope you can help with is the following:
1. Provide your best examples of key new IPCC (Policy) relevant new
results post AR4, i.e. accepted after July 2006,  that provide
compelling arguments for paleoclimate science as a key contributor to
IPCC. Please limit this to the results which are clearly IPCC-relevant
2. Ongoing projects or programmes that are likely to deliver such
results in the next 2-3 years can also be included. The information
must, however, be specific and compelling to a non-paleo audience.
3. Send PDF of the paper or other material (like ppt slide)  to Peck (jto@u.arizona.edu
), Myself and Thorsten Kiefer (thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch) at
PAGES, preferably by May 2.
We think this might become a very useful service to our community and
to the climate change communities at large, and will be very rewarding.
Hoping to hear back from many of you.
Best wishes
Peck and Eystein
__________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway
e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no
tel: 55-589803/55-583491
fax: 55-584330


Hi Eystein and Jonathan,
With respect to the question of a separate paleo-climate chapter: if paleoclimate is an
adjunct to all of the other chapters, what would happen - would there be a paleo-climate
person on each of those chapters, just for that component? If so, the person would not
carry much influence - and if chapters had to be trimmed (which we know always happens),
there's a chance that a lot of the paleoclimate aspect would be the first to go. I'm afraid
that little in-depth discussion would survive.
On the other hand: now that there's been a paleoclimate chapter, a lot of the
'introductory' material would not really be needed - just the 'updates', which make for
much fewer pages. Perhaps, then, paleoclimate observations could be part of the climate
observation chapter; and paleoclimate modeling, part of the modeling chapter. That way, at
least several people with paleoclimate heritage could be part of each of these chapters,
and allow for a proper representation of the state of our understanding in these areas. It
would also allow for better integration of paleoclimates with the current climate.  As in
the case of present climate, care would have to be taken to ensure that the observations
and modeling chapters have strong linkages.
Concerning what new topic should be addressed: there should be a discussion about the use
of paleoclimates as analogs for the future. Some scientists (including at least one at
GISS) are certain of their utility in this regard. I think the topic should be addressed
from all sides.
And as for 'new' paleoclimate work: we have an article about to come out in GRL on
stratospheric ozone during the LGM; here's the link:
[1]#id2009GL037617
David
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
References
1. #id2009GL037617


Dear all,
I guess one point that can be outlined for the next IPCC report is about the regional
differences in climate change and variability.
We can see that in the paleo record, and it is very clear from the work of the PAGES "last
2k regional groups".
There is for instance a new Arctic 2k summary in Journal of Paleolimnology (Kauffman et al
2009), and another paper in prep (I guess you are co-author Peck).
All the best
Pierre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Francus
Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement
490 rue de la couronne, QuÃ©bec, QC G1K 9A9, CANADA
Membre du GEOTOP, Membre associÃ© du CEN, PAGES SSC member
[1]pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca
â  1-418-654-3780
Fax: 1-418-654-2600
Personnal web page: [2]
Laboratory : [3]
PASADO-CANADA: [4]
GEOTOP: [5]
CEN: [6]
PAGES: [7]
On 21-avr.-09, at 16:42, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Thanks Steve and friends I still need to read all the feedback, and appreciate it. I think
you hit on a biggie that paleo provides critical evaluations of model realism. With regard
to the others, the key for inclusion in an IPCC assessment, is to synthesize the published
literature in a way that informs policy makers (the top audience) on what is happening in
the climate system, and more important even what will happen in the he climate system.
Taking the terrific speleothem work for example, what are the key lessons that are NEW and
important to highlight to policy makers? This is the kind of relevant science we need to
compile/highlight. Itâs harder than at first glance, but thatâs ok quality of relevant
issues is more important than quantity.
Again, thanks all for taking this exercise seriously. Feel free to seek input from
colleagues, although please help us by only sending what you think has a chance of fitting
with the criteria above it is unclear if there will be time for anyone to read all the
strong literature that has come out since mid-2006, so please summarize each key point with
a couple sentence bullet, the complete reference (maybe even send the pdf), and if you
think the key point isnât easy to understand to a non-paleo person â a little (e.g., para)
supporting text, w/ a key figure if you think it really helps.
