Phil,
If it works, let's plan on me visiting for the day April 30 (I'll come out April 29; leave
May 1). I'll put the date on my calendar and assume it works unless I hear otherwise. If
there is a better day that week, please let me know.
Thanks,
Dave
Dave,
Will send on your details to the seminar organizer here. The week
of April 28 - May 2 is OK for me. I hope this is what you meant by
last week.
A few thoughts on the plots.
1. There isn't a drop off in land data around 1945 - nor during WW2.
So this is different from the ocean data. Most series are complete
or have been slightly infilled during the period in Europe. Berlin
for example only missed one day's T obs in April 45.
2. Fuego could be underestimated.
3. It could also be that sulphate emissions were very high at this time
- late 60s,  early 70s.
I'll await the text !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:18 19/02/2008, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look
to you?
As for some new results:
I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data.
The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the
global-mean land data (CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the
residual global-mean time series. There is nothing here you haven't
seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the one
in the Nature paper.
As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the
signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability
goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that
the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from ~1940-1980; and
warmed substantially from 1980 to present.
OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal.
There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best
method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been
using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I
get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate.
The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic
signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time
series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the
'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic
signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you
look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since
1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards
'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in
the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding
change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in
the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step
in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march
upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the
impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data).
What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in
the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO
residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies
that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from
1900-1970.
-Dave
￼
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Dave,
Thanks.
Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe
something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though....
So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to
distant Norwich
at some point and also give a talk?
Cheers
Phil
At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit
from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to
get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan
1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig
figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or
so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have
some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to
come....
-Dave
ï¿¼
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your
ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:
So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing
a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: [1]j.thorpe@nature.com
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [2]davet@atmos.colostate.edu
Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group  --  [3]
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [4]nature@nature.com
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA
Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [5]nature@naturedc.com
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website
( [6]www.nature.com/ authors) for information about and links to
policies, services
and author benefits. See also [7]
our blog for authors, and  [8]
our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
David W. J. Thompson
[9]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [10]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[11]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in
transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit
for us to get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is
Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number
of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day
or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also
have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More
to come....
-Dave
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare
your ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:
So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our
providing a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: [12]j.thorpe@nature.com
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [13]davet@atmos.colostate.edu
Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group  --  [14]
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [15]nature@nature.com
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA
Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [16]nature@naturedc.com
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website
( [17]www.nature.com/authors) for information about and links to
policies, services and author benefits. See also [18]http:// blogs.nature.com/nautilus,
our blog for authors, and  [19]http:// blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer, our blog about
peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
------------------------------------------------------------------- -
David W. J. Thompson
[20]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[22]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [23]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[24]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Hi Phil,
I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look to you?
As for some new results:
I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data.
The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the global-mean land data
(CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the residual global-mean time series. There is
nothing here you haven't seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the
one in the Nature paper.
As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the
volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series
supports the IPCC contention that the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from
~1940-1980; and warmed substantially from 1980 to present.
OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of
ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best method. For now, I am driving the
simple climate model I've been using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing
time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate.
The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to
bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous
figure); the volcanic fit; the 'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it
suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in
the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the
step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding change in
variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of
the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is
removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the
bite is also evident in the SST data).
What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the SST data. But
it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2):
removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily
upwards from 1900-1970.
-Dave
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
Dave,
Thanks.
Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe
something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though....
So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to distant Norwich
at some point and also give a talk?
Cheers
Phil
At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit
from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to
get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan
1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig
figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean
(as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think
you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or
so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have
some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to
come....
-Dave
￼
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the
paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your
ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:
So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is
that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with
Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing
a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: [25]j.thorpe@nature.com
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [26]davet@atmos.colostate.edu
Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A
discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface
temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are
sending your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments
from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group  --  [27]
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [28]nature@nature.com
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA
Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [29]nature@naturedc.com
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [30]www.nature.com/ authors) for
information about and links to policies, services
and author benefits. See also [31]
our blog for authors, and  [32]
our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking
System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[33]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [34]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[35]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Phil,
I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the
UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled.
I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is
Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab
wanted to save it.
The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper).
I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them
interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I
suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the
century. More to come....
-Dave
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
David,
For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you
send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper.
I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO
with some of the ENSO-type indices I have.
These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote:
So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare
OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist
on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see...
-Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: [36]j.thorpe@nature.com
Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST
To: [37]davet@atmos.colostate.edu
Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review
Dear Professor Thompson,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of
global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending
your paper out for review.
We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers.
Yours sincerely
Nichola O'Brien
Staff
Nature
For Dr. Joanna Thorpe
Associate Editor, Nature
Nature Publishing Group  --  [38]
The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [39]nature@nature.com
968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA
Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [40]nature@naturedc.com
* Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [41]www.nature.com/authors) for
information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also
[42] our blog for authors, and
[43] our blog about peer-review.
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[44]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [45]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[46]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [47]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[48]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [49]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
References
1. mailto:j.thorpe@nature.com
2. mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu
3.
4. mailto:nature@nature.com
5. mailto:nature@naturedc.com
6.
7.
8.
9. ~davet
10. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
11. ~davet
12. mailto:j.thorpe@nature.com
13. mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu
14.
15. mailto:nature@nature.com
16. mailto:nature@naturedc.com
17.
18.
19.
20. ~davet
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. ~davet
23. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
24. ~davet
25. mailto:j.thorpe@nature.com
26. mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu
27.
28. mailto:nature@nature.com
29. mailto:nature@naturedc.com
30.
31.
32.
33. ~davet
34. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
35. ~davet
36. mailto:j.thorpe@nature.com
37. mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu
38.
39. mailto:nature@nature.com
40. mailto:nature@naturedc.com
41.
42.
43.
44. ~davet
45. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
46. ~davet
47. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
48. ~davet
49. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk


"
>>
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in sending you the next version of our
>> manuscript.  I decided that I needed to perform some additional
>> calculations. I was concerned that we had not addressed the issue of
>> "differential warming" of the surface and troposphere - an issue which
>> Douglass et al. HAD considered.
>>
>> Our work thus far shows that there are no fundamental inconsistencies
>> between simulated and observed temperature trends in individual
>> tropospheric layers (T2 and T2LT). But we had not performed our
>> "paired trends" test for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference
>> time series. This is a much tougher test to pass: differencing
>> strongly damps the correlated variability in each "pair" of surface
>> and T2LT time series. Because of this noise reduction, the standard
>> error of the linear trend in the difference series is typically
>> substantially smaller than the size of the standard error in an
>> individual surface or T2LT time series. This makes it easier to reject
>> the null hypothesis of "no significant difference between simulated
>> and observed trends".
>>
>> In the CCSP Report, the behavior of the trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series led us to note that:
>>
>> "Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere
>> exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the
>> tropics".
>>
>> So it seemed wise to re-examine this "differential warming" issue. I
>> felt that if we ignored it, Douglass et al. would have grounds for
>> criticizing our response.
>>
>> I've now done the "paired trends" test with the trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The results are quite
>> interesting. They are at variance with the above-quoted finding of the
>> CCSP Report. The new results I will describe show that the "potential
>> discrepancies" in the tropics have largely been resolved.
>>
>> Here's what I did. I used three different observational estimates of
>> tropical SST changes. These were from NOAA-ERSST-v2, NOAA-ERSST-v3,
>> and HadISST1. It's my understanding that NOAA-ERSST-v3 and HadISST1
>> are the most recent SST products of NCDC and the Hadley Centre. I'm
>> also using T2LT data from RSS v3.0 and UAH v5.2. Here are the tropical
>> (20N-20S) trends in these five datasets over the 252-month period from
>> January 1979 to December 1999, together with their 1-sigma adjusted
>> standard errors (in brackets):
>>
>> UAH v5.2         0.060 (+/-0.137)
>> RSS v3.0         0.166 (+/-0.130)
>> HADISST1         0.108 (+/-0.133)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2    0.100 (+/-0.131)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v3    0.077 (+/-0.121)
>>
>> (all trends in  degrees C/decade).
