Geoff,
David is essentially right. In 1986 we rejected
38 (if my memory from 1986) is correct!  I don't
recall the number we looked at so I can't give a
percentage, as I'm not that much of a trainspotter.
The % would be small though, as we looked the
homogeneity of about 2500 then. Also some which
might have been affected by urbanization might have
been rejected for other reason. I'm half asleep here
in my hotel room in Beijing (same hotel as the IPCC
meeting David!) as it is just gone 8pm! I have the
pdf of the 1986 paper and 38 rejected for urban
warming trends (31 in N. America and 7 in Europe
- none elsewhere) out of 2666. 239 were rejected for
other reasons.
Brohan et al is the best reference. We included
urbanization as one of the biases (one sided as urban
should lead to warming, so if you look very, very
closely at the error range in the paper you'll
see it is slightly one-sided.
I've been giving some talks here and have more tomorrow.
At CMA I've found they have a homogenized dataset of 745
stations for the country which they are preapred to give
me at some point for inclusion. They have adjusted for all
site moves but not for urbanization. It seems that it
is almost impossible for sites here to be rural (maybe only
1% of the total). Sites move out of the city at regular
intervals as the cities expand. So Beijing has 6-7 site
moves since 1951!  Also China seems to be the only
country that doesn't use airport sites. None are located
at airports.  I'm going to give them my Chinese sites
in return so they can do some comparisons. I'll
talk with their person (Mr Li ) more tomorrow.
Another interesting bit of work here is that they also
have an homogenized set of monthly wind speed data from 1951.
Not sure how they homogenize this for site moves, but
almost all the sites (about 200) show declines in mean
wind speeds since 1951. NCEP and ERA-40 also show this
for wind speeds at 1000, 925 and 850hPa as well. Odd thing
is that they think the decline in wind speeds is due
to urbanization! - Li's English isn't great though, so
I could be wrong. Another person I've been talking to
has been looking at precip trends from 1951 - again
they think declines in N. China are due to urbanization!
Odd then that there are increases in S. China, which is
also urbanized at similar rates.
Air quality here is awful - I saw the sun for the first
time since arrival on Sunday, after a long downpour cleared
the air this morning! The haze will be back tomorrow. Apparently they
will closing the worst factories and getting half the cars
off the road next August for the Olympics! Traffic might
flow better for the latter, but can't see the former
doing that much good. What they need to do is to get
a heavy downpour every early morning!
Cheers
Phil
> Geoff
>
> It is correct that Phil Jones removes stations that appear to have urban
> warming, unlike Hansen et al. who correct them. I don't know the
> percentage of stations that Phil removes; details were probably
> originally given in the Jones et al 1985 and 1986 USDoE reports (see
> references given in Jones and Moberg, 2003 (attached); the reports are
> probably only available on paper and are not now in my collection of
> box-files!) and could take some time to collate. But to do this might
> not be useful as Phil could have rejected further stations from the
> additional datasets he accrued since then. Nevertheless I expect the
> rejection rate is small.
>
> Brohan et al is the best reference for a discussion of the urbanization
> uncertainty in land surface air temperatures.
>
> I hope this helps somewhat.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 11:46 +0100, Jenkins, Geoff wrote:
>> David
>>
>> If I understand Phil right, there are no stations which are CORRECTED
>> for UHI effects, but there are several (roughly what percentage?) which
>> are REMOVED. I would be grateful if you could give me the best ref to
>> this (is it Brohan et al 2006), to pass to an outside sceptical enquirer
>> (one Nigel Lawson, remember him?). He already knows about yr recent
>> windy/calm comparison paper via the "Briefing" booklet I did.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
>> Sent: 16 July 2007 21:59
>> To: Jenkins, Geoff
>> Subject: Re: UHI corrections
>>
>>
>>
>>  Geoff,
>>    In China this week and away next week. Best Ref is
>>  really Ch3  of AR4 (IPCC). We don't make adjustments
>>  just remove the stations affected.
>>
>>    Best if you contact David Parker. There is also
>>  some stuff in Brohan et al. (2006) in JGR. Also
>>  David P has a couple of papers on the subject.
>>
>>   We incorporate possible residual urban effects into
>>  the error estimates of global T.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>> > Phil
>> >
>> > Sorry to keep bombarding you. What is the best ref to your corrections
>>
>> > of land surface temps (in CRUTEM, presumably) for heat island effects,
>>
>> > please?
>> >
>> > Geoff
>> >
>> > Dr Geoff Jenkins
>> > Manager, Climate Change Scenarios
>> > Hadley Centre
>> > Met Office
>> > FitzRoy Road, EXETER, EX1 3PB, UK
>> > tel: +44 (0) 787 966 1136
>> > geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk
>> > www.metoffice.gov.uk
>> >
>> >
>>
> --
> David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road  EXETER  EX1 3PB  UK
> E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
> Tel: +44-1392-886649     Fax: +44-1392-885681
>
>
>
>


Phil
Confidential: Dennis Shea just had angiogram: 75% blockage: having open heart surgery
tomorrow morning.  He does not want this known till the operation results are known.
============
This is awful stuff and I can't imagine that this could be published.  I know of this
fellow Peiser though and he is extremely biased (against you likely).  So treading with
caution is warranted.  The email seems to invite a comment but not a review.  You should
probably only respond with something that you would not mind being published.  You can also
point out errors of fact.  Whether you point out errors of logic or opinion is another
matter altogether.  If you write just to the editor you can try to evaluate the comment and
point out that it lacks substance.
I think my approach would be to try to stick to science.e.g.
I don't know what was done for the 1990 paper but obviously sound practice is
1) we attempt to use homogeneous data
2) Site moves are one indication of lack of homogeneity but there are standard means of
adjusting for such moves especially when there is an overlap in the record.
3) All data are scrutinized for possible problems and discontinuities, especially if there
is a question about a possible move and the date is known.
4) Site movements do not necessarily prejudice the record toward warming or cooling: a move
from the inner city to an outlying airport can result in cooling, for instance.
5) Revisions are made when new information becomes available.
6) It is helpful if researchers can improve the records and provide updated analyses.
Or something to this effect.  You could try a patronizing approach of over explaining the
difficulties.
At the very least you should be critical of the statement in 4. that he "politely requested
an explanation".  He quotes you as saying:
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it?".[1][1]
______________________________
[2][1]  McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations (Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives). This is a
sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at
[3]
f.]
but you have no reason to be defensive: if there was a problem with the data and all due
care was taken, then if there is something wrong with it, it was the responsibility of
those who took the data, not those who used it responsibly.  You should also point out that
the data are just as available to anyone as to you.
In the IPCC report we are careful to say that there are urban effects and they are
important and we have a lot about them.  But they are small on the global scale.  His
conclusions are wrong. Also the IPCC evaluates published works and does not do research or
deal with raw data.
In the appendix, presumably the quotes are based on the best information at the time.  That
was then.
The conclusions of the author that fabrication occurred is not valid.  Maybe things could
have been done better, but that universally applies.
Let me know if you want more concrete suggestions
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin, Mike,
Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment has gone
to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but
Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about.
I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond?
If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends.  I could come up
with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data
rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's
web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the
sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has
no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't
seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for whatever, so it
seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review?
E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal.
Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best documentary
proxies.
Cheers
Phil
Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
From: "Peiser, Benny" [4]
To: [5]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Dr Jones
I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
[6]
I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Benny Peiser
Guest editor, E&E
Liverpool John Moores University, 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    [7]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [8]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
Visible links
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftnref1
3.
4. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk
5. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
6.
7. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
8. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
9.
Hidden links:
10. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1