Best, peck
On 4/16/09 1:48 PM, "Steve Colman"
wrote:
Dear Peck and Eystein,
I tend to agree with Stefan that it would be conceptually nice to weave paleo-science
into all the chapters of the next report, but that, as a practical matter, a tighter
focus on paleo results would have more impact. Most people seem to accept that past
history is the only way to assess what the climate system can actually do (e.g., how
fast it can change). However, I think that the fact that reconstructed history provides
the only calibration or test of models (beyond verification of modern simulations) is
under-appreciated.
In terms of recent or near-future new results, I think that two areas of continental
paleoclimate research are exciting: (1) the new speleothem records, which are producing
extremely high-resolution, well-dated hitories, especially in monsoon areas; and (2) the
network of long-term continental climate histories coming from drill cores in lakes
(Titicaca, Malawi, Bosumtwi, Peten Itza, Qinghai, El' gygytgyn) is reaching the point
where stimulating syntheses may be possible.
Best,
Steve Colman
Professor of Geological Sciences and Director,
Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth
RLB 2205 E. 5th St., Duluth, MN 55812; Ph: 218-726-6723; fax -6979
[9]www.d.umn.edu/llo
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for Environment and Society
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
Email: [11]jto@u.arizona.edu
PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
[12]regalado@email.arizona.edu
References
1. mailto:pfrancus@ete.inrs.ca
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. file://localhost/tmp/scolman@d.umn.edu
9.
10.
11. file://localhost/tmp/jto@u.arizona.edu
12. file://localhost/tmp/regalado@email.arizona.edu


X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueacanitdb01.uea.ac.uk id n457EfQ5005459
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...
"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."
and
"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
I was able to get the data by requiring Wang���s co-worker to release it,
under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang
had committed fraud."
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records
for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was
not possible to select stations on the basis of ...
"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
[THIS IS ITEM "X"]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
selection method could not have been applied (but see below) -- unless
there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report
(but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information
available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it
did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But
ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it
come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been ...
"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation"
OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what
the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?
-----
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
*am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes,
Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make
him happier about his own parallel experiences.
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: wigley@cgd.ucar.edu
Delivered-To: wigley@cgd.ucar.edu
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by post2.cgd.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB38C3803F;
Sun,  3 May 2009 08:57:40 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDD3230C024;
Sun,  3 May 2009 08:57:40 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 12674-01; Sun,  3 May 2009 08:57:37 -0600 (MDT)
X-SMTP-Auth: no
X-SMTP-Auth: no
Received: from exch4.jmu.ac.uk (exch4.jmu.ac.uk [150.204.37.14])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B970230C00B;
Sun,  3 May 2009 08:57:25 -0600 (MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Subject: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 15:57:08 +0100
Message-ID:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Thread-Index: AcnIu0OvOgPY3fShTXip0PBdcf9mWwAAWuOQAGIoisAAbhWS4A==
From: "Peiser, Benny"
To: "cambridge-conference"
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
CCNet Xtra - 3 May 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars
CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
-------------------------------------------
The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
"Investigations" of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don't want to investigate things properly.
-- Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG
Douglas J. Keenan, Informath, April 2009
(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY
Peter Risdon, Freeborn John, 15 March 2009
=====
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009

Aubrey Blumsohn
Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.
I have no inclination to "weigh in" on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change "denialist" or a "warmist". The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of "method" in science.
The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.
Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the "denialist" side of the climate change debate. He maintains that "almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists".
Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.
Case Summary
The allegations concern two publications. These are:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), ���Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land���, Nature, 347: 169�172. (PDF here)
Wang W.-C.., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), ���Urban heat islands in China���, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377�2380. (PDDF here)
The publications concern temperature at a variety of measuring stations over three decades (1954-1983). Stations are denoted by name or number. A potential confounder in such research is that measuring stations may be moved to different locations at different points in time. It is clearly important that readers of publications understand the methodology, and important confounders.
The publications make the following statements:
(Statement A) "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times." [Jones et al.]
(Statement B) "They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times�." [Wang et al.]
The publications refer to a repoort produced jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) which details station moves, and the publications further suggest that stations with few if any moves or changes were selected on the basis of that report. However:
Of 84 stations that were selected, Keenan found that information about only 35 are available in the DOE/CAS report
Of those 35 stations at least half did have substantial moves (e.g 25 km). One station had five different locations during 1954�1983 as far as 41 km apart.