>>
>> The trends in the three SST datasets are (by definition) calculated
>> from anomaly data that have been spatially-averaged over tropical
>> oceans. The trends in T2LT are calculated from anomaly data that have
>> been spatially averaged over land and ocean. It is physically
>> reasonable to do the differencing over different domains, since the
>> temperature field throughout the tropical troposphere is more or less
>> on the moist adiabatic lapse rate set by convection over the warmest
>> waters.
>>
>> These observational trend estimates are somewhat different from those
>> available to us at the time of the CCSP Report. This holds for both
>> T2LT and SST. For T2LT, the RSS trend used in the CCSP Report and in
>> the Santer et al. (2005) Science paper was roughly 0.13 degrees
>> C/decade. As you can see from the Table given above, it is now ca.
>> 0.17 degrees C/decade. Carl tells me that this change is largely due
>> to a change in how he and Frank adjust for inter-satellite biases.
>> This adjustment now has a latitudinal dependence, which it did not
>> have previously.
>>
>> The tropical SST trends used in the CCSP Report were estimated from
>> earlier versions of the Hadley Centre and NOAA SST data, and were of
>> order 0.12 degrees C/decade. The values estimated from more recent
>> datasets are lower - and markedly lower in the case of NOAA-ERSST-v3
>> (0.077 degrees C/decade). The reasons for this downward shift in the
>> estimated warming of tropical SSTs are unclear. As Carl pointed out in
>> an email that he sent me earlier today:
>>
>> "One important difference is that post 1985, NOAA-ERSST-v3 directly
>> ingests "bias adjusted" SST data from AVHRR, a big change from v2,
>> which didn't use any satellite data (directly). AVHRR is strongly
>> affected in the tropics by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.  If the
>> "bias adjustment" doesn't completely account for this, the trends
>> could be changed".
>>
>> Another possibility is treatment of biases in the buoy data. It would
>> be nice if Dick Reynolds could advise us as to the most likely
>> explanation for the different warming rates inferred from
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 and v3.
>>
>> Bottom line: The most recent estimates of tropical SST changes over
>> 1979 to 1999 are smaller than we reported in the CCSP Report, while
>> the T2LT trend (at least in RSS) is larger. The trend in the observed
>> difference series, NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT, is now -0.089
>> degrees C/decade, which is very good agreement with the multi-model
>> ensemble trend in the Ts minus T2LT difference series (-0.085 degrees
>> C/decade). Ironically, if Douglass et al. had applied their flawed
>> "consistency test" to the multi-model ensemble mean trend and the
>> trend in the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT difference series, they
>> would not have been able to conclude that models and observations are
>> inconsistent!
>>
>> Here are the observed trends in the tropical Ts minus T2LT difference
>> series in the six different pairs of Ts and T2LT datasets, together
>> with the number of "Hits" (rejections of the null hypothesis of no
>> significant difference in trends) and the percentage rejection rate
>> (based on 49 tests in each case)
>>
>> "Pair"                            Trend   1-sigma C.I.  Hits  Rej.Rate
>> HadISST1 Ts minus RSS T2LT        -0.0577 (+/-0.0347)     1   (2.04%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus RSS T2LT   -0.0660 (+/-0.0382)     1   (2.04%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT   -0.0890 (+/-0.0350)     0   (0.00%)
>> HadISST1 Ts minus UAH T2LT        +0.0488 (+/-0.0371)    28  (57.14%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus UAH T2LT   +0.0405 (+/-0.0403)    25  (51.02%)
>> NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus UAH T2LT   +0.0175 (+/-0.0370)    15  (30.60%)
>> Multi-model ensemble mean         -0.0846
>>
>> Things to note:
>>
>> 1) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, the multi-model ensemble
>> mean trend is well within even the 1-sigma statistical uncertainty of
>> the observed trend.
>>
>> 2) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, there are very few
>> statistically-significant differences between the observed and
>> model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and
>> lower troposphere.
>>
>> 3) For all "pairs" involving UAH T2LT data, there are
>> statistically-significant differences between the observed and
>> model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and
>> lower troposphere. Even in these cases, however, rejection of the null
>> hypothesis is not universal: rejection rates range from 30% to 57%.
>> Clearly, not all models are inconsistent with the observational
>> estimate of "differential warming" inferred from UAH data.
>>
>> These results contradict the "model inconsistent with data" claims of
>> Douglass et al.
>>
>> The attached Figure is analogous to the Figure we currently show in
>> the paper for T2LT trends. Now, however, results are for trends in the
>> surface-minus-T2LT difference series. Rather than showing all six
>> "pairs" of observational results in the top panel, I've chosen to show
>> two pairs only in order to avoid unnecessarily complicating the
>> Figure. I propose, however, that we provide results from all six pairs
>> in a Table.
>>
>> As is visually obvious from the Figure, trends in 46 of the 49
>> simulated surface-minus-T2LT difference series pairs are within the
>> 2-sigma confidence intervals of the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT
>> trend (the light grey bar). And as is obvious from Panel B, even the
>> Douglass et al. "sigma{SE}" encompasses the difference series trend
>> from the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts/RSS T2LT pair.
>>
>> I think we should show these results in our paper.
>>
>> The bottom line: Use of newer T2LT datasets (RSS) and Ts datasets
>> (NOAA-ERSST-v3, HADISST1) largely removes the discrepancy between
>> tropical surface and tropospheric warming rates. We need to explain
>> why the observational estimates of tropical SST changes are now
>> smaller than they were at the time of the CCSP Report. We will need
>> some help from Dick Reynolds with this.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel:   (925) 422-2486
>> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
>> email: santer1@llnl.gov
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>       program growlandmergeetc
>       dimension lnd(72,36),nlnd(72,36),ivsst(72,36),jcov(72,36)
>       dimension icmb(72,36),alcov(72,36),ascov(72,36),iysst(72,36)
>       dimension isdvar(72,36,12),neigsd(72,36,12)
>       dimension iorigt(72,36),icount(72,36)
>       dimension ash(12),anh(12),ashp(12),anhp(12)
>       dimension np(12),npch(12),npinf(12),npchan(12),npsst(12)
>       rad=57.2958
>       ir=13
> c  calculate maximum % coverage of hemisphere in cos units
>       xnh=0.0
>       do 20 j=1,18
>       w=cos((92.5-j*5)/rad)
>       do 19 i=1,72
>    19 xnh=xnh+w
>    20 continue
> c  read in land fraction in %