thanks Phil,
I did take the liberty of discussing w/ Gavin, who can of course be
trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We're in agreement that
Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in
its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense
that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of
us fall under the category of 'limited public figures' and therefore the
threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is *not* the case for
Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major
miscalculation here in treating him as if he is. In the UK, where E&E is
published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the states for
proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice on this, as
soon as possible.
With respect to Peiser's guest editing of E&E and your review, following
up on Kevin's suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if
there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very
important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege
that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity
to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on
the legal implications. In particular, you should  mention that the
publisher of a libel is also liable for damages - that might make Sonja
B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the
resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all
together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually
win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out...
RealClimate is of course always available to you as an outlet, if it
seems an appropriate venue. But we should be careful not to jump the gun
here.
Kevin: very sorry to hear about Dennis. Please pass along my best wishes
for a speedy recovery if and when it seems appropriate to do so...
Mike
Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike, Kevin,
>     Thanks for your sets of thoughts. I've been in touch with Wei-Chyung,
>  who's in China at the moment. He forwarded the 'paper!' to the people
> dealing
>  with Keenan's allegations at SUNY. He got a reply to say that Keenan
>  has now violated the confidentiality agreement related to
>  the allegation. So, it isn't right to respond whilst this is
> ongoing.  I will
>  draft something short though, whilst it's all fresh in my mind. Then
> I can
>  get onto something else.
>      I did send the email below to Peiser clarifying whether he wanted
>  a review or just thoughts. I got the amazing reply - sent to three
> reviewers!
>      So, letting the SUNY process run its course. Once finished, Real
> Climate
>  may be one avenue to lay out all the facts/details.
>
>   Away tomorrow. I think you have Monday off, so have a good long
> weekend!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>> Subject: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:48:43 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqVG3NykjMc9doTBWIfTqkHPH+xwACAfp3
>> From: "Peiser, Benny"
>> To: "Phil Jones"
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Phil
>>
>> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take
>> your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the
>> claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies your query.
>>
>> With best regards
>> Benny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Phil Jones
>> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
>> To: Peiser, Benny
>> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Benny,
>>     Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your
>>   email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper?
>> If you
>>   want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as
>>   reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed?
>>
>>   Phil
>>
>>
>> At 15:18 29/08/2007, you wrote:
>> >Dear Dr Jones
>> >
>> >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> >that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content
>> and
>> >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>> >
>> >I look forward to hearing from you.
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely
>> >
>> >Benny Peiser
>> >Guest editor, E&E
>> >Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
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


Phil,
I think you need to respond by providing E&E with a simple answer
of "false" to Keenan's write-up, based on the communication with me
(but no mention of SUNYA confidentiality issue, it has to come
directly from SUNYA).  That will force E*E to contact either me
directly or SUNYA.  If the former, I can refer to SUNYA also, and let
the university to handle it.
My reading is that, since the IPCC policy report is coming out soon
(in October?), Keenan is in panic and wants to tint the Nature paper
as much and as soon as possible, so he can not wait for SUNYA to
conduct "inquery" (not investigation) which he knows he is not getting
what he wants.  Going to news medium will not do his trick because he
can not really explain it.  So in a way Keenan traps himself now,
betting on that the "station history" was not available and that the
stations have moved a lot (he does not know that at all).  We are
facing a tricky person and group, and the only way to do it is to
follow the procedure to drive them crazy.  E&E is not going to publish
it without giving me the chance to respond, and that is when SUNYA
comes in and that is what Keenan does not want to see as well, he
wants to create a smocky screen before the truth comes out. We are not
going to let Keenan doing things his way.  So be easy, and respond
directly what you learn from me (and any other scienctific issues you
can identify) and perhaps even ask E&E to contact me/or SUNYA for
verification.
I know you are under tremendous pressure, but Keenan is in panic and
what he has done is going back to burn him, badly.  We should be
thinking, after the whole odeal is over, to take legal (or other)
actions against Keenan.  This is time I regre not been a rich person,
otherwise I can throw a million dollar lawsuit against him.
Let me know what you want to do.  I have also asked SUNYA's opinion
about what you should do within the SUNYA framework.  But be careful
that you do not know much about SUNYA action.
WCW
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Jones
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>
>  Wei-Chyung,
>     Been thinking. A couple of thoughts:
>
>  1. Libel is quite easy to prove in the UK as you're not a public
> figure.  Perhaps when you're back you ought to consider taking
> some legal
>  advice from SUNY. Assuming the paper is published that is.
>
>  2. More important. I think I should send a short email to the editor
>  Peiser and inform him that Keenan has broken his agreement with
>  SUNY over this issue. If I don't, they could say I had the chance
>  and didn't.  Can you check with SUNY whether the folks there think
>  I should? I just don't want to do anything that later could be
> construed  as the wrong thing now. I could also point out some
> factual errors.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
> At 10:06 30/08/2007, wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu wrote:
> >the confidentiality means that keenan needs to keep the "inquery"
> >confidential during the process of sunya "inquery".
> >
> >wcw
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Phil Jones
> >Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:03 am
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> >
> > >
> > >  Wei-Chyung and Tom,
> > >      Thanks for the quick response. I won't do anything then
until
> > >  the SUNY process has run its course. Can you clarify what you
> mean> >  by violated confidentiality? I presume you mean that
> Keenan agreed
> > >  to do nothing on the issue until the SUNY process has run its
> > >  course. I presume this will conclude sometime this autumn. Keep
> > >  me informed of when the final decision might be, as after this
> > > we
> > > ought to do
> > >  something about the paper in Energy and Environment. I checked
> > >  with their guest editor and got this amazing reply! See below.
> > >  So, if we didn't already think this was the worst journal in the
> > > world,  now we know for certain it is, and have clear information
> > > from them
> > >  to prove it.
> > >
> > >    When I mean doing something, I don't mean sending anything
> to E&E,
> > >  as that will be useless. The Real Climate blog site is a
> > > possibility, but
> > >  there are other avenues.
> > >     I will make a few notes and send them to you to forward to
> SUNY.> >  Only after doing this can I get onto something else!
> > >
> > >    I'm away tomorrow - back in on Monday.
> > >
> > >  Cheers
> > >  Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >  From: "Peiser, Benny"
> > > To: "Phil Jones"
> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC)
> > > FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D]
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> > > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
> > >
> > > Dear Phil
> > >
> > > The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take
> > > your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the
> > > claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
> > >
> > > I hope this clarifies your query.
> > >
> > > With best regards
> > > Benny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Phil Jones
> > > Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
> > > To: Peiser, Benny
> > > Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Benny,
> > >     Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review
> journal. Your
> > >   email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the
> > > paper? If you
> > >   want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say -
> such as
> > >   reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been
reviewed?
> > >
> > >   Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 23:17 29/08/2007, wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > >hi from beijing.  thanks for the information, and i have
> > > forwarded the
> > > >file to the vp research and she wrote back to me that keenan has
> > > >violetted the confidentiality, as i have told her in the very
> > > >beginning.  in any case, i am letting the university to
> handle this.
> > > >send me whatever you have and i will forward to sunya.
> keenan does
> > > >not follow on any rules at all, reasoning with him is
> useless, but
> > > >this will come back to badly hurt him.
> > > >
> > > >before i left for beijing, i wrote my offical responses (see
> > > >attached).  please keep it to yourself.  there is no doubt
> that zeng
> > > >had access and examined the station history to pick up the 42-
> pair> > >stations.  also remember that, the statements made in
> both papers
> > > >address changes in all the relevant parameters "location,
> > > >instrumentation, observation time, etc." without specifically
> > > focus on
> > > >relocation.
> > > >
> > > >sunya is going through a very careful procedure, as i request
> > > them to
> > > >do because keenan will jump on any slip in procedure.
the "fraud"
> > > >charge, which will not stand any chance, is just his strategy of
> > > >getting attention on the station relocation effect.  so
> better to
> > > >start thinking along that line.
> > > >
> > > >i am here attending the meeting of The 3rd Alexander von
Humboldt
> > > >International Conference on "the East Asian monsoon, past,
> > > present and
> > > >future" in Beijing. I am going to take some time off
> travelling in
> > > >southern China after the meeting, when my wife join me this
> weekend.> > >There is a good chance that I might not have e-mail
> access.  Have a
> > > >good day.
> > > >
> > > >wcw
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: Phil Jones
> > > >Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:46 am
> > > >Subject: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > >
> > > > >  Wei-Chyung and Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > >     Just received this. I won't be responding.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Knowing this journal there is no point, not even if I said
> > > > >  I ought to review the paper.  Peiser is a well-known skeptic
> > > > >  in the UK. Not sure what to do.  I guess you (WCW) should
> > > > >  forward this to whoever needs to see it at Albany.
> > > > >
> > > > >    If you think I should respond then I can. I will
> forward this
> > > > >  to someone here, but mainly for their file.
> > > > >
> > > > >    I did say the quote on p3 about 2-3 years ago. I am still
> > > > >  not releasing the CRU station data collected over all the
> last> > > > 25 years.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Cheers
> > > > >  Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > >Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
> > > > > >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> > > > > >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> > > > > >Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
> > > > > >thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
> > > > > >From: "Peiser, Benny"
> > > > > >To:
> > > > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
> > > > > >FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> > > > > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dear Dr Jones
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged
> >Wang
> > > > > fraud>that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of
> Energy &
> > > > > Environment>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its
> > > > > content and
> > > > > >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be
much
> > > > > >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I look forward to hearing from you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yours sincerely
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Benny Peiser
> > > > > >Guest editor, E&E
> > > > > >Liverpool John Moores University, UK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > > > University of East Anglia
> > > > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > > > NR4 7TJ
> > > > > UK
> > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > > ---------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > University of East Anglia
> > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > NR4 7TJ
> > > UK
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ---------
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>