It therefore appears  that Statements A and B must be false. If false, readers would have been misled both in terms of the status of the stations and the manner in which they had been selected (or not selected).
Keenan then communicated with the author of one of the publications (Jones) to ask about the source of location information pertaining to the other 49 stations that had not been selected using the described methodology. Jones informed Keenan that his co-author Wang had selected those stations in urban and rural China based on his "extensive knowledge of those networks".
On 11 April 2007 Keenan E-mailed Wang, asking "How did you ensure the quality of the data?���. Wang did not answer for several weeks, but on 30 April 2007 he replied as follows:
"The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983)"
Keenan points out that the ���hard copies��� to which Wang refers were not found by the authors of the DOE/CAS report, who had endeavored to be "comprehensive" (and that the DOE/CAS report was authored in part by Zeng, one of the co-authors on Wang). Keenan further notes that any form of comprehensive data covering these stations during the Cultural Revolution would be implausible.
In August 2007 Keenan submitted a report to the University at Albany, alleging fraud. Wang could at that stage have made the "hard copy" details of the stations selected available to the scientific community. However, he failed to do so.
In May 2008, the University at Albany wrote to Keenan that they had conducted an investigation and asked him to comment on it (see the rather odd letter). However they refused to show him the report of the investigation or any of the evidence to allow any comment (further odd letter).
In August 2008 the University sent Keenan an astonishing letter of "determination" stating that they did not find that Wang had fabricated data, but that they refused to provide any investigation report or any other information at all because "the Office of Research Integrity regulations preclude discussion of any information pertaining to this case with others who were not directly involved in the investigation".
Wang has still not made the station records available to the scientific community. If he provided such records to the University as part of a misconduct investigation, then the University has apparently concealed them.
Comments
In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, it seems that the methodology for station selection as described in these two publications was false and misleading.
Wang maintains that hard copy records do exist detailing the location of stations selected by himself outwith the published methodology. However the refusal to clarify "method" is inappropriate and a form of misconduct in and of itself. It does not lend credence to Wang's assertion that fraud did not take place. It would also be necessary to see records of stations that were not selected, in order to confirm that selection was indeed random, and only "on the basis of station history".
The University at Albany is in a difficult position.
If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers.
If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct.
If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
"Investigations" of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don't want to investigate things properly.
For further information on this case see here and here.
=====================
(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG
Informath, April 2009

Douglas J. Keenan
Following are some remarks about my expos��, ���The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang���.
Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research on climate for over 30 years, and he has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles. He has also received an Appreciation Plaque from the Office of Science in the U.S.A., commending him, ���For your insightful counsel and excellent science. ����. The plaque resulted in partticular from his research on global warming.
I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline.
03 August 2007 My report, ���Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims���, is sent to the Vice President for Research at Wang's university.
31 August 2007 The university notifies me that it is initiating an inquiry into suspected research misconduct by Wang. (The notification includes a copy of the university's Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.)
12 November 2007 My expos�� on Wang's alleged fraud is published (reference below).
07 December 2007 Myself and the university's Inquiry Committee have a conference call.
20 February 2008 The university sends me the Report of the Inquiry Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that ���there was no data��� (thus implicitly concluding Wang must have fabricated data) and that a full investigation should be undertaken.
23 May 2008 The university sends me a notice: the Investigation Committee has completed its work and found no evidence of fraud. The investigation was conducted without interviewing me, which is a violation of the university's policy. The university asks me to comment on the Committee's report; I am, however, not allowed to see the report.
04 June 2008 The university informs me that I am not allowed to see the report because they did not interview me when preparing it.
06 June 2008 I submit comments to the university, listing ways in which I believe the university has acted in breach of U.S. regulations and its own policy.
11 July 2008 I submit a complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud.
12 August 2008 The university sends me the determination for its investigation, saying that there is ���no evidence whatsoever [of] � any research misconduct���.
07 Octoober 2008 I telephone the Public Integrity Bureau and am told that it might be some months before the Bureau begins to review the complaint.