>       read(1,21)i1,i2
>    21 format(2i6)
>       do 22 j=1,36
>    22 read(1,23)(jcov(i,j),i=1,72)
>    23 format(72i6)
> c  set coverage of land to % of at least 25% and less than 75%
> c  ocean percent is then simply the rest
>       do 24 j=1,36
>       do 24 i=1,72
>       alcov(i,j)=0.01*jcov(i,j)
>       if(alcov(i,j).le.24.9)alcov(i,j)=25.0
>       if(alcov(i,j).ge.75.1)alcov(i,j)=75.0
>       ascov(i,j)=100.0 - alcov(i,j)
>    24 continue
> c   read in the sd of the land only datset (var corected) to assess
> c   whether the neighbour check can legitimately correct values
>       do 901 k=1,12
>       read(4,27)ii
>       do 902 j=1,36
>   902 read(4,29)(isdvar(i,j,k),i=37,72),(isdvar(ii,j,k),ii=1,36)
>   901 continue
> c    read in neighbouring sd calculated from at least 4 of the
> c    neigbouring 8 5 degree squares around each grid box
>       do 903 k=1,12
>       read(18,27)ii
>       do 904 j=1,36
>   904 read(18,29)(neigsd(i,j,k),i=37,72),(neigsd(ii,j,k),ii=1,36)
>   903 continue
> c  skip the first 19 years of the variance corrected land data
> c  as the variance corrected SST data only starts in
> c  also skip the first 19 years of the original gridded temps
> c  so later can check the number of stations available per gridbox
> c  per month
>       do 25 k=1851,1869
>       do 26 kk=1,12
>       read(2,27)i1,i2
>    27 format(2i5)
>       read(ir,27)i1,i2
>       do 28 j=1,36
>    28 read(2,29)(lnd(i,j),i=37,72),(lnd(ii,j),ii=1,36)
>    29 format(12i5)
>       do 128 j=1,36
>   128 read(ir,29)(iorigt(i,j),i=37,72),(iorigt(ii,j),ii=1,36)
>       do 129 j=1,36
>   129 read(ir,29)(icount(i,j),i=37,72),(icount(ii,j),ii=1,36)
>    26 continue
>    25 continue
> c   read in the land and sst data (both variance corrected)
> c   reading in the land allow for the greenwich start of the land
> c   and the dateline start for the SST.  Output is from the dateline
>       do 31 k=1870,1999
>       ashy=0.0
>       anhy=0.0
>       if(k.ge.1901)ir=14
>       if(k.ge.1951)ir=15
>       if(k.ge.1991)ir=16
>       if(k.ge.1994)ir=17
>       do 32 kk=1,12
>       npch(kk)=0
>       npchan(kk)=0
>       np(kk)=0
>       npinf(kk)=0
>       npsst(kk)=0
> c    read in the original gridded land to get the station count
> c   per grid box
>       read(ir,27)i1,i2
>       do 131 j=1,36
>   131 read(ir,29)(iorigt(i,j),i=37,72),(iorigt(ii,j),ii=1,36)
>       do 132 j=1,36
>   132 read(ir,29)(icount(i,j),i=37,72),(icount(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> c   read in the variance corrected land
>       read(2,27)i1,i2
>       write(7,27)kk,k
>       do 33 j=1,36
>    33 read(2,29)(lnd(i,j),i=37,72),(lnd(ii,j),ii=1,36)
> c   copy lnd array to nlnd so that the growing doesn't use already
> c   infilled values
>       do 34 j=1,36
>       do 34 i=1,72
>    34 nlnd(i,j)=lnd(i,j)
> c   read in sst data
>       read(3,21)i1,i2
>       do 35 j=1,36
>    35 read(3,23)(ivsst(i,j),i=1,72)
> c   check land for extremes and fill in gaps (only one grid box away
> c   provided there are at least 4 of the 8 surrounding boxes)
>       do 41 j=1,36
>       j1=j-1
>       j2=j+1
>       if(j1.eq.0)j1=1
>       if(j2.eq.37)j2=36
>       do 42 i=1,72
>       sum=0.0
>       nsum=0
>       i1=i-1
>       i2=i+1
>       do 43 jj=j1,j2
>       do 44 ii=i1,i2
>       iii=ii
>       if(iii.eq.73)iii=1
>       if(iii.eq.0)iii=72
>       if(jj.eq.j.and.iii.eq.i)go to 44
>       if(lnd(iii,jj).eq.-9999)go to 44
>       sum=sum+lnd(iii,jj)
>       nsum=nsum+1
>    44 continue
>    43 continue
>       if(lnd(i,j).ne.-9999)np(kk)=np(kk)+1
>       if(nsum.le.3)go to 47
>       sum=sum/nsum
>       ndep=sum+0.5
>       if(sum.lt.0.0)ndep=ndep-1
>       nval=ndep
>       if(lnd(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 46
>       npch(kk)=npch(kk)+1
>       ndep=lnd(i,j)-nval
>       if(neigsd(i,j,kk).eq.-9999)go to 47
>       if(iabs(ndep).le.225)go to 47
>       if(iabs(ndep).lt.neigsd(i,j,kk)*2.0)go to 47
>       if(icount(i,j).ge.2)go to 47
>       nlnd(i,j)=nval
>       npchan(kk)=npchan(kk)+1
>    48 write(6,202)k,kk,j,i,nval,lnd(i,j),ndep,isdvar(i,j,kk),
>      >neigsd(i,j,kk),nlnd(i,j),nsum,icount(i,j),iorigt(i,j)
>   202 format(4i4,9i6)
>       go to 47
>    46 nlnd(i,j)=nval
>       npinf(kk)=npinf(kk)+1
>    47 continue
>    42 continue
>    41 continue
> c  merge with marine using the weighting factors
>       do 51 j=1,36
>       do 52 i=1,72
>       wx=0.0
>       xx=0.0
>       if(nlnd(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 55
>       wx=wx+alcov(i,j)
>       xx=xx+alcov(i,j)*nlnd(i,j)
>    55 if(ivsst(i,j).eq.-32768)go to 56
>       wx=wx+ascov(i,j)
>       xx=xx+ascov(i,j)*ivsst(i,j)
>    56 if(wx.ge.0.001)go to 59
>       icmb(i,j)=-9999
>       go to 57
>    59 aa=xx/wx
>       ia=aa+0.5
>       if(xx.lt.0.0)ia=ia-1
>       icmb(i,j)=ia
> c  writing out the land/sst merging checking when both are present
> c      if(wx.ge.99.9)write(6,203)kk,j,i,ia,nlnd(i,j),ivsst(i,j),
> c     >wx,alcov(i,j),ascov(i,j)
> c  203 format(6i6,3f7.1)
>    57 continue
>    52 continue
>    51 continue
> c  write out the new merged file
>       do 53 j=1,36
>    53 write(7,54)(icmb(i,j),i=1,72)
>    54 format(12i5)
> c  calculate the hemispheric averages
>       anh(kk)=0.0
>       ash(kk)=0.0
>       ashp(kk)=0.0
>       anhp(kk)=0.0
>       wx=0.0
>       xx=0.0
>       do 61 j=1,18
>       w=cos((92.5-j*5.0)/rad)
>       do 62 i=1,72
>       if(icmb(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 62
>       wx=wx+w
>       xx=xx+w*icmb(i,j)
>    62 continue
>    61 continue
>       anh(kk)=xx*0.01/wx
>       anhp(kk)=wx*100.0/xnh
>       wx=0.0
>       xx=0.0
>       do 63 j=19,36
>       w=cos((j*5.0-92.5)/rad)
>       do 64 i=1,72
>       if(icmb(i,j).eq.-9999)go to 64
>       wx=wx+w
>       xx=xx+w*icmb(i,j)
>    64 continue
>    63 continue
>       ash(kk)=xx*0.01/wx
>       ashp(kk)=wx*100.0/xnh
>       anhy=anhy+anh(kk)
>       ashy=ashy+ash(kk)
>    32 continue
>       anhy=anhy/12.0
>       ashy=ashy/12.0
>       write(8,89)k,anh,anhy
>    89 format(i4,12f6.2,f7.2)
>       write(8,90)k,anhp
>    90 format(i4,12f6.0)
>       write(9,89)k,ash,ashy
>       write(9,90)k,ashp
>       write(10,91)k,np
>       write(10,91)k,npch
>       write(10,91)k,npchan
>       write(10,91)k,npinf
>       write(10,92)
>    92 format(/)
>    91 format(i4,12i6)
>    31 continue
>       stop
>       end
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Zhongwei,
Will read soon !
Attached is what I finally submitted to JGR.
Don't pass on to anyone else.
I have also received a paper from Li, Q, but have yet to
read that. He only sent it yesterday.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:55 22/02/2008, you wrote:
Hi, Phil,
Attached please find a draft paper about site-changes and urbanization at Beijing. It
may be regarded as an extension of our early work (Yan et al 2001 AAS) and therefore I
would be happy to ask you to join as a co-author.
Regarding your recent paper about UHI effect in China (no doubt upon a large-scale
warming in the region), I hope the Beijing case may serve as a helpful rather than a
contradictory (as it may appear so) reference.