Phil,
Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.
Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phil Jones wrote:
>  Tom,
>     Just for interest!  Keep quiet about both issues.
>
>  In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him
>  that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan
> has
>  gone to SUNY. Keenan's about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has
>  violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he
>  sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still
> unsettling!
>  All related to a paper in Nature from 1990!  Keenan ought to look at the
>  temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about
> site moves.
>
>     See the end of this email and the response about E&E and the 3
> reviewers.
>  Amazing! We all knew the journal was awful.
>
>    On something completely different - just agreed to review another
> crappy
>  paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job -
> and still
>  he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
> happened!
>
>   Both are just time wasters - but necessary to do unfortunately.
>
>    Weekend away with the family now - back Monday!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>> Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
>> From: "Peiser, Benny"
>> To:
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr Jones
>>
>> I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>>
>>
>>
>> I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
>> factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>>
>> Benny Peiser
>> Guest editor, E&E
>> Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>
> Dear Phil
>
> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take your
> comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the claims are
> unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
>
> I hope this clarifies your query.
>
> With best regards
> Benny
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Phil Jones
> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
> To: Peiser, Benny
> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>
>
>
>
>   Benny,
>     Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your
>   email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper? If
> you
>   want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as
>   reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed?
>
>   Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phil,
sorry, first version of my message was a bit garbled. Here is the full
message:
thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
in the paper. I'm sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
that I have a top lawyer already representing me.
Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he
doesn't, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in
touch w/ anleading attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this
has to be done quickly.  The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them
from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free
to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he
needs to pursue a legal course her  independent of whatever his
university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its
internal investigations!  If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.
Gavin is in Shanghai, but perhaps may be able to provide some brief
thoughts himself on this,
mike
Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Phil,
>
> thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
> footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
> against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
> in the paper. I'm sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
> that I have a top lawyer already representing me.
>
> Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If
> he doesn't, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him
> in touch w/ anleading attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course,
> this has to be done quickly.  The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent
> them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please
> feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I
> think he needs to pursue a legal course here here independent of
> whatever his university is doing. He wait for Stony Brook to complete
> its internal investigations!
>
> Gavin is in Shanghai, but hopefully
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>  Mike, Gavin,
>>     Don't pass on, just for interest. It seems as though E&E will likely
>>  publish this paper. I've responded briefly, pointing out that Tao et al
>>  (1991) doesn't claim that it explicitly states...
>>     The response to my point 7 sums up Keenan. It also seems
>>  as though he will run with the footnote 3, but it's only a footnote!
>>  The fraud allegation against you Mike is only in passing!
>>
>>     Wei-Chyung is in Vienna. Have forwarded this to him to pass onto
>> SUNY.
>>  I wish they would conclude their assessment of malpractice.
>>
>>   Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>  PS to Gavin  - been following (sporadically) the CA stuff about the
>> GISS data and
>>  release of the code etc by Jim.  May take some of the pressure of you
>>  soon, by releasing a list of the stations we use - just a list, no code
>>  and no data. Have agreed to under the FOIA here in the UK.
>>
>>  Oh Happy days!
>>
>>> Subject: paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:39:02 +0100
>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>> Thread-Topic: paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>> thread-index: AcfzsbCIlqEe9LxLSeGz6CASlEIWmgAHs4oa
>>> From: "Peiser, Benny"
>>> To:
>>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2007 17:39:03.0905 (UTC)
>>> FILETIME=[7AE76D10:01C7F3D1]
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> I have attached Doug's response to your comments. As far as I can
>>> see, his basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless
>>> there is any compelling evidence that Keenan's main claim is
>>> unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the
>>> forthcoming issue of E&E.
>>>
>>> Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional
>>> arguments that may sway me in my decision.
>>>
>>> With best regards
>>> Benny
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013