17 March 2009 I telephone the Public Integrity Bureau and am told that the complaint is under review by an attorney.
18 March 2009 I file three requests under the Freedom of Information Law of New York State: for a copy of the full report by the Inquiry Committee; for a copy of the full report by the Investigation Committee; and, given that the relevant federal funding agencies are required to be notified when a misconduct investigation is initiated, for copies of all such notifications that were sent by the university and pertain to the investigation of Wang.
24 March 2009 Given that Wang received funding for the fraudulent research from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and that the DOE has since supplied more funding to Wang, I report the fraud and the university's apparent cover up to the Office of Inspector General at the DOE.
This web page will be updated with news about the case, as the investigations progress.
===========
(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY
Freeborn John, 15 March 2009

Peter Risdon
Last June I reported on the allegations of academic fraud levelled by a British mathematician, Doug Keenan, against Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of New York State University at Albany.
Dr Keenan alleged that in work that has come to be widely cited in climate studies, work that included the collation of data from temperature measuring stations in China, Professor Wang made statements that "cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated."
In August 2007, Dr Keenan submitted a report (pdf) of his allegations to the Vice President for Research at Wang's university and an inquiry was initiated. In February 2008 this was escalated into a full investigation by the Inquiry Committee.
All this was summarised in my earlier post, together with quotations from Dr Keenan's allegation.
So far, things had run as might be expected. A fraud had been alleged, the University at Albany looked into it and decided to hold a formal investigation. Dr Keenan waited to be contacted by the investigation and asked to put his case, in line with the university's Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship (.doc). The relevant section of this document runs as follows (emphasis added):
III. A. Rights and Responsibilities of the Complainant
Rights: The Vice President for Research will make every effort to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of complainants. The University will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the position and the reputation of those who in good faith report alleged misconduct in research.
The Vice President for Research will work to ensure that complainants will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Any alleged or apparent retaliation should be reported immediately to the Vice President for Research.
The complainant will be provided a copy of the formal allegations when and if an inquiry is opened. The complainant will have the opportunity to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to the complainant���s report or testimony, and will be informed in writing of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and of the final determination. After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation.
Responsibilities: The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with an inquiry and/or investigation.
Dr Keenan lived up to the responsibility as stated in the final paragraph above so far as he could. He had made the allegation in good faith and given Professor Wang an opportunity to explain how he had reached his results, an opportunity the Professor had not taken. Keenan maintained confidentiality. In order to cooperate with the investigation, though he would first have to be contacted by it. Dr Keenan waited.
Late in May 2008 a communication arrived from Albany. It said:
After careful review of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation, the Investigation Committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by DR. Wang.
As the institutional official responsible for this case, I have accepted the Committee's findings and the Report. You have fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this letter to provide any comments to add to the report for the record.
Contrary to its own rules, the Committee had not given Keenan the opportunity to "review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports".
That's astonishing, but here's where it becomes Kafkaesque. Keenan was being asked, in this most recent communication, to comment on the report of the Committee. But he was not sent a copy of the report. When he challenged this, he received an email from Adrienne Bonilla explaining that:
[Keenan] did not receive a copy of the Investigation report because the report did not include portions addressing your role and opinions in the investigation phase.
Per the UAlbany Misconduct policy:
VI. E. Investigation Report and Recommendations of the Vice President for Research
"...The Vice President for Research will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation. The respondent and complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the transmission of the report to provide their written comments. Any written responses to the report by either party will be made part of the report and record.
Keenan then wrote to the Vice President for Research at Albany, Lynn Videka, pointing out the various ways in which the University had breached its own policy, stating that its behaviour was consistent with a cover up, and pointing out that Professor Wang has received more than $7 million in grants from a couple of US federal agencies.
In August 2008, Lynn Videka wrote to Keenan enclosing a final copy of a "determination" of the investigation. In her covering note, she stated:
I am notifying you of the case outcome because you were the complainant in this case. The University���s misconduct policies and the Office of Research Integrity regulations preclude discussion of any information pertaining to this case with others who were not directly involved in the investigation.
To summarise, the university initiated an investigation, then broke its own rules by not involving Dr Keenan. It then produced a report that carefully avoided mentioning Dr Keenan, so it could claim he was not entitled to see a copy of this report. It then asked Keenan to comment on the report. It has completely disregarded its own policy that "After the final determination and upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to the full documentation."