The urbanization-bias at BJ was considerable but could hardly be quantified. I suspect
it was somehow overestimated by a recent work (Ren et al 2007). Please feel free to
comment and revise.
I'll check and complete the reference list, while you may also add in new references
Cheers
Zhongwei
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Melissa,
Thanks for your comments on the IJoC paper. Here are a few quick responses.
Melissa Free wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> I've looked through the draft and have some comments:
> 1. I don't feel completely comfortable with the use of SSTs rather than
> combined land-sea surface temperatures for the lapse-rate analysis.  Are
> we sure we have thought through the implications of this approach? If
> you show that the relationship between SSTs and tropical mean
> tropospheric temperatures is consistent between models and observations,
> that seems to imply that they are not so consistent for land
> surface-troposphere lapse rates. Could this be used to support the
> Pielke-Christy theory that (land) surface temperature trends are
> overestimated in the existing observational datasets?
I do feel comfortable with use of SSTs (rather than combined land+ocean
temperatures) to estimate changes in tropical lapse rates. As Isaac Held
pointed out, the temperature of the free troposphere in the deep tropics
follows a moist adiabat which is largely set by the warmest SSTs in
areas experiencing convection. The temperature of the free troposphere
in the deep tropics is not set by temperatures over land. So if you want
to see whether observations and models show lapse-rate changes that are
in accord with a moist adiabatic lapse rate theory, it makes sense to
look at SSTs rather than combined land+ocean surface temperatures.
Admittedly, the focus of this paper is NOT on amplification behavior.
Still, it does make sense to look at tropical lower tropospheric lapse
rates in terms of their primary physical driver: SSTs.
As I tried to point out in the text of the IJoC paper, models and
RSS-based estimates of lapser-rate changes are consistent, even if
lapse-rate changes are inferred from combined land+ocean surface
temperatures. The same same does not hold for lapse rate changes
estimated from HadCRUT3v and UAH data. I must admit that I don't fully
understand the latter result. If you look at Table 1, you'll see that
the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard deviation of T{SST} is
0.243 degrees C, while the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard
deviation of T{L+O} is higher (0.274 degrees C). This makes good
physical sense, since noise is typically higher over land than over
ocean. Yet in the HadCRUT3v data, the temporal standard deviation of
T{L+O} (0.197 degrees C) is very similar to that of T{SST} for the
HadISST1 and HadISST2 data (HadISST2 is the SST component of HadCRUT3v).
The fact that HadCRUT3v appears to have very similar variability over
land and ocean seems counter-intuitive to me. Could it indicate a
potential problem in the tropical land 2m temperatures in HadCRUT3v? I
don't know. I'll let Phil address that one. The point is that we've done
- at least in my estimation - a thorough job of looking at the
sensitivity of our significance test results to current observational
uncertainties in surface temperature changes.
> 2. The conclusion seems like too much of a dissertation on past history
> of the controversy.
As I pointed out in my email of Feb. 26th, I had a specific concern
about the "Summary and Conclusions" section. I think that many readers
of the paper will skip all the statistical stuff, and just read the
Abstract and the "Summary and Conclusions". I did want the latter
section to be relatively self-contained. We could have started by
saying: "Here are the errors in Douglass et al., and here is what we
found". But on balance, I thought that it would be more helpful to
provide some scientific context. As I mentioned this morning, the
Douglass et al. paper has received attention in high places. Not
everyone who reads our response will be apprised of the history and context.
> 3. Regarding the time scale invariance of model amplification and the
> effects of volcanic eruptions on the trend comparisons, I am attaching a
> draft of my paper with John Lanzante comparing volcanic signals in sonde
> datasets v. models. I'm not sure if the statements on page 45 of the
> IJOC paper are consistent with my findings. (I thought about sending you
> this paper before, but it seemed like you were probably too busy with
> the IJOC paper to look at it.)
I'll look at your paper this weekend. I'm not quire sure which
statements on page 45 you are referring to.
> 4.  I suspect the statement in the last sentence of the conclusion won't
> represent the view of all authors-although it's certainly Dian's view. I
> don't think it is my view quite yet.
Others have also queried this final paragraph. At present, it looks like
it might be tough to accommodate the divergent views on this subject.
But I'll certainly try my best!
> I'm investigating an expedited internal review process and will let you
> know how it looks.
Thanks for looking into the expedited review!
> -Melissa
With best regards,
Ben
(P.S.: I hope you don't mind that I've copied my reply to Phil. I'm
hoping he can chime in on the issue of land surface temperature
variability in the HadCRUT3v data.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Phil,
Sorry, one other point. In item #4 below, the point that is being made, as shown (and
discussed) elsewhere, applies both to the MBH method and the the canonical regression
method (the latter is demonstrated in experiments by Wahl and Ammann not shown but referred
to elsewhere in the text).  So to be accurate and fair, the sentence in question on page 50
really has to be rephrased as follows:
Examinations of this kind are shown in Figures 3a,b (and  parallel experiments not shown)
demonstrating that, at least for the truncated-EOF CFR method used by MBH98 (employing
inverse regression) and the canonical regression method that has been widely used by many
other paleoclimate researchers, there is some degree of sensitivity to the climatological
information available in calibration.
I realize there are many co-authors on the paper that have used the canonical regression
method before, so perhaps there is pressure to focus the criticism on the MBH method. But
that is simply not fair, as the other analyses by Wahl and Ammann not shown clearly
demonstrates this applies to canonical regression as well--we can debate the relative
sensitivity of the two methods, but it is similar.
This is an absolutely essential issue from my point of view, and I'm afraid I cannot sign
my name to this paper w/out this revision.
I'm sure you understand--thanks for your help,
mike
Michael Mann wrote:
Phil,
Looks mostly fine to me now. I'm in Belgium (w/ the Louvain crowd) and only intermittent
internet access, so will be difficult to provide much more feedback than the below. I hope
that is ok? Here are my remaining minor comments:
1) the author list is a bit front-loaded w/ CRU folks. You should certainly be the first
author, but the remaining order makes this paper look more like a "CRU" effort than a
"Wengen" effort, and perhaps that will have an unintended impact on the way the paper is
received by the broader community. I was also wondering how I ended up so far down the list
:(
I think I was one of the first to provide a substantive contribution to the paper. Was my
contribution really so minor compared to those others? The mechanism behind the author list
is unclear, partially alphabetical (towards the end), but partly not. You are of course the
best judge of peoples' relative contributions, and if the current author order indeed
represents that according to your judgment, then I'm fine w/ that. Just thought I'd check
though.
2) page 45, 2nd paragraph, should substitute "(e.g. Shindell et al, 2001; Collins et al
2002)" for "Collins et al 2002"
3) page 48, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, should substitute "RegEM (implemented with TTLS as
described by Mann et al 2007)  for "RegEM".
4) page 50, bottom paragraph, first sentence: I think that the use of "crucially" here is
unnecessarily inflammatory and overly dramatic. This word can be removed without any
detriment to the point being made, don't you think?
5) page 51, 2nd paragraph, logic does not properly follow in certain places as currently
phrased (a frequent problem w/ Eugene's writing unfortunately!):
a. sentence beginning at end of line 9 of paragraph, should be rephrased as follows:
Mann et al. (2005) used pseudo-proxy experiments that apparently showed that this method
did not underestimate the amplitude of the reconstructed NH temperature anomalies: however,
Smerdon and Kaplan (2007) show that this may have been a false positive result arising from
differences between the implementation of the RegEM algorithm in the pseudo-proxy
experiments and in the real-proxy reconstructions which leads to a sensitivity of the
pseudoproxy results to the calibration period used (also noted by Lee et al., 2008).
b. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased:
Mann et al. (2007; cf. their Figs. 3-4) demonstrate that a variant of the RegEM method that
uses TTLS, rather than ridge regression produces an NH temperature reconstruction whose
amplitude fidelity does not exhibit the calibration interval dependence of the previous
implementation by  Mann et al 2005, and yields reconstructions that do not suffer from
amplitude loss for a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios and noise spectra (though Lee et
al., 2008, suggest that an appropriately implemented ridge regression can also produce good
results).
c. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased:
With TTLS as implemented by Mann et al (2007), RegEM performs without amplitude loss in
model-based tests (versions without trend removal), including using the high-amplitude
ECHO-G model output utilized by Bürger et al. (2006), von Storch et al. (2006), and Küttel
et al. (2007) to examine truncated-EOF methods.