Thanks Phil,
I will keep your email and hope we don't have to mobilise.  This is very
close to harassment, isn't it.
Jacquie
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones
Sent: 11 September 2007 14:06
To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)
Cc: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Subject: Possible problem looming
Jacquie,
I've been in discussion with Michael over the past several months
about a
number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for CRU data. I've
responded to
one and will be responding to another in the next few days. Michael
suggested I bring you up to speed on the issue. To cut a very long
story short, I'm attaching 3 things that relate to what's happened
since
responding to the first request.
1. A paper from 1990 by me and others in Nature. The request was for
the station data from the rural station networks in the three
regions studied.
This led to a person in London (Douglas Keenan) putting some
material on his website
claiming fraud against one of the co-authors on the paper (Wei-Chyung
Wang of the State University of Albany, SUNY, in NY, USA).  He then
put an allegation of fraud into SUNY against Wang. SUNY are dealing
with this - not quickly, but I have seen Wang's response.
2. Keenan then submitted a paper (attached) to the world's worst
journal,
Energy and Environment. According to Wang this is in breach of an
agreement
with SUNY not to do anything whilst the allegation is being dealt
with.
According to Wang, SUNY have told Keenan this.
I was sent the paper to comment on the factual allegations in the
paper. After
discussing this with Wang (who informed SUNY) I sent 9 comments.
3. My comments - with Keenan's responses embedded within (this is
the new bit for you Michael).
I have subsequently told the E&E guest editor that Keenan's
response to my point
# 5 is wrong. I sent him Tao et al. (1991) so he can see
this.  Keenan's response to my point 7
illustrates his arrogance.
I have loads more background to all this, and it has taken some time
over the
last few weeks and months in responding.
You are now partly up to speed on the issue. I'm away next week.
I don't know when E&E might publish, nor when the SUNY review
process (which is being dealt with by their Director of Research) will
conclude. Wang and I both know that the allegations are groundless,
but it is likely it will not look good when it first comes out.  This
is just
another of the attempts by climate skeptics to get the public and the
media thinking that there is disagreement amongst scientists and that
we shouldn't be doing anything about global warming.  I will be
discussing
this with some IPCC people when I meet them in early October.
Cheers
Phil
Phil,
Thanks for forwarding this. I am shocked about this - if a formal review
is underway at the University of Albany it is surely improper to publish
a paper in a journal about the matter!
I suggest that you alert Jacquie Burgess to this, as the new Head of
School.
I would like to suggest that we ask Dave Palmer to comment on the events
on the FOIA request - I don't think I fully agree with the story
presented here. Do you agree?
I also think we should alert the Press Office in due course.
Regards
Michael
Michael McGarvie
Senior Faculty Manager
Faculty of Science
Room 0.22C
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
tel: 01603 593229
fax: 01603 593045
m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Hello Peck, Eystein, Tim, Keith:
Please find attached the e-versions of the WA and AW papers re: the
"hockey-stick".  These are now available as "to-come-in-print" articles
from Climatic Change.  I believe the WA one was just loaded yesterday.
As I understand it, official "print" publication will be this November.
These versions HAVE gone through the author proof process, and thus I
anticipate no possibility of them being further changed before print
publication.
Note brief correspondence yesterday with Phil Jones re: proof-level
changes that were made to WA (copied below).
Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
Division of Environmental Studies and Geology
Alfred University
One Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802
607.871.2604
************************************************************************
*******
From: Wahl, Eugene R
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM
To: 'Phil Jones'; Caspar Ammann
Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann
Hi Phil:
There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the
final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper
that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three
additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a
Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other
very minor grammatical/structural things.  I tried to keep all of this
to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference
structure.  I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very
existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but
that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a
good job of contextualizing the whole matter.
Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including
its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is
warranted.  That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite
welcome.
Peace, Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
Subject: Wahl/Ammann
Gene/Caspar,
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
hasn't
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.
Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date!  Don't give those
skeptics something
to amuse themselves with.
Cheers
Phil
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf"


Kevin,
can you send me the link once its up?
thanks,
Mike
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Mike
You should have seen the first version.  I drafted that yesterday and then today toned it
down. I did add a couple of points, including the link you suggested.  Will try to send off
later today but just to nature.com
Thanks
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
guys, I've got a few minutes before I have to head out again.
Kevin--thanks for helping return the Nature blog to respectability after a dubious
start...I'd like to direct RealClimate readers to your piece as soon as it is up, so please
let me know when that happens...
Looks like Phil has hit several of the key points, but here are a few more:
1. The 'discrediting' that Akasofu cites has been discredited. IPCC Chapter 6 rejected the
McIntyre and McKitrick's claims in no uncertain terms, referencing the Wahl and Ammann work
(reprints attached) who show that (a) the reconstruction is readily reproducible and (b)
McIntyre and McKitrick only failed to reproduce the reconstruction because of multiple
errors on their part. This is true in addition to the more general point that Kevin has
made (that multiple independent studies confirm and in fact now extend the previous
conclusions, rather than contradict them).
2. To the extent that the "LIA" and "MWP" can be meaningfully defined, there has been much
work (published in Nature, Science, etc.) showing that the main variations (both in terms
of hemispheric mean changes and spatial patterns) can indeed be explained in terms of the
response of the climate system to natural radiative forcing changes (solar and volcanism).
Only someone completely unfamiliar with the advances of the past ten years in climate
science would claim that there are no explanations for these.
3. Continuing in this theme, to claim that the modern warming is some sort of 'rebound'
reflects a thorough apparent lack of understanding of how the climate system works. The
climate doesn't rebound. It responds (with some lag) to changes in radiative forcing. The
main patterns of variation of past centuries have been explained in terms of such responses
to natural radiative forcing changes. As shown in countless studies, the late 20th century
warming can only be explained in terms of the response to anthropogenic changes in
radiative forcing. Kevin has more or less already made this point, in different words, in
the current draft.
4. The bogus talking point that co2 lagging the warming in the ice cores has been debunked
countless times before, and its an embarassment that it continues to be raised by one who
ostensibly considers himself a scientist. This is total nonsense, and a nice refutation has
been provided by Eric Steig on RealClimate here:
[1]
Perhaps worth just linking to that explanation?
Kevin, perhaps you're too gentle in attributing this simply to some 'confusion' about the
facts. Either Mr. Akasofu has literally no familiarity whatsoever with the advances in
climate science of the past two decades, or he has intentionally sought to deceive. In
either case, his piece is embarassment.
Finally, let me withdraw my initial suggestion. For strategic reasons, it might make sense
to submit this as letter to editor to WSJ (easy and quick to do online), and then publish
it on the Nature blog in short order.  I sea that as win-win because  you can either call
the WSJ  for refusing to run your letter (which is very likely what will happen), or use
the Nature blog piece to draw attention to your letter, should WSJ actually choose to
publish your letter...
please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any further help here. Will be back
online a bit later today,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
A few quick thoughts. Article is awful as we all know.
It is important to learn about past climate change, especially over the past 1000
years, but it is even important to use new and improved evidence from proxy
sources (i.e. not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP
and LIA). How can we ever hope to progress if we have conform to incorrect
concepts?
On the early mid-20th century warming - look at the figures in Ch 9.
The decrease from 1940-75 didn't happen if you look at global records.
MBH was published in 1998 and wasn't just a tree-ring study.
The Thames doesn't and never did freeze solid. It did so 25 times
between 1400 and 1820. Only about 5-6 of these were frost fairs. Most
of these have CET data, so what is the use of the freeze dates!
He plucks various figures out of the air!
I think the reductions in Arctic sea ice this summer/September are
alarming. They are 20% below the 2005 record. He comes from
Alaska. Has he not seen the effects on the coast there?
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    [2]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:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[4]
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [5]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [7]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[8]
References
1.
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4.
5. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
6.
7. mailto:mann@psu.edu
8.


Thanks Fiona, I am cc'ing in Phil who will let relevant people at UEA know. Please can you
get press office to advise if I will have to be in during next week or whether solely being
on my mobile will suffice. I am flexible on the TOIL next week Tuesday onwards (land Monday
at 06.00) but would like to know by the time I leave if poss. Just to remind that my mobile
is 07834034418.
Cheers
Peter
----- Original Message ----
From: "Smith, Fiona"
To: Peter Thorne
Cc: "Gromett, Barry"
Sent: Friday, 5 October, 2007 1:40:04 AM
Subject: RE: URGENT: Press office ...
Peter,
Sorry for the delay. The head of the press office was off sick for a few days and they have
been incredibly busy.
Yes, the Press Office will go ahead with a press release and we will contact UEA to make
sure we have a consistent message.
Will let you see any relevant communication.
Fiona
Fiona Smith
Met Office  Hadley Centre for Climate Change
FitzRoy Road  Exeter  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1392 884240
E-mail: fiona.smith@metoffice.gov.uk  [1]
______________________________________________________________________________________
From: Peter Thorne
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:26 AM
To: Smith, Fiona
Subject: URGENT: Press office ...
intentional silence? I need a decision ASAP to plan next week and let Phil Jones and UEA
know. Please request resolution on whether we will run something or not so wheels can be
set rolling if necessary.
Thanks
Peter
References
1.