But Doug Keenan is a tenacious man. In July 2008, after being refused sight of the report, he submitted a formal complaint (pdf) to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud. In this complaint, he said:
Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research for over 30 years. For this research, Wang has received at least $7 million. The funds have come primarily from the Department of Energy, with additional funding from other federal agencies (DOD, FAA, NSF). I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his research. My allegation was submitted to the University at Albany; a copy is enclosed.
The university conducted a preliminary inquiry; a copy of the report from the inquiry is enclosed (redacted, by the university). Briefly, Wang claimed that there were some documents that could exonerate him. The inquiry concluded that there should be a full investigation, which should be ���charged with obtaining and reviewing any such additional evidence ... so that a final resolution may be made regarding the allegation against Dr. Wang���.
Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.
The university conducted an investigation. The investigation concluded that Wang is innocent. I believe that the case against Wang is strong and clear, and that the university is trying to cover up the fraud so as to protect its reputation. Wang is one of the university���s star professors. The conduct of the investigation violated several of the university���s own stated policies: details are given in an attached e-mail (dated 06 June 2008).
The e-mail was sent to Lynn Videka, Vice President for Research at the university: Videka was in charge of overseeing the investigation. Note, in particular, that the documents that Wang was relying on were never produced.
I have only examined a little of Wang���s research; so I do not know the full extent of the fraud. It is difficult to examine more in part because Wang has not willingly made his data available: when asked for the data from the research that I later reported as fraudulent, Wang refused. For that research, though, Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang���s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud. Details are given in my report to the university (page 4, last paragraph). I would be willing to help examine other research that Wang has done, if more data were made available.
There was another case of research fraud with a professor at the University of Vermont, in 2005. There, Prof. Eric Poehlman was convicted of making false statements on federal grant applications; he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. Wang has done the same as Poehlman. The fraudulent work described in my report dates from 1990; Wang has been relyingon that work in some of his grant applications since then. As I understand things, each of those applications is a violation of statute. (Additionally, Wang has been using the grants to go on frequent trips to China.)
In October 2008 Dr Keenan was told there could be a wait of several months while his complaint is investigated.
I'll let you know when there are any further developments.
UPDATE: I didn't mention this in the main piece above, but I did mail the relevant person at Albany myself, some time ago, asking for news of the investigation against Professor Wang. I received no reply.
However, within a couple of hours of this being posted, someone at Albany came to look at it, from the host aspmini-cc326.cc.albany.edu (169.226.172.35), having apparently been sent an email about it.
So even if they are not communicative about this case, it seems someone at Albany is keeping their eyes open for reports of it.
UPDATE: On reflection, the hit from Albany is also consistent with someone using Google Alerts to monitor coverage of this issue.
UPDATE: Doug Keenan has been told on the telephone that this case is now under review by an attorney at the OAG Public Integrity Bureau.
UPDATE: Also see new findings on the effect of urban warming.
----------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.


Phil,
there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are
casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going
to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of
recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could
contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I
would maintain had two aims ...
1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see
what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US
stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig.
extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.)
2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi-
probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we
could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model
determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong
our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what
error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long-
term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most
people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly
started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of
reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood
(deliberately so in this particular case ...).
We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to
DECC and see what happens. No promises.
This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each
with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems
sensible ...
Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we
don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al
comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit?
Peter
--
Peter Thorne   Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs


Phil,
I can't believe that people think it remotely reasonable behaviour to
send that sort of crud. They'd never say that to your face. I guess
their home is just that much more cosy and impersonal.
Cash would need spending in FY09/10 as I understand it, but someone for
six months (assuming they could start this Sept.) could be a route
forwards. It would be a good paper for them career-wise.
HadSST3 is in first draft form. I'm not sure what papers you assume will
arise. I think we were thinking of developing HadSST3 and CRUTEM4
seperately (but in a joined up way) and publishing as separate papers
and then doing a paper that covers combination to HadCRUT4 and perhaps,
for example, a d&a sensitivity to error model assumptions.
Peter
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 09:43 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>   Peter,
>     Below is one of three emails I got last night following a new thread on CA.
>   I'll ignore them and wait for the FOI requests, which we have dealt
> with before.