6) page 52, 1st paragraph, 7th line, the reference ot "the MBH reconstruction" is
erroneous, because the tests have nothing to do w/ the MBH reconstruction per se,
only--potentially-the MBH method under certain circumstances. In fact, Mann et al (2007)
[and Wahl and Amman(2007)] both show that the actual amplitude loss realized in the MBH
reconstruction in reality is probably quite small. This very point is made at the top of
page 53! So the reference to "the MBH reconstruction" needs to be eliminated here. It is
already clear by context what this is actually referring to (idealized experiments using
both the MBH and canonical applied to surrogate proxy networks).
7) Re, Caspar--well he seems to be in his "non-responsible" phase right now, hasn't replied
to my messages either. Will keep on trying,
let me know if any of the above needs further elaboration. we're travelling for the weekend
but will still have intermittent email access,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Attached is the penultimate draft of the Wengen paper. If you have time can you
look
through this. If you've not much time, can you look through your sections and
the intro/conclusions. I hope we in CRU have got all your comments in. We have
been through them all - including Gene's which came last night and Francis'
the night before.
WE URGENTLY NEED CASPAR TO REPOND. Can Gene, Mike and anyone
who can get Caspar to respond to emails tell him that there are a few questions
in this draft we need him to respond to. We need better versions of Figure 3, plus
there are some flagged points in Sections 3 and 4.
Juerg - is Figure 5 OK. If not resend separately - don't embed as this screwed up
last time.
Plan A is for us to submit this to The Holocene next Wednesday. So we need
by then, from each of you a quick email to say you've got this and any comments
by next Monday - March 17. Submission will be March 19. There is no Plan B.
With the Feb 20 email, there were no responses from Peck, Eystein and Nick.
If we don't hear from you three by next week, we will remove you from the author list!
If anyone knows if any of these three are in the field please let me know?
Things to check:
1. Everybody happy with the author order. The idea here was the three us in CRU,
the main authors of the sections in section order, then others in alphabetical order.
2. If you have time also look at sections 2.5 and 2.6. Issue here is - is there enough
there. Thanks to Juerg for some of these sections.
3. There are a couple of refs (Juerg) we need - Buntgen et al. and D'Arrigo et al.
Next week, we (CRU) will be working on the alterations- using IPCC rules.
These are - if you want a change justify it, and if you say this is unbalanced, or
just European, or emphasizes Lee et al. (2008), then gives us the additional text
to make alterations. We've left a few comments in where these sorts of comments
were made last time.
There will be time to make alterations while The Holocene  reviews it. It will also
be better to read it later when there is time after submission.
I've not read this version yet, so apologies if there are any pieces of poor English.
I will be reading again this weekend.
Finally, Thorsten, if you think I've missed anybody off this email,
forward and let me know.
Juerg needs to send on to the others within Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [2]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[3]
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [4]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[5]
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:mann@psu.edu
3.
4. mailto:mann@psu.edu
5.


Mike
Yes it was based on only Jan+Feb 2008 and padding with that final value
but John Kennedy has changed / shortly will change this misleading plot!
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mann
Sent: 26 March 2008 11:19
To: Folland, Chris
Cc: Phil Jones; Thomas R Karl
Subject: heads up
Hi Chris  (and Tom and Phil),
I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on
something. Have you seen this?

.png
apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph.  My
understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/
that final value.
Surely this can't be??  Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office
website?
Would appreciate any info you can provide,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
--
David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:www.metoffice.gov.uk


Peck et al,
I recall meeting David Deeming at a meeting years ago (~10).
He worked in boreholes then. I've seen his name on several of the
skeptic websites.
Kevin's idea is a possibility. I wouldn't post on the website
'ukweatherworld'.
The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland.
He is a UK citizen who send countless letters to his MP in the UK, writes
in Energy & Environment about the biased IPCC and has also been hassling
John Mitchell about his role as Review Editor for Ch 6. You might want to
talk to John about how he's responding. He has been making requests under
our FOI about the letters Review Editors sent when signing off. I'm
sure Susan
is aware of this. He's also made requests for similar letters re
WG2 and maybe 3.
Keith has been in contact with John about this.
I've also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP - it would seem to go
back many years, maybe even to around the TAR.  I've no idea where it came
from. I didn't say it!
I've written a piece for RMS [popular journal Weather on the MWP
and LIA - from a UK
perspective. It is due out in June. I can send if you want.
I'm away all next week - with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti - you can't
turn those sorts of meetings down!
Cheers
Phil
At 23:15 26/03/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>Hi Jon
>There is a lot to be said for ignoring such a thing.  But I understand the
>frustration. An alternative approach is to write a blog on this topic of
>the medieval warm period and post it at a neutral site and then refer
>enquiries to that link.  You would have a choice of directly confronting
>the statements or making a more general statement, presumably that such a
>thing is real but was more regional and not as warm as most recent times.
>This approach would not then acknowledge that particular person, except
>indirectly.
>
>A possible neutral site might be blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/
>I posted a number of blogs there last year but not this year.  I can send
>you the contact person if you are interested and you can make the case
>that they should post the blog.
>
>Good luck
>Kevin
>
>
> > Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben - I'm looking
> > for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in
> > advance. The email below recently came in and I
> > googled "We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> > period" and "Overpeck" and indeed, there is a
> > person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
> > an email from me. He apparently did mention the
> > quote (but I don't think me) in a Senate hearing.
> > His "news" (often with attribution to me) appears
> > to be getting widespread coverage on the
> > internet. It is upsetting.
> >
> > I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
> > record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
> > search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
> > assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
> > ago, and that he's taking the quote out of
> > context, since know I would never have said what
> > he's saying I would have, at least in the context
> > he is implying.
> >
> > Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
> > ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
> > imagine that it could take on a life of it's own
> > and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
> > than later. I could - as the person below
> > suggests - make a quick statement on a web site
> > that the attribution to me is false, but I
> > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
> > a fake email. I would then say it's fake. Or just
> > ignore? Or something else?
> >
> > I googled Deeming, and from the first page of
> > hits got the sense that he's not your average
> > university professor... to put it lightly.
> >
> > Again, thanks for any advice - I'd really like
> > this to not blow up into something that creates
> > grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is
> > bogus.
> >
> > Best, Peck
> >
> >
> >>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
> >>Reply-To: "David Holland"
> >>From: "David Holland"
> >>To:
> >>Subject: ukweatherworld
> >>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:39:10 -0000
> >>
> >>Dear Dr Overpeck,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a
> >>Senate hearing to the effect that he had
> >>received an email including a remark to the
> >>effect "We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> >>period". I have now seen several comment web
> >>pages attribute the email to your. Some serious
> >>and well moderated pages like
> >>ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if
> >>the attribution is untrue and would, I feel
> >>sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am
> >>sure that many other blogs would report your
> >>denial. Is there any reason you have not issued
> >>a denial?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>David Holland
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Overpeck
> > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> > Professor, Department of Geosciences
> > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
> >
> > Mail and Fedex Address:
> >
> > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
> > University of Arizona
> > Tucson, AZ 85721
> > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
> > fax: +1 520 792-8795
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>___________________
>Kevin Trenberth
>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>PO Box 3000
>Boulder CO 80307
>ph 303 497 1318
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Chris,
In Tahiti (w/ Phil), limited email. Thanks so much for the detailed
response. I also heard from David about this, who had similar. sounds
like you guys are on top of this. The contrarians will cry conspiracy
once the spurious plot is taken down and replaced w/ a corrected one,
but what you can do.