"
>>>>X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50]
>>>>
>>>>hi,
>>>>for moment please do not distribute or discuss.
>>>>trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction
>>>>with this at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN
>>>>
_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot
>>>>Earth
Blog
>>>>
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018-1405
>>>>phone: 212-556-7326   fax: 509/ /-357-0965  mobile: 914-441-5556
>>>
>>>
>>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>>NR4 7TJ
>>>UK
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dr. Carl Mears
>>Remote Sensing Systems
>>438 First Street, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
>>mears@remss.com
>>707-545-2904 x21
>>707-545-2906 (fax))
>
Dr. Carl Mears
Remote Sensing Systems
438 First Street, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
mears@remss.com
707-545-2904 x21
707-545-2906 (fax))


well put Phil,
I think you've put your finger right on it. JGR-Atmospheres has been publishing some truly
awful papers lately; we responded (Gavin, me, James Annan) to the awful Schwartz
sensitivity estimate paper, but there are so many other bad papers that are appearing there
(Chylak, etc.) that its just impossible to respond to them all.
I hadn't seen this latest one though. McKitrick and Michaels team up again, wow! maybe
McKitrick has figured ou the difference between radians and degrees this time!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Also I see him writing things - then people saying you should
write this up for a paper, as though it can be knocked up in an
afternoon. He realises he can't do this - as it takes much longer.
Then we wastes more and more time opening up new threads.
He doesn't seem clever enough to realise this.
Gavin and Rasmus have seen the attached piece of garbage!
UAH is correct, therefore the land surface must be wrong.
Let's adjust it for a dodgy reason - ah, it now agrees with UAH.
Let's forget that the land now disagrees with the ocean surface.
If only I'd thought of that first, I could have not bothered with
the awful analysis. If only I'd just believed RSS in the first place.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:16 05/12/2007, you wrote:
HI Phil,
thanks--thats good.
Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny--w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
it compromises the integrity of his own "work" even further. He can't distance himself
from E&E much as he'd like to.  He also seems to be losing lots of credibility now w/
all but his most loyal followers, which is good to see...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled
by Thorsten.  The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon.
So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get
it fast-tracked through the Holocene - well that's the plan.
The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process
in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back - I got the impression
that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by
saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:00 04/12/2007, you wrote:
Hey Phil,
thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review
paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know.
Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP.
I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science,
and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us
about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor,
has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.
So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and
Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they
publish.
Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away
from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon,
its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still.
I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time
- maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There
is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will
be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner!
As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.
I take it you've seen the attached in E&E.  I've not heard any more from
Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months.  I'm working on a paper
on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you
to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate
your thoughts on how I will have said things.
Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected
by all three reviewers for GRL!  It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al
- thus you'll know what it is on.
Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
down. seems like some time since I've heard from you.
Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the
Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
you'd like me to investigate...
thanks,
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis
Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:58 -0500
From: Gavin Schmidt [1]
To: Michael E. Mann [2]
References: [3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's
investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some
reason, but is that done with?
That's a great story that needs to be told.
Gavin
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> thanks Eric,
>
> That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info
too.
>
> Will keep you in the loop!
>
> mike
>
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I do hope you all are able to put this all together.
> > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate,
suggesting
that
> > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a
bad
rap.
> >
> > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another
> > poster
> > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between
> > data points for these series where there are many years
between
> > samples.
> > Here's the other fellow's comments:
> >
> >
[11]
#comment-162478
> >
[12]
#comment-162654
> >
[13]
#comment-162665
> >
> > I would go further than that. These data sets represent
samples
of
> > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a
single
> > year.
> > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the
variable
> > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be
> > analyzed.
> >
> > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The
> > subcores
> > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a
device
> > that
> > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the
sample
> > would
> > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample
rate
> > of
> > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a
100
> > year
> > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over
40
> > years.
> > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying
change
> > between
> > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40
year
> > value
> > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm
of
the
> > core
> > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted
each
> > research
> > group that did the analysis and requested more information
than
that
> > which
> > might be found in the published reports.
> >
> > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on
Loehle's
> > 2004 paper
> >
> > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of
trends
> > from long-term
> > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4)
(2004)
> > 433-450],
> > Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 314-316
> >
> > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Eric Swanson
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > At 01:18 PM 12/3/07 -0500, you wrote:
> > >>>>
> >         Eric--this is
great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken
> >         the liberty of
forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of
> >         doing an RC
post on this, and this would be very useful. We
> >         should
certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats
> >         ok w/ you?
> >
> >         Looking
forward
to hearing what else you find here!
> >
> >         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:  [14]mann@psu.edu
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
>
[15]

>
--
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:  [16]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[17]

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [18]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:  [19]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[20]

Prof. Phil 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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:  [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[23]

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [24]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:  [25]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[26]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
2. mailto:mann@psu.edu
3. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com
4. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com
5. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com
6. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@mail.skybest.com
7. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@mail.skybest.com
8. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@mail.skybest.com
9. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@mail.skybest.com
10. mailto:475457F3.9070102@meteo.psu.edu
11. #comment-162478
12. #comment-162654
13. #comment-162665
14. mailto:mann@psu.edu
15.
16. mailto:mann@psu.edu
17.
18. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
19. mailto:mann@psu.edu
20.
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23.
24. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
25. mailto:mann@psu.edu
26.
Hidden links:
27.