>   I did send an email to Thomas Stocker alerting him up to comment #17.
>   These are all about who changed what in various chapters of AR4. I
> expect these
>   to get worse with AR5.
>
>     Anyway back to the matter in hand.
>
>     I'm planning to come down to see Ian Simpson (probably on June
> 1). I'll get back
>   to David on this later today.
>      We've done some of what you aim for. We've sorted out the new Canadian
>   WMO numbers and have extra data for Australia and NZ in. Australia comes in
>   by email once a month. I'll have to find a new contact in NZ now
> Jim Salinger has
>   been sacked - but it's only a small country. Iran is pretty good.
>      The US is the large bit of work. The US already has better
> station density than
>   almost anywhere else, so the effort won't make much difference. But
> it is probably
>   worth doing, as it would reduce errors - even if no-one understands
> them. Glad
>   you got the poor paper to review!
>      Soon we will be adding data for the Greater Alpine Region (32 sites) which
>   go back to 1760. These data all have adjustments for screen issues prior to
>   about 1880. This makes summers cooler by about 0.4 deg C and winters about
>   the same. Similarly, we will also add a load of stations for Spain
> (again with Screen
>   biases in). There is probably more we could add for European countries,
>   but again it is likely to make little difference, except to lower errors.
>      The real issue is South America and Africa. We have the whole
> Argentine network,
>   but this is only digitized back to 1959 and the data we had wasn't
> that bad anyway.
>   Problem in South America is Brazil.  Africa is OK in a few
> countries, but poor in many.
>   We could add loads in China.
>     Issue with all this is that most of the additions wouldn't be
> available from whenever
>   we stop. We can probably do the US in real time like Australia.
>     We've also been trying to add in the precip for many of these
> extra stations (not
>   the Alpine countries and Spain).
>      There is a timing issue. As I understand HadSST3 won't be
> available to be merged
>   with until it is successfully reviewed. So need to consider this as well.
>
>     A final issue is people here. We're OK for most of 2010 for all.
> We have a good
>   student finishing a PhD by Sept who wants to stay, so couldn't
> really do anything
>   till then.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
>      Dear Mr Jones
>
> As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please
> explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using
> tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is
> to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of
> enviromental information.
>
> For reference  refers to your
> absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in
> an embarassing set of reasonable requests from  CRU, who the hell do
> you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
>
> At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote:
> >Phil,
> >
> >there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are
> >casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going
> >to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of
> >recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could
> >contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I
> >would maintain had two aims ...
> >
> >1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see
> >what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US
> >stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig.
> >extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.)
> >
> >2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi-
> >probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we
> >could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model
> >determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong
> >our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what
> >error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long-
> >term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most
> >people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly
> >started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of
> >reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood
> >(deliberately so in this particular case ...).
> >
> >We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to
> >DECC and see what happens. No promises.
> >
> >This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each
> >with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems
> >sensible ...
> >
> >Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we
> >don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al
> >comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit?
> >
> >Peter
> >--
> >Peter Thorne   Climate Research Scientist
> >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
> >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681
> >www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Peter Thorne   Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs


thanks much Phil,
that sounds good. So why don't we wait until next round (June '10) on this then. That will
give everyone an opportunity to get their ducks in a row. Plus I'll have one more Nature
and one more Science paper on my resume by then (more about that soon!).  I'll be sure to
send you a reminder sometime next may or so!
Thanks for sending that paper. It takes some work to get a paper rejected by IJC. Want to
take a bet that some version of this appears in "Energy and Environment"?  Of course, any
paper that appears there is not taken seriously anyway, its almost a joke.
The contrarians attacks certainly have not abated. The only hope is that they'll
increasingly be ignored.
talk to you later,
mike
On May 19, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Have gotten replies - the're both happy to write supporting letters,
but both are too busy to take it on this year. One suggested waiting till
next year. Malcolm is supporting one other person this year. I'd be
happy to do it next year, so I can pace it over a longer period. Malcom
also said that Singer had an AGU Fellowship!!
Apart from my meetings I have skeptics on my back - still, can't
seem to get rid of them. Also the new UK climate scenarios are giving
govt ministers the jitters as they don't want to appear stupid when they
introduce them (late June?).