I'm sorry to hear you're retiring from the Met Office, but sounds like
you're going to remain active, which is great.  lets catch up on things
sometime soon more generally!
talk to you later,
mike
Folland, Chris wrote:
> Dear Mike and all
>
> First, thanks very much, Mike, for noticing this and preventing greater
> problems. The error arose from a pre-existing hidden software bug that
> the person updating the data had not realised was there. The software is
> a mixture of languages which makes it less than transparent. The bug is
> now fixed on all the smoothed graphs. It was made worse because the last
> point was not an average of several preceding years as it should have
> been but was just January 2008. So many apologies for any excitement
> this may have created in the hearts of the more ardent sceptics. Some
> are much on the warpath at present over the lack of recent global
> warming, fired in some cases by visions of a new solar Dalton Minimum.
>
> I'm retiring from full time work on 17th April but I will return part
> time semi-retired taking pension on 1 June. I've managed to keep my
> present grading. My Climate Variability and Forecasting group is being
> split (it's the largest in the Hadley Centre by a margin). The biggest
> part is becoming technically from today a new Climate Monitoring and
> Attribution group under Peter Stott as Head. He will bring two existing
> attribution staff to make a group of c.22. Most of the rest (12) will
> form the bulk of a new Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting group to be set
> up most likely this summer with a new Head. Finally Craig Donlon,
> Director of the GODAE GHRSST sea surface temperature project, will go
> back to our National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (in the next wing of
> this building), but will work closely we hope with Nick Rayner in Peter
> Stott's new group on HadISST2.
>
> I will return to a new 3 day a week position in the Seasonal to Decadal
> Forecasting Group, a mixture of research, some strategy and advice, and
> importantly, operational seasonal, annual, and probably decadal,
> forecasting. The Met Office are putting more emphasis on this area,
> especially the seasonal at present, which is becoming high profile as
> seasonal success is perceived to have improved. No staff
> responsibilities! Tom Peterson will approve! I will keep my
> co-leadership with Jim Kinter of the Clivar Climate of the Twentieth
> Century modelling project for now as well.
>
> So quite a change, as I will be doing more computing work than I have
> had time for, moving into IDL this autumn which the Hadley Centre as a
> whole are moving over to about then.
>
> Mike, it's a fair time since we interacted so I'd be very interested in
> your activities and plans.
>
> With best regards
>
> Chris
>
> Prof. Chris Folland
> Head of Climate Variability and Forecasting Research
>
> Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United
> Kingdom
> Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646
> Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
>         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
>
> Fellow of the Met Office
> Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
> Anglia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mann
> Sent: 26 March 2008 11:19
> To: Folland, Chris
> Cc: Phil Jones; Thomas R Karl
> Subject: heads up
>
> Hi Chris  (and Tom and Phil),
>
> I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on
> something. Have you seen this?
>
> .png
> apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph.  My
> understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/
> that final value.
>
> Surely this can't be??  Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office
> website?
>
> Would appreciate any info you can provide,
>
> mike
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
> 503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
> The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
>
>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013


Geoff,
Have had a look through. I hope all will read their own CVs and institution bits.
My caught one word in Suraje's paragraph. The word was 'severed'. It should be
'served' !   Also his promising suit of methods would read better as a 'suite'
Finally in Mark's he's  a Principal Investigator.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:38 15/04/2008, Darch, Geoff J wrote:
Dear all,
Thanks to everyone for sending text etc, in particular to Jim and Chris for the succinct
answer to ET1.
Please find attached (1) the full PQQ, minus Experience and Technical (ET) text, for
information; (2) the ET text, for review.
I'd be grateful for your review of the ET text.  In particular (a) please comment on my
draft table in ET2 - I have done my best to capture my knowledge of CRU and Tyndall
skills with respect to the criteria, but you are clearly better placed than me! (b) do
you think the CVs cover the technical areas adequately?  We may be a little weak on
conservation and ecology.  We have a good CV we can add here, and I'm sure Tyndall has
too (e.g. Andrew) but that would mean taking another out.
We are exploring a link with the specialist communications consultancy Futerra, but
apart from a brief mention, we leaving anything else on this to the full bid stage.
I'd be grateful if you would let me have any comments by 4pm today.  This will give me
time to finalise the document and email it first thing tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Geoff
>
>
Geoff Darch
Senior Consultant
Water and Environment
ATKINS
Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, PE2 6YS, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969
Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999
Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590
E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com
Web: [1]www.atkinsglobal.com/climatechange
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not
the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be
legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No.
1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of
wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at:
[2]
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. file://www.atkinsglobal.com/climatechange
2.


"
X-Errors-To: masmith@wiley.co.uk
Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com
24-Apr-2008
JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
Dear Dr Santer
I have received one set of comments on your paper to date. Altjhough I would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation for revisions. Accordingly please find attached one set of comments. Hopefully I should have two more to follow in the near future.
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\- santerreport1.pdf"


Dear folks,
On April 11th, I received an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor at IJoC. I
am now forwarding that email, together with my response to Prof. McGregor.
Prof. McGregor's email asks for my opinion of an "Addendum" to the
original DCPS07 IJoC paper. The addendum is authored by Douglass,
Christy, Pearson, and Singer. As you can see from my reply to Prof.
McGregor, I do not think that the Addendum is worthy of publication.
Since one part of the Addendum deals with issues related to the RAOBCORE
data used by DCPS07 (and by us), Leo responded to Prof. McGregor on this
point. I will forward Leo's response in a separate email.
The Addendum does not reference our IJoC paper. As far as I can tell,
the Addendum represents a response to discussions of the original IJoC
paper on RealClimate.org. Curiously, Douglass et al. do not give a
specific source for the criticism of their original paper. This is
rather bizarre. Crucially, the Addendum does not recognize or admit ANY
ERRORS in the original DCPS07 paper.
I have not yet heard whether IJoC intends to publish the Addendum. I'll
update you as soon as I have any further information from Prof. McGregor.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\[Fwd Re JOC-08-0098 - Interna.pdf"
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path:
Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:24 -0700
Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id m3BIJN5F012995
for
; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:24 -0700
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5272"; a="31695223"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,642,1199692800";
d="scan'208";a="31695223"
Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29])
by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2008 11:14:37 -0700
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:37 -0700
From: Ben Santer
Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz
CC: Leopold Haimberger
,
"Thorne, Peter"
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Prof. McGregor,
Thank you for your email, and for your efforts to ensure rapid review of
our paper.
Leo Haimberger (who has led the development of the RAOBCORE* datasets)
and Peter Thorne would be best placed to comment on the first issue
raised by the Douglass et al. "Addendum". As we show in Figure 6 of our
IJoC paper, recently-developed radiosonde datasets which do not rely on
reanalysis data for correction of inhomogeneities (such as the Sherwood
et al. IUK product and the Haimberger et al. "RICH" dataset) yield
vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature change that are in better
agreement with model results, and quite different from the profiles
shown by Douglass et al.
The second issue raised in the Douglass et al. "Addendum" is completely
spurious. Douglass et al. argue that their "experimental design"
involves involves "comparing like to like", and satisfying "the critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations".
If this was indeed their experimental design, Douglass et al. should
have have examined "AMIP" (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project)
simulations, in which an atmospheric model is run with prescribed
changes in observed time-varying sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and
sea-ice distributions. Use of AMIP simulations would allow an analyst to
compare simulated and observed tropospheric temperature changes given
the same underlying changes in SSTs.