Dear folks,
Thank you very much for all of your emails, and my apologies for the
delay in replying - I've been on travel for much of the past week.
Peter, I think you've done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns
about the Douglass et al. paper. Our CCSP Report helped to illustrate
that there were large structural uncertainties in both the radiosonde-
and MSU-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change. The
scientific evidence available at the time we were finalizing the CCSP
Report - from Sherwood et al. (2005) and the (then-unpublished) Randel
and Wu paper - strongly suggested that a residual cooling bias existed
in the sonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change.
As you may recall, we showed results from both the RATPAC and HadAT2
radiosonde datasets in the CCSP Report and the Santer et al. (2005)
Science paper. From the latter (see, e.g., our Figure 3B and Figures
4C,D), it was clear that there were physically-significant differences
between the simulated temperature trends in the tropical lower
troposphere (over 1979 to 1999) and the trends estimated from RATPAC,
HadAT2, and UAH data. In both the Science paper and the CCSP Report, we
judged that residual biases in the observations provided the most likely
explanation for these model-versus-data trend discrepancies.
Douglass et al. come to a fundamentally different conclusion, and
ascribe model-versus-data differences to model error. They are not
really basing this conclusion on new model data or on new observational
data. The only "new" observational dataset that they use is an early
version of Leo Haimberger's radiosonde dataset (RAOBCORE v1.2). Leo's
dataset was under development at the time all of us were working on the
CCSP Report and the Santer et al. Science paper. It was not available
for our assessment in 2005. As Leo has already shared with you, newer
versions of RAOBCORE (v1.3 and v1.4) show amplification of surface
warming in the tropical troposphere, in reasonable agreement with the
model results that we presented in Fig. 3B of our Science paper.
Douglass et al. did not use these newer versions of RAOBCORE v1.2. Nor
did Douglass et al. use any "inconvenient" observational datasets (such
as the NESDIS-based MSU T2 dataset of Zou et al., or the MSU T2 product
of Vinnikov and Grody) showing pronounced tropospheric warming over the
satellite era. Nor did Douglass et al. discuss the "two timescale issue"
that formed an important part of our Science paper (i.e., how could
models and multiple observational datasets show amplification behavior
that was consistent in terms of monthly variability but inconsistent in
terms of decadal trends?) Nor did Douglass et al. fairly portray results
from Peter's 2007 GRL paper. In my personal opinion, Douglass et al.
have ignored all scientific evidence that is in disagreement with their
view of how the real world should be behaving.
I don't think it's a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass
et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil
pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get
a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be
given the final word.
My suggestion is to submit (to Science) a short "update" of our 2005
paper. This update would only be submitted AFTER publication of the four
new radiosonde-based temperature datasets mentioned by Peter. The update
would involve:
1) Use of all four new radiosonde datasets.
2) Use of the latest versions of the UAH and RSS TLT data, and the
latest versions of the T2 data from UAH, RSS, UMD (Vinnikov and Grody),
and NESDIS (Zou et al.).
3) Use of the T2 data in 2) above AND the UAH and RSS T4 data to
calculate tropical "TFu" temperatures, with all possible combinations of
T4 and T2 datasets (e.g., RSS T4 and UMD T2, UAH T4 and UMD T2, etc.)
4) Calculating synthetic MSU temperatures from all model 20c3m runs
currently available in the IPCC AR4 database. Calculation of synthetic
MSU temperatures would rely on a method suggested by Carl (using
weighting functions that depend on both the surface type [land, ocean]
and the surface pressure at each grid-point) rather than on the static
global-mean weighting function that we used previously. This is probably
several months of work - but at least it will keep me off the streets
and out of trouble.
5) Formal determination of statistical significance of
model-versus-observed trend differences.
6) Brief examination of timescale-dependence of amplification factors.
7) As and both Peter and Melissa suggested, brief examination of
sensitivity of estimated trends to the selected analysis period (e.g.,
use of 1979 to 1999; use of 1979 to 2001 or 2003 [for the small number
of model 20c3m runs ending after 1999]; use of data for the post-NOAA9
period).
This will be a fair bit of effort, but I think it's worth it. Douglass
et al. will try to make maximum political hay out of their IJC paper -
which has already been sent to Andy Revkin at the New York Times. You
can bet they've sent it elsewhere, too. I'm pretty sure that our
colleague JC will portray Douglass et al. as definitive "proof" that all
climate models are fundamentally flawed, UAH data are in amazing
agreement with sonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change,
global warming is not a serious problem, etc.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Douglass et al. is its abrupt
dismissal of the finding (by Sherwood et al. and Randel and Wu) of a
residual tropospheric cooling bias in the sonde data. Douglass et al.
base this dismissal on the Christy et al. (2007) JGR paper, and on
Christy's finding of biases in the night-time sonde data that magically
offset the biases in the day-time data. Does that sound familiar? When
did we last hear about new biases magically offsetting the effect of
recently-discovered biases? As Yogi Berra would say, this is deja vu all
over again....
I hope that one of the papers on the new sonde-based datasets directly
addresses the subject of 'error compensation' in the day-time and
night-time sonde data. This would be important to do.
It's unfortunate that Douglass et al. will probably be published well
before the appearance of the papers on the new radiosonde datasets, and
before an updated comparison of modeled-and observed tropospheric
temperature trends.
I'd be grateful if you could let me know whether you are in agreement
with the response strategy I've outlined above, and would like to be
involved with an update of our 2005 Science paper.
With best regards,
Ben
Peter Thorne wrote:
> All,
>
> There are several additional reasons why we may not expect perfect
> agreement between models and obs that are outlined in the attached
> paper.
>
> It speaks in part to the trend uncertainty that Carl alluded to - taking
> differences between linear trend estimates is hard when the underlying
> series is noisy and perhaps non-linear. Work that John and Dian have
> done also shows this. Taking the ratio between two such estimates is
> always going to produce noisy results over relatively short trend
> periods when the signal is small relative to the natural variability.
>
> Also, 1979 as a start date may bias those estimates towards a "bias", I
> believe (this is unproven) because of endpoint effects due to natural
> variability that tend to damp the ratio of Trop/Surf trends (ENSO
> phasing and El Chichon) for any trend period with this start date. Given
> the N-9 uncertainty a reasonable case could be made for an evaluation of
> the obs that started only after N-9 and this may yield a very different
> picture.
>
> It also shows that the model result really is constrained to perturbed
> physics, at least for HadCM3. Unsurprising as convective adjustment is
> at the heart of most models. Certainly ours anyway. This result was
> cherry-picked and the rest of the paper discarded by Douglass et al.
>
> In addition to this, the state of play on the radiosondes has moved on
> substantially with RAOBCORE 1.4 (accepted I believe, Leo Haimberger
> should be in this - I'm adding him) which shows warming intermediate
> between UAH and RSS and I know of three additional efforts on
> radiosondes all of which strongly imply that the raobs datasets used in
> this paper are substantially under-estimating the warming rate (Steve
> Sherwood x2 and our automated system). So, there's going to be a whole
> suite of papers hopefully coming out within the next year or so that
> imply we at least cannot rule out from the radiosonde data warming
> consistent even with the absurd "mean of the model runs" criteria that
> is used in this paper.
>
> For info, our latest results imply a true raobs trend for 2LT in the
> tropics somewhere >0.08K/decade (we cannot place a defensible upper
> limit) ruling out most of the datasets used in the Douglass paper and
> ruling in possibility of consistency with models.
>
> Douglass et al also omit the newer MSU studies from the NESDIS group
> which in the absence of a reasonable criteria (a criteria I think we are
> some way away from still) to weed out bad obs datasets should be
> considered. Placing all obs datasets and the likely new raobs datasets
> would pretty much destroy this paper's main point. There's been a fair
> bit of cherry picking on the obs side which needs correcting here.
>
> Peter
>
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 15:40 -0800, carl mears wrote:
>> Karl -- thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say
>>
>> Some further comments.....
>>
>> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations.
>> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has
>> dominated.  For example, the
>> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18 (UAH) or
>> 0.19 (RSS), larger
>> than either group's trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004.  These were
>> calculated using a "goodness
>> of linear fit"  criterion, corrected for autocorrelation.  This is a
>> probably a reasonable
>> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend uncertainty.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in fact
>>> inconsistent with the observations.  If the spread of individual model
>>> results is large enough and at least 1 model overlaps the observations,
>>> then one cannot claim that all models are wrong, just that the mean is biased.
>>
>> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say "the mean
>> *may* be biased."  You can't prove this
>> with only one universe, as Tom alluded.  All we can say is that the
>> observed trend cannot be proven to
>> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range.
>>
>> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start culling
>> out the less realistic models,
>> as Ben has suggested.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
Just a quick response to the issue of "model weighting" which you and
Carl raised in your emails.
We recently published a paper dealing with the identification of an
anthropogenic fingerprint in SSM/I-based estimates of total column water
vapor changes. This was a true multi-model detection and attribution
("D&A") study, which made use of results from 22 different A/OGCMs for
fingerprint and noise estimation. Together with Peter Gleckler and Karl
Taylor, I'm now in the process of repeating our water vapor D&A study
using a subset of the original 22 models. This subset will comprise
10-12 models which are demonstrably more successful in capturing
features of the observed mean state and variability of water vapor and
SST - particularly features crucial to the D&A problem (such as the
low-frequency variability). We've had fun computing a whole range of
metrics that might be used to define such a subset of "better" models.
The ultimate goal is to determine the sensitivity of our water vapor D&A
results to model quality. I think that this kind of analysis will be
unavoidable in the multi-model world in which we now live. Given
substantial inter-model differences in simulation quality, "one model,
one vote" is probably not the best policy for D&A work!
Once we've used Carl's method to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures
from the IPCC AR4 20c3m data (as described in my previous email), it
should be relatively easy to do a similar "model culling" exercise with
MSU T2, T4, and TLT. In fact, this is what we had already planned to do
in collaboration with Carl and Frank.
One key point in any model weighting or selection strategy is to avoid
circularity. In the D&A context, it would be impermissible to include
information on trend behavior as a criterion used for selecting "better"
models. Likewise, if our interest is in assessing the statistical
significance of model-versus-observed trend differences, we can't use
model performance in simulating "observed" tropospheric or stratospheric
trends (whatever those might be!) as a means of identifying more
credible models.
A further issue, of course, is that we are relying on results from fully
coupled A/OGCMs, and are making trend comparisons over relatively short
periods (several decades). On these short timescales, estimates of the
"true" trend in response to the applied 20c3m forcings are quite
sensitive to natural variability noise (as Peter Thorne's 2007 GRL paper
clearly illustrates). Because of such chaotic variability, even a
hypothetical model with perfect physics and forcings would yield a
distribution of tropospheric temperature trends over 1979 to 1999, some
of which would show larger or smaller cooling than observed. This is why
it's illogical to stratify model results according to correspondence
between modeled and observed surface warming - something which John
Christy is very fond of doing.
What we've done (in the new water vapor work described above) is to
evaluate the fidelity with which the AR4 models simulate the observed
mean state and variability of precipitable water and SST - not the
trends in these quantities. We've looked at a model performance in a
variety of different regions, and on multiple timescales. The results
are fascinating, and show (at least for water vapor and SST) that every
model has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. It is difficult
to identify a subset of models that CONSISTENTLY does well in many
different regions and over a range of different timescales.