Talking of skeptics - the attached was rejected by IJC. He put it up on
something xarchiv. Easy to see why it was rejected. Parts appear quite
well written, but they always go too far. Obviously have no idea how to write
a paper.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 18/05/2009, you wrote:
thanks much Phil,
hopefully will see you before Vienna, but if not, I look forward to seeing you there
next year,
talk to you later,
mike
On May 18, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I'll email Ray and Malcolm. I'd be happy to contribute. Away all next week
and another couple of weeks in June.
EGU will be in Vienna again. It is set for May 2-7, 2010.
It will also be Vienna in 2011.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:31 16/05/2009, you wrote:
Hey Phil,
I hope all is well w/ you these days. Been a while since I've actually seen you. Perhaps
can convince you to make it to EGU next year? Looks like it will be in Vienna again. I
rather enjoyed this one, and I think I may go back next year.
On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the
other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;)
I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are
quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who
aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.
anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to
help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or
Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.
looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of
Henry's  choosing ;)
mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [2]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [3]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[4]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[8]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:mann@psu.edu
3. ~mann/Mann/index.html
4.
5. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. ~mann/Mann/index.html
8.
Hidden links:
9.


Darrell (from AGU Toronto):
Great news from Science!
A quick comment on Amplification and signal to noise issues (comment
1 below).  It think you meant that the referee felt that Arctic
amplificaton did not translate to a more robust signal because the
noise would be equally amplified.  I don't know that we can challenge
the "climate noise" but we can make the case that the "proxy noise",
that is, the uncertainty in proxy calibration, is, as far as I know,
the same in the Arctic as in lower latitudes.  Consequently, the
larger temperature signal expected in the Arctic can be more reliably
detected by our proxies because it is more likely to exceed the
sensitivity limits of our proxies.  If we assume the "climate noise"
is more or less gaussian, then we should be better able to detect the
relatively subtle temp changes of the Holocene in the Arctic than
elsewhere.
Giff
>Co-authors:
>I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our
>SCIENCE manuscript (attached). The decision isn't final, but it
>looks like good news, with very reasonable revisions. Reviewer #1
>had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather thorough.
>I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help
>with three:
>
>(1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate
>change is amplified in the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be
>higher too. We don't have more than 1 sentence to expand on the
>assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and hope
>that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it
>from the text. Suggestions?
>
>(2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers
>influencing the mean values of the composite record, we should
>attempt a so-called "robust" regression procedure, such as median
>absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience with this?
>
>(3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of
>the relation between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM
>simulation. Namely s/he criticized the leveraging effect of the one
>outlier in the model-generated insolation vs temperature plot (Fig.
>4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year.
>Dave: you up for this, please?
>
>Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you
>all have a look before I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we
>can turn this around this week.
>
>Thanks.
>Darrell
>
--
Gifford H. Miller, Professor
INSTAAR and Geological Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder


Hi Keith,
Nice to hear from you, and sorry to hear about your mother.
Contrary to what I heard a few days ago, I received yesterday the
invitation to the Scoping meeting in July and look forward to be
joining Peck in providing the paleo-input to the scoping of the report.
On the issue of a separate chapter I agree that this option is most
practical, yet I don´t think there is solid support for that avenue,
and fear that it will not be pursued. This means that there is a
danger that  single paleo-persons distributed into the chapters might
become marginalised, and would need som x-chapter support an time to
deal with the issues, and also to provide enough breadth of  knowledge
about paleo-litterature to be assessed. The Plan B option would
require that there is a mechanism that pulls together the combined
paleo-competence amongst the LAs during the writing of AR5.
I think there will be a strong emphasis in AR5 on regional changes,
and on climate predictions. Predictions need a strong basis in
knowledge about natural modes of variability and the interplay between
natural and man made changes on the regional scale, areas where the
paleo perspectives are clearly needed and contribute. I think many new
results are emerging, and we need to be on top of this to make the
case in Venice.
It would be great if you could, within the next week preferably, send
us a list of what new results you think will be good to use for the
scoping.
Cheers
Eystein
Den 21. mai. 2009 kl. 18.36 skrev Jonathan Overpeck:
> Hi Keith - thanks. Sorry to hear about your Mother.