But Douglass et al. did NOT consider results from AMIP simulations, even
though AMIP data were freely available to them (AMIP data were in the
same "CMIP-3" archive that Douglass et al. accessed in order to obtain
the model results analyzed in their original IJoC paper). Instead,
Douglass et al. examined results from coupled model simulations. As we
discuss at length in Section 3 of our paper, coupled model simulations
are fundamentally different from AMIP runs. A coupled model is NOT
driven by observed changes in SSTs, and therefore would not have (except
by chance) the same SST changes as the real world over a specific period
of time.
Stratifying the coupled model results by the observed surface
temperature changes is not a meaningful or useful thing to do,
particularly given the small ensemble sizes available here. Again, if
Douglass et al. were truly interested in imposing "the critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations",
they should have examined AMIP runs, not coupled model results.
I also note that, although Douglass et al. stipulate their "critical
condition that the model surface temperatures match the observations",
they do not actually perform any stratification of the model trend
results! In other words, Douglass et al. do NOT discard simulations with
surface trends that differ from the observed trend. They simply note
that the MODEL AVERAGE surface trend is close to the observed surface
trend, and state that this agreement in surface trends allows them to
evaluate whether the model average upper air trend is consistent with
observed upper air trends.
The Douglass et al. "Addendum" does nothing to clarify the serious
statistical flaws in their paper. Their conclusion - that modelled and
observed upper air trends are inconsistent - is simply wrong. As we
point out in our paper, Douglass et al. reach this incorrect conclusion
by ignoring uncertainties in observed and modelled upper air trends
arising from interannual variability, and by applying a completely
inappropriate "consistency test". Our Figure 5 clearly shows that the
Douglass et al. "consistency test" yields incorrect results. The
"Addendum" does not suggest that the authors are capable of recognizing
or understanding the errors inherent in either their "experimental
method" or their "consistency test".
The Douglass et al. IJoC paper reached a radically different conclusion
from the conclusions reached by Santer et al. (2005), the 2006 CCSP
report, the 2007 IPCC report, and Thorne et al. (2007). It did so on the
basis of essentially the same data used in previous work. Most
scientists would have asked whether the "consistency test" which yielded
such startlingly different conclusions was appropriate. They would have
applied this test to synthetic data, to understand its behaviour in a
controlled setting. They would have applied alternative tests. They
would have done everything they possibly could to examine the robustness
of their findings. Douglass et al. did none of these things.
I will ask Leo Haimberger and Peter Thorne to respond to you regarding
the first issue raised in the Douglass et al. "Addendum".
Best regards,
Ben Santer
(* In their addendum, Douglass et al. erroneously refer to "ROABCORE"
datasets. One would hope that they would at least be able to get the
name of the dataset right.)
g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> 10-Apr-2008
>
> JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
> Dear Dr Santer
>
> Just to let you know that I am trying to secure reviews of your paper asap.
>
> I have attached an addendum for the Douglass et al. paper recently sent to me by David Douglass. I would be interested to learn of your views on this
>
>
> Best,
>
> Prof. Glenn McGregor
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tom,
Here's what I sent Kevin yesterday. Still don't have the proofs with Figures in. It is
most odd how
this Cambridge seminar has been so widely publicised. Michael
McIntyre seems to be sending it everywhere. Dave Thompson is
on a sabbatical in the UK for 6 months (at Reading). Should be here soon
for a visit to CRU.
The press release is very much work in progress. Appended the latest version
at the end.  This version still need some work. Maybe I'll get a chance later today.
cc'd Ben as if and when (hopefully) the 'where Douglass et al went wrong' paper comes
out a press release then would be useful.  In both cases, there is a need to say things
in plain English and not the usual way we write.
For some reason the skeptics (CA) are revisiting the Douglass et al paper. A very quick
look shows that a number think the paper is wrong!
There is also a head of steam being built up (thanks to a would be Australian
astronaut who knows nothing about climate) about the drop in temperature due
to La Nina. If you've time look at the HadCRUT3 plot for March08. It was the
warmest ever for NH land. The snow cover plots at Rutgers are interesting also.
Jan08 for Eurasia had the most coverage ever, but March08 had the least
(for their respective months).
It seems we just need the La Nina to finally wind down and the oceans to warm up
a little. The press release could be an issue, as it looks as though we are
underestimating SST
with the buoys - by about 0.1 deg C.
Cheers
Phil
Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary fluctuations in global
temperature due to El Niño and transient weather patterns, researchers at Colorado State
University, the University of Washington, the UK Met Office and the University of East
Anglia have highlighted a number of sudden drops in global temperature.
Most of these drops coincide with the eruptions of large tropical volcanoes and are also
evident in air temperatures measured over the worlds land areas, but the largest, occurring
towards the end of 1945, is unrelated to any known volcanic eruption and is not apparent
over land. It appears to arise from an artificial and temporary cooling caused by an abrupt
change in the mix of US and UK ships reporting temperatures at the end of the Second World
War.
The majority of sea temperature measurements available in international data bases between
1941 and 1945 are from US ships. Far fewer data are available in this period than in the
1930s and the 1950s. The crews of US ships measured the temperature of the water before it
was used to cool the ships engine. Because of warmth coming from the ship, the water was
often a little warmer than the true sea temperature. At the end of 1945 the number of US
observations in the data base dropped rapidly. At the same time the number of UK
observations increased. UK ships measured the temperature of water samples collected using
special buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled onto the deck often
caused these measurements to be cooler than the actual sea temperature. The sudden change
from US (engine room) to UK (bucket) measurements from warmer to cooler is what caused the
abruptness of the drop.
Although the drop in 1945 was large in climate-change terms about 0.3°C its full effect is
likely to be limited to the period immediately after the Second World War, because by the
1960s better-insulated buckets were coming into use and a there was a more varied mix of
measurements from different national merchant shipping fleets. Because it occurs in the
middle of the century it will have little effect on 20^th Century warming trends, which are
corroborated by independent records of air temperatures taken over both land and sea.
Climate researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre are working to reduce the biases in the
temperature datasets. In the past two years, many hundreds of thousands of observations
have been keyed in from hand-written log books that were kept aboard ships in the UK navy,
particularly for the periods of sparse marine coverage, such as the two World War periods.
Although fixing the drop is unlikely to radically alter our understanding of climate
change, having a more accurate record of the real temperature change during the mid-20^th
century could provide insight into the more subtle mechanisms that caused the early rise in
temperatures to the 1920s and the subsequent flattening of the temperature curve that
lasted into the early 1970s.
Marine temperatures are much more prone to systematic biases arising from changes in the
way the measurements are taken and the platforms used,,than are land aur temperatures.  For
example, since the 1970s, sea surface temperatures have been estimated from satellites, but
these need considerable adjustment (sometimes in excess of 2 deg C) to be comparable with
ship and buoy measurements. The satellite sees only the top millimetre of the ocean
surface, while traditional ship-based sampling sees the top few metres. A change is
gradually talking place across the worlds oceans in the way sea surface temperature
measurements are made during the last ten years: the number of ship-based measurements has
reduced slightly, but there is a dramatic increase in the number of measurements coming
from automatic measurements taken on fixed and drifting buoys. Work is underway to
determine the size of the difference between the ships and buoys, as the bias between the
two could be of the same order as that in the 1940s.
Kevin,
Odd how far and wide Cambridge seminars are advertised!
Dave Thompson has given this talk at Reading and will be here tomorrow for
a similar talk.  Here's an email I sent earlier to someone in London.
I'm on the Nature paper - due out end of May/early June.
Attached the draft press release as well.
Any thoughts welcome. I hope you'll see how all this could be misinterpreted!
Cheers
Phil
Chris,
David Thompson is giving a talk here tomorrow on this.
The essence of his talk will be in Nature in a few weeks time.
The skeptics will make a meal of this when it
comes out,  but if they did their job properly (I know this is impossible!) they would
have found it. It relates to a problem with SST data in the late 1940s. The
problem will get corrected for at some point. SSTs need adjusting as there must be
from buckets for the period from Aug45 by about 0.3 gradually reducing to
a zero adjustment by about the mid-1960s.  The assumption was that after WW2 they were
all intake measurements and didn't need adjusting.