My guess is that we would obtain somewhat different results for MSU
temperatures - particularly for comparisons involving variability.
Clearly, the absence of volcanic forcing in roughly half of the 20c3m
experiments will have a large impact on the estimated variability of
synthetic T4 temperatures (and perhaps even on T2), and hence on
model-versus-data variability comparisons. It's also quite possible that
the inclusion or absence of volcanic forcing has an impact not only on
the amplitude of the variability of global-mean T4 anomalies, but also
on the pattern of T4 variability. So model ranking exercises based on
performance in simulating the mean state and variability of T4 and T2
may show some connection to the presence or absence of volcanic/ozone
forcing.
The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by
the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame.
With best regards,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>  All,
>    IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in
> doing this
>  as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly
>  Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in
>  papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would
>  be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear.
>    Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which
>  would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in
>  print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on
>  recent experiences.
>    A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some way
>  would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down this
>  route at some point. How models simulate the
>  recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and
>  how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the
>  new work Peter alludes to with the sondes.
>    There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be
>  discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs
>  (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J.
> Climate
>  accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys
>  could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning
>  that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the
> oceans.
>  Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it highlights a
>  major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the
>  buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models
>  driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally cooler.
>
>    And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when
>  Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible
>  to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to
>  being results from ERA-40 up to date.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
> At 23:40 04/12/2007, carl mears wrote:
>> Karl -- thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say
>>
>> Some further comments.....
>>
>> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations.
>>
>> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has
>> dominated.  For example, the
>> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18
>> (UAH) or 0.19 (RSS), larger
>> than either group's trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004.  These were
>> calculated using a "goodness
>> of linear fit"  criterion, corrected for autocorrelation.  This is a
>> probably a reasonable
>> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend
>> uncertainty.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in
>>> fact inconsistent with the observations.  If the spread of individual
>>> model results is large enough and at least 1 model overlaps the
>>> observations, then one cannot claim that all models are wrong, just
>>> that the mean is biased.
>>
>>
>> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say "the mean
>> *may* be biased."  You can't prove this
>> with only one universe, as Tom alluded.  All we can say is that the
>> observed trend cannot be proven to
>> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range.
>>
>> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start
>> culling out the less realistic models,
>> as Ben has suggested.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Melissa,
No, this would not be dire. What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful
neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their
arguments. Recall that our 2005 Science paper presented information from
all observational datasets available to us at that time, even from
datasets that showed large differences relative to the model data. We
did not present results from RSS alone.
With best regards,
Ben
Melissa Free wrote:
> One further question about the Douglass paper: What about the
> implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air
> trends? Is this really so dire?
> -Melissa
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hello Ben and Colleagues,
I've been following these exchanges with interest.  One particular point
in your message below is a little puzzling to me.  That's the issue of
trying to avoid circularity in the culling of models for any given D&A
study.
Two potential problems occur to me.  One is that choosing models on the
basis of their fidelity to observed regional and short term variability
may not be completely orthogonal to choosing based on long-term trend.
That's because those smaller scale changes may contribute to the trends
and their patterns.  Second, choosing a different set of models for one
variable (temperature) than for another (humidity) seems highly
problematic.  If we are interested in projections of other variables,
e.g. storm tracks or cloud cover, for which D&A has not been done, which
group of models would we then deem to be most credible?  I don't have a
good alternative to propose, but, in light of these considerations,
maybe one-model-one-vote doesn't appear so unreasonable after all.
With regards,
Dian
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear Phil,
>
> Just a quick response to the issue of "model weighting" which you and
> Carl raised in your emails.
>
> We recently published a paper dealing with the identification of an
> anthropogenic fingerprint in SSM/I-based estimates of total column
> water vapor changes. This was a true multi-model detection and
> attribution ("D&A") study, which made use of results from 22 different
> A/OGCMs for fingerprint and noise estimation. Together with Peter
> Gleckler and Karl Taylor, I'm now in the process of repeating our
> water vapor D&A study using a subset of the original 22 models. This
> subset will comprise 10-12 models which are demonstrably more
> successful in capturing features of the observed mean state and
> variability of water vapor and SST - particularly features crucial to
> the D&A problem (such as the low-frequency variability). We've had fun
> computing a whole range of metrics that might be used to define such a
> subset of "better" models. The ultimate goal is to determine the
> sensitivity of our water vapor D&A results to model quality. I think
> that this kind of analysis will be unavoidable in the multi-model
> world in which we now live. Given substantial inter-model differences
> in simulation quality, "one model, one vote" is probably not the best
> policy for D&A work!
>
> Once we've used Carl's method to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures
> from the IPCC AR4 20c3m data (as described in my previous email), it
> should be relatively easy to do a similar "model culling" exercise
> with MSU T2, T4, and TLT. In fact, this is what we had already planned
> to do in collaboration with Carl and Frank.
>
> One key point in any model weighting or selection strategy is to avoid
> circularity. In the D&A context, it would be impermissible to include
> information on trend behavior as a criterion used for selecting
> "better" models. Likewise, if our interest is in assessing the
> statistical significance of model-versus-observed trend differences,
> we can't use model performance in simulating "observed" tropospheric
> or stratospheric trends (whatever those might be!) as a means of
> identifying more credible models.
>
> A further issue, of course, is that we are relying on results from
> fully coupled A/OGCMs, and are making trend comparisons over
> relatively short periods (several decades). On these short timescales,
> estimates of the "true" trend in response to the applied 20c3m
> forcings are quite sensitive to natural variability noise (as Peter
> Thorne's 2007 GRL paper clearly illustrates). Because of such chaotic
> variability, even a hypothetical model with perfect physics and
> forcings would yield a distribution of tropospheric temperature trends
> over 1979 to 1999, some of which would show larger or smaller cooling
> than observed. This is why it's illogical to stratify model results
> according to correspondence between modeled and observed surface
> warming - something which John Christy is very fond of doing.
>
> What we've done (in the new water vapor work described above) is to
> evaluate the fidelity with which the AR4 models simulate the observed
> mean state and variability of precipitable water and SST - not the
> trends in these quantities. We've looked at a model performance in a
> variety of different regions, and on multiple timescales. The results
> are fascinating, and show (at least for water vapor and SST) that
> every model has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. It is
> difficult to identify a subset of models that CONSISTENTLY does well
> in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.
>
> My guess is that we would obtain somewhat different results for MSU
> temperatures - particularly for comparisons involving variability.
> Clearly, the absence of volcanic forcing in roughly half of the 20c3m
> experiments will have a large impact on the estimated variability of
> synthetic T4 temperatures (and perhaps even on T2), and hence on
> model-versus-data variability comparisons. It's also quite possible
> that the inclusion or absence of volcanic forcing has an impact not
> only on the amplitude of the variability of global-mean T4 anomalies,
> but also on the pattern of T4 variability. So model ranking exercises
> based on performance in simulating the mean state and variability of
> T4 and T2 may show some connection to the presence or absence of
> volcanic/ozone forcing.
>
> The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by
> the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>  All,
>>    IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in
>> doing this
>>  as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly
>>  Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large
>> backlog in
>>  papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it
>> would
>>  be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear.
>>    Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which
>>  would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in
>>  print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on
>>  recent experiences.
>>    A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some
>> way
>>  would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down
>> this
>>  route at some point. How models simulate the
>>  recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and
>>  how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the
>>  new work Peter alludes to with the sondes.
>>    There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be
>>  discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs
>>  (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J.
>> Climate
>>  accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys
>>  could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning
>>  that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the
>> oceans.
>>  Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it
>> highlights a
>>  major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the
>>  buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models
>>  driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally
>> cooler.
>>
>>    And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when
>>  Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible
>>  to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to
>>  being results from ERA-40 up to date.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>> At 23:40 04/12/2007, carl mears wrote:
>>> Karl -- thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say
>>>
>>> Some further comments.....
>>>
>>> At 02:53 PM 12/4/2007, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 2) unforced variability hasn't dominated the observations.
>>>
>>> But on this short time scale, we strongly suspect that it has
>>> dominated.  For example, the
>>> 2 sigma error bars from table 3.4, CCSP for satellite TLT are 0.18
>>> (UAH) or 0.19 (RSS), larger
>>> than either group's trends (0.05, 0.15) for 1979-2004.  These were
>>> calculated using a "goodness
>>> of linear fit"  criterion, corrected for autocorrelation.  This is a
>>> probably a reasonable
>>> estimate of the contribution of unforced variability to trend
>>> uncertainty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Douglass et al. have *not* shown that every individual model is in
>>>> fact inconsistent with the observations.  If the spread of
>>>> individual model results is large enough and at least 1 model
>>>> overlaps the observations, then one cannot claim that all models
>>>> are wrong, just that the mean is biased.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the magnitude of the unforced variability, I would say "the
>>> mean *may* be biased."  You can't prove this
>>> with only one universe, as Tom alluded.  All we can say is that the
>>> observed trend cannot be proven to
>>> be inconsistent with the model results, since it is inside their range.
>>>
>>> It we interesting to see if we can say anything more, when we start
>>> culling out the less realistic models,
>>> as Ben has suggested.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dian J. Seidel
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (R/ARL)
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dian.Seidel@noaa.gov
Phone: +1-301-713-0295 ext. 126
Fax: +1-301-713-0119