>
> I think the invites have gone out for Venice, and so far the only
> one from
> AR4 Chap 6 going is me - or rather, I haven't heard from anyone else.
> Eystein isn't going since Norway has a bunch from the other WGs. Seems
> "representation" isn't working in our favor. I would really like
> more there,
> and I fear that if it's just me, it's another sign that paleo won't
> be a
> chapter since I can't be CLA again of such a chapter (fortunately
> for my
> family!). Based on limited discussions w/ Thomas, I also get the
> sense of a
> paleo chapter might be an uphill battle, but on the other hand, a
> conservative approach would be to stick close to the AR4 outline.
> That said,
> it appears that the gov's are pushing even harder for more regional,
> so...
>
> Your list is a big help, and I wonder if you could arm us with some
> good
> graphics where you can on these issues, especially the latest on
>
> Paleo model evaluation - showing what the models can and can't do. Of
> course, the non-paleo folks like to argue that if their is mismatch,
> it's
> the paleo data, but with the right results and presentation, that
> can be
> overcome. Need some compelling graphics that are post AR4 - if there
> are
> papers or manuscripts that's even better, but even if not at that
> stage.
>
> I'm going to guess that Gabi will be there (do you know?) and will
> do the
> sensitivity part. But, if you know of new stuff, pls send also.
>
> Your regional idea is a good one - want to share some compelling
> examples of
> where paleo (more than one proxy always good) is informing the full
> range of
> variability in specific regions, and illustrating ca last 50 years
> vs the
> longer record. I can think of some good examples, but you might have
> some
> recent ones I haven't seen.
>
> Wegan followup - should I ask Caspar? I haven't heard anything, but
> it would
> be good...
>
> Hydrologic fits well with regional, so I think I'd emphasize it,
> although
> some temp would be good too. More on extremes? Anything out there
> that's new
> and compelling?
>
> This is just a scoping mtg, so only a small subset of those who will
> be
> involved. You need to get your gov to push you once the chapter
> outline is
> decided (i.e., you get nominated for specific roles in specific
> chapters -
> or at least that is how it worked before - suspect you know the
> drill).
>
> I'm guessing that if there is no paleo chapter, then the backup will
> be to
> have strong paleo (at least a person) in relevant chapters, with a
> cross-cutting paleo caucus or something so that the paleo Las across
> the AR5
> can work together to ensure there is consensus on things and that
> the parts
> make up a coherent and compelling whole. But, I'll be pushing for a
> chapter
> since that is clearly the best outcome. Need those compelling
> examples to
> make it work - need to show it's too much great stuff to be sprinkled
> throughout other chapters.
>
> Thanks again, Peck
>
>
> On 5/21/09 7:43 AM, "Keith Briffa"
wrote:
>
>> Hi Peck and Eystein
>> sorry have not responded to recent emails re Palaeo stuff in next
>> IPCC assessment - have been away from the Unit and email because of
>> the death of my mother and ensuing issues. I simply would add that in
>> terms of pure pragmatism , efficiently stitching in Paleodata into
>> separate chapters is likely to be impractical - a self-standing
>> chapter - even of restricted length would be more feasibly achieved.
>> In terms of specific issues , top of my list would be model
>> validation progress , and a description of where we are in attempts
>> to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity with the use of
>> palaeodata - covered I know in Gab's chapter last time. Updating the
>> high-resolution work would have to be in there for continuity but
>> perhaps with an attempt to assess specific regional changes , and
>> between-proxy comparisons. If completed , "the big challenge" work
>> that arose from the Wengen meeting would be good. Then "new" data -
>> e.g. new proxies or areas not covered before - with much more on
>> hydrologic change. I agree about the inclusion of less-resolved
>> proxies. Finally, the "important issues we highlighted at the end of
>> the AR4 chapter should be reviewed and the issues updated.
>> Do you know whether the list for the scoping meeting in Venice has
>> been selected - if I have not been invited does this mean I will
>> not be?
>>
>> cheers
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>> Climatic Research Unit
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Jonathan T. Overpeck
> Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society
> Professor, Department of Geosciences
> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>
> Mail and Fedex Address:
>
> Institute of the Environment
> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
> Email: jto@u.arizona.edu
> PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
> regalado@email.arizona.edu
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway
e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no
tel: 55-589803/55-583491
fax: 55-584330