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling
with sulphates won't be quite as necessary.  It won't change century-scale trends.
There is much more of an interesting thing going on now. With all the drifters
now deployed measuring SST, the % of ships making measurements in now
only about 40% of the total - whereas it was all in the late 1990s. In comparisons
over the last 10 years it seems that ships measure SSTs about 0.1-0.2 higher
than the drifters/buoys. As the 61-90 base period is ship based, it means
recent anomalies are colder than they should be (by about 0.1 for global mean
T in the last 2 years).
Working on a press release with MOHC about the Nature paper.
We've been though page proofs with Nature, but these don't yet include figs.
I can send these when we get them.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:02 28/04/2008, you wrote:
Phil
Any idea what this is about?
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature variability
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:00:36 +0100 (BST)
From: Leverhulme Climate Symposium [1]
Reply-To: [2]climate@esc.cam.ac.uk
To: [3]climate@esc.cam.ac.uk
Dear Colleagues,
David Thompson of Colorado State University will be speaking in Cambridge
on 22 May on 'Understanding 20th century surface temperature variability'.
His talk will 'highlight a glaring but previously overlooked error in the
time series of global-mean temperatures', see full abstract below. (For
those too far from Cambridge to attend, this is for information and
interest).
The prevailing view of 20th century temperature variability is that the
Earth warmed from ~1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from ~1940 to 1970, and
warmed markedly from ~1970 onward. In this talk I will exploit a
physically-based filtering methodology which provides an alternative
interpretation of 20th century global-mean temperature variability. The
results clarify the consistency between the century- long monotonic rise
in greenhouse gases and global-mean temperatures, provide new insights
into the climatic impact of volcanic eruptions, and highlight a glaring
but previously overlooked error in the time series of global-mean
temperatures.
Thursday  22 May, 2.15 pm in Meeting Room 2, Centre for Mathematical
Sciences (between Clarkson and Madingley Roads)
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [4]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [5]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:climate@esc.cam.ac.uk
2. mailto:climate@esc.cam.ac.uk
3. mailto:climate@esc.cam.ac.uk
4. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
5.


Dear Glenn,
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC
in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al.
IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary
claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et
al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred
Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his
argument that "Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such
erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the
more harm is caused.
In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review
process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that
it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of
review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> 05-May-2008
>
> JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
> Dear Dr Santer
>
> I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
>
> Best,
>
> Prof. Glenn McGregor
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Glenn -- I hope the slow reviewer is not one that I suggested!  Sorry if it is.  I'm not
sure what Ben Santer expects you to do about it at this stage; I guess you didn't expect
such a lengthy article... I've not seen it, but Phil Jones told me it ran to around 90
pages!  Hope all's well in NZ.  Tim
At 03:32 06/05/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Glenn,
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to
correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that
there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific
value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author
(S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that
"Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such erroneous claims are made without
any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.
In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be
handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months
until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our
paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
05-May-2008
JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical
Troposphere
Dear Dr Santer
I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have
these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra,
These will be fine. Keep a note of these in the file to check
against when the later claims are made.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:08 07/05/2008, Cater Sandra Mrs \(FIN\) wrote:
Dear Phil,
I have reconciled the account to date and propose to send the following figures all in
US$
Received to date            1,589,632.00
2007/08
Staff buyout Jones           71,708.00
Cons actual to date            9,650.00
Travel actual to date           6,940.00
Indirect costs on above         66,200.00
Total to 30/04/08            1,744,130.00
April to June 08
Staff Jones                 19,290.00
Cons                             10,550.00 includes some of the previous year under
spend
Travel                            3,840.00 as above
Indirect costs                 25,200.00
Total                             58,880.00
July to Sep 08
Staff Jones                 19,290.00
Cons                             3,200.00 includes some previous under spend
Travel                            4,500.00 as above
Indirect costs                 20,200.00
Total                             47,190.00
These figures keep within the allocated budget. Please let me know if you agree this I
will e-mail Catherine.
Regards
Sandra
Sandra M Cater
Office Supervisor
Finance Research
Registry Building
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR 4 7TJ
Tel : 0044-1603-593216
Fax : 0044-1603-593860
e-mail: s.cater@uea.ac.uk
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:44 AM
To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS); Meldrum Alicia Dr (RBS); Cater Sandra Mrs (FIN)
Subject: Fwd: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant
Alicia, Fiona, Sandra,
Hope this doesn't take too long to work out and send to Catherine.
If you need any help let me know.
Cheers
Phil
X-Server-Uuid: F0E03B37-707C-4DCF-A928-7EECE47830F0
Subject: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:44:38 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant
Thread-Index: Aciq8j7EoosKEL4QQ9OUgErATV9ppA==
From: "Richardson, Catherine"
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2008 18:44:39.0681 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3F0EEF10:01C8AAF2]
X-WSS-ID: 640661D233S4167282-01-01
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 2299780 - 2e3481b4882c (trained as not-spam)
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[2]
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[3]
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [4]
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Fiona Meardon
East Anglia University
Dear Grantee:
SUBJECT:  REQUEST FOR COST INFORMATION
In accordance with the Presidents Management Agenda, there has been and continues to be
a Government-wide movement to ensure that the American people receive better results for
their money.  Thus, all government entities are striving to improve the quality,
accuracy, and timeliness of financial information regarding the results of operations
and overall performance.  As we seek to accomplish this goal, we are requesting cost
data from our Grant recipients that have received significant financial assistance
monies from the Department of Energy Office of Science - Chicago Office.  The requested
information, summarized below, will assist in our continuing efforts to ensure that we
produce accurate and timely financial information.  We need your assistance in the
following areas:
A.         Providing Cumulative Cost Data:
For most of the awards administered by the Office of Science - Chicago Office, there is
a financial reporting requirement to submit cost data on the Financial Status Report
(SF-269) at the end of the project period.  Currently, there is no requirement for you
to submit cost data on a more frequent basis.  However, in order to achieve our goal of
improving the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of our financial information, the
Departments external independent auditors have insisted that we confirm cumulative cost
balances with Grantees that have received significant financial assistance monies at
least annually.  For each grant award listed, we request that you provide the following:
DOE Grant Award(s) No.
1.
Cumulative actual Cost through March 31, 2008
(from inception of the award):
2.
Your best estimate for costs to be incurred for April through June 30, 2008:
3.
Your best estimate for costs to be incurred for July through September 30, 2008:
We are not requiring a specific or formal format for the requested information.
Instead, please e-mail your cost data as requested above for each identified grant award
to Catherine Richardson at [5]catherine.richardson@ch.doe.gov.  Please direct your
comments and/or questions to Ms. Richardson at 630/252-6276.
B.         Requesting Advances and Reimbursements:
Consistent with our efforts to improve the Departments financial information, we are
reviewing significant unpaid balances on our financial assistance awards as well as any
credit balances on the Quarterly Federal Cash Transactions Reports (SF-272) which would
indicate a delay between the performance of the work and the requests for reimbursements
submitted to us from your organization.  The Departments external auditors and other
users of financial information are concluding that these unpaid balances may not be used
and possibly should be withdrawn.  Therefore, we request that you:
·                   Review your existing procedures for requesting advances and
reimbursements from DOE; and
·                    Ensure that the delay between the performance of work and
subsequent reimbursements is as minimal as administratively possible.
If this situation does not apply to your organization, no action is required on your
part.
We appreciate your support in this important initiative.  If you have any questions,
please call Cornell Williams at 630/252-2394 or e-mail him at
[6]cornell.williams@ch.doe.gov.
Catherine Richardson
Staff Accountant
US Department of Energy
Office of Science - Chicago Office
(630)252-6276
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2.
3.
4.
5. mailto:catherine.richardson@ch.doe.gov
6. mailto:cornell.williams@ch.doe.gov