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dear all,
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to
be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but
I doubt it.
In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause
him to lose his job -- a parallel is the South Korean cloning
fraud case.
I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be
told about this.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> I knew this would happen. In my opinion, we should respond to this
> continued misrepresentation of the science sooner rather than later.
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project]
> From:
> "Thomas.R.Karl"
> Date:
> Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:23:12 -0500
> To:
> _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors
>
>
> To:
> _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors
>
>
>
> FYI --- related to trop-sfc temps
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* George Marshall Institute
> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
> *To:* info@marshall.org
> *Subject:* Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project
>
> */Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project/**/ /*
>
> **Where & When**
>
> *The National Press Club*
>
> *529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor*
>
> *Lisagor Room*
>
> *Washington, DC 20045*
>
> **
>
> **December 14, 2007 **
>
> **8am-11am **
>
> **
>
> *Breakfast refreshments will be served.*
>
> **
>
> **/To RSVP, please email info@sepp.org
. /**
>
> //
>
>
>
> You are invited to a timely breakfast briefing
>
> on December 14, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. at the National Press Club,
> organized by
>
> The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
>
> As Al Gore collects his Nobel Prize and 15,000(more or less) in Bali
> struggle to find a successor regime for the ineffective and unlamented
> Kyoto Protocol, an 'inconvenient truth' has emerged:
>
> NATURE RULES THE CLIMATE: HUMAN-PRODUCED GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT
> RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Therefore, schemes to control CO2
> emissions are ineffective and pointless, though very costly.
>
> Come and listen to the authors of a peer-reviewed scientific study,
> just published in the International Journal of Climatology (of the
> Royal Meteorological Society), present their startling findings.
>
> Presenters:
>
> *Prof. David Douglass*, University of Rochester: GH Models clash with
> best observations
>
> *Prof. John Christy*, University of Alabama: How GH models
> overestimate GH warming
>
> *Prof. S. Fred Singer*, University of Virginia: Changes in solar
> activity control the climate.
>
> I am sure you will appreciate the importance of their new result. Once
> one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant in
> warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically:
>
> * ·* Unburdened by climate fears, the US can pursue a more
>
> rational energy policy, leading to less dependence on oil/gas
>
> imports.
>
> *·* The current legislative efforts to cap CO2, or to control its
>
> emission in other ways, are utterly useless.
>
> *·* Ambitious programs claiming to reduce CO2 emissions (like
>
> ethanol, wind power, carbon sequestration, etc.) are a
>
> complete waste.
>
> *·* The EPA can now deny California's request for a waiver on
>
> CAFE.
>
> *·* The EPA can now respond properly to the Supreme Court
>
> ruling on CO2.
>
> *·* International negotiations can assume a different dimension.
>
> SEPP has reserved the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club for
> Friday December 14 from 8-11 am. Breakfast will be served.
>
> **_Please e-mail your acceptance to info@sepp.org._**
>
>
>
> *Forward email
>
*
>
>
>
> This email was sent to info@marshall.org, by info@marshall.org
>
>
> Update Profile/Email Address
>
> | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe
>
™
> | Privacy Policy
>
.
>
>
>
> Email Marketing
by
>
>
>
> The George C. Marshall Institute | 1625 K St. NW Suite, 1050 |
> Washington | DC | 20006
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>
> */Director/*//
>
> NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>
> Veach-Baley Federal Building
>
> 151 Patton Avenue
>
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>
> Tel: (828) 271-4476
>
> Fax: (828) 271-4246
>
> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov
>