Dear Carl,
This issue is now covered in the version of the manuscript that I sent
out on Friday. The d2* and d3* statistics have been removed. The new d1*
statistic DOES involve the standard error of the model average trend in
the denominator (together with the adjusted standard error of the
observed trend; see equation 12 in revised manuscript). The slight irony
here is that the new d1* statistic essentially reduces to the old d1*
statistic, since the adjusted standard error of the observed trend is
substantially larger than the standard error of the model average trend...
With best regards,
Ben
Carl Mears wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think I agree (partly, anyway) with Steve S.
>
> I think that d3* partly double counts the uncertainty.
>
> Here is my thinking that leads me to this:
>
> Assume we have a "perfect model".  A perfect model means in this context
>    1.  Correct sensitivities to all forcing terms
>    2.  Forcing terms are all correct
>    3.  Spatial temporal structure of internal variability is correct.
>
> In other words, the model output has exactly the correct "underlying"
> trend, but
> different realizations of internal variability and this variability has
> the right
> structure.
>
> We now run the model a bunch of times and compute the trend in each case.
> The spread in the trends is completely due to internal variability.
>
> We compare this to the "perfect" real world trend, which also has
> uncertainty due
> to internal variability (but nothing else).
>
> To me either one of the following is fair:
>
> 1.  We test whether the observed trend is inside the distribution of
> model trends.  The uncertainty in the
> observed trend is already taken care of by the spread in modeled trends,
> since the representation of
> internal uncertainty is accurate.
>
> 2.  We test whether the observed trend is equal to the mean model trend,
> within uncertainty.  Uncertainty here is
> the uncertainty in the observed trend s{b{o}}, combined with the
> uncertainty in the mean model trend (SE{b{m}}.
>
> If we use d3*, I think we are doing both these at once, and thus double
> counting the internal variability
> uncertainty.  Option 2 is what Steve S is advocating, and is close to
> d1*, since SE{b{m}} is so small.
> Option 1 is d2*.
>
> Of course the problem is that our models are not perfect, and a
> substantial portion of the spread in
> model trends is probably due to differences in sensitivity and forcing,
> and the representation
> of internal variability can be wrong.  I don't know how to separate the
> model trend distribution into
> a "random" and "deterministic" part.  I think d1* and d2* above get at
> the problem from 2 different angles,
> while d3* double counts the internal variability part of the
> uncertainty. So it is not surprising that we
> get some funny results for synthetic data, which only have this kind of
> uncertainty.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2008, at 5:36 AM, Steven Sherwood wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 28, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Ben Santer wrote:
>>>
>>> Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows:
>>>
>>> d3* = ( b{o} -
> ) / sqrt[ (s{
} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ]
>>>
>>> where
>>>
>>> b{o}      = Observed trend
>>>
>  = Model average trend
>>> s{
} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends
>>> s{b{o}}   = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for
>>>                autocorrelation effects)
>>
>> Shouldn't the first term under sqrt be the standard deviation of the
>> estimate of
> -- e.g., the standard error of
-- rather
>> than the standard deviation of
?  d3* would I think then be
>> equivalent to a z-score, relevant to the null hypothesis that models
>> on average get the trend right.  As written, I think the distribution
>> of d3* will have less than unity variance under this hypothesis.
>>
>> SS
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Steven Sherwood
>> Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu
>> Yale University                                               ph: 203
>> 432-3167
>> P. O. Box 208109                                             fax: 203
>> 432-3134
>> New Haven, CT 06520-8109
>> ~sherwood
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Phil,
This is coming along nicely. I've got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to
support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel,
and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum
is six letters including mine as nominator).
Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the
nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance!
mike
Selected bibliography
* Must be no longer than 2 pages.
* Begin by briefly stating the candidate's total number and types of publications and
specifying the number published in AGU journals.
* Do not just select the most recent publications; choose those that best support your
argument for Fellowship.
Curriculum Vitae
* Must be no longer than 2 pages.
* List the candidate's name, address, history of employment, degrees, research
experience, honors, memberships, and service to the community through committee work,
advisory boards, etc.
--
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:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[2]
References
1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2.


Hi Phil,
Seems to me that CRU should charge him a fee for the service. He shouldn't be under the
assumption that he has the right to demand reports be scanned in for him on a whim. CRU
should require reasonable monetary compensation for the labor, effort (and postage!).
It this were a colleague acting in good faith, I'd say do it at no cost.  But of, course,
he's not. He's not interested in the truth here, he's just looking for another way to try
to undermine confidence in our science.
Henry's review looks helpful and easy to deal w/.  Will be interesting to see the other
reviews. I guess you're going to get your moneys' worth out of your scanner,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
1. This email came to CRU last night.
From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM
To: [2]alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Farmer et al 1989
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland
andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks,
Steve McIntyre
Farmer, G., Wigley, T. M. L., Jones, P. D. and Salmon, M., 1989 'Documenting and
explaining recent global-mean temperature changes'. Climatic Research Unit, Norwich,
Final Report to NERC, UK, Contract GR3/6565 (unpublished)
CRU has just the one copy of this!  We've just got a new scanner for a project, so
someone here
is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the
project
reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations, assessments of
the accuracy of the various estimates for the parameters that have to be made. It also
includes discussion of the shapes (seasonal cycles) of the residual seasonal cycles you
get from different types of buckets prior to WW2 relative to intakes. It also includes
a factor
they haven't considered at all yet - ship speed and its changes over time. This turns
out
to important. It has a lot more than Folland and Parker (1995). Doubt it will shut them
up for
long - but it will justify your faith in those doing the SST work that we have
considered everything
we could think of. We'll also put it up on our web site at the same time.
2. Reviews of the Holocene epic.
Got this today - so a journal still working by post!  Here is Henry's review.
Possibly the other two might involve hand-written comments on hard copies.
Will get these scanned when they arrive and send around if necessary.
Dear Phil
I have today posted two referees' reports to you and the verdict of
accepted subject to taking account of referees' comments.  These two
reports do not include the report of Henry Diaz which has just been sent
to you directly.  Please take his comments into account too.
John A Matthews
Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography
Editor, The Holocene
Department of Geography
School of the Environment and Society
University of Wales Swansea
Singleton Park
SWANSEA   SA2 8PP
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    [3]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:  [4]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[5]
References
1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
2. mailto:alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:mann@psu.edu
5.


Dear All (especially Peck!),
Attached are three sets of reviews of the paper - 2 in the pdf file and one in the
small doc file.
As you'll be able to see, there isn't that much to do and the reviews have been
good. All three reviewers seem to be in awe of the group! I've had a brief
discussion with Keith as to who should do what. You're all welcome to help
but I only think most of you will need go through the revised version when we get that
out - hopefully asap. John Matthews is still hopeful of a 2008 publication date,
and you'll see we won't be going out for any further reviews - just John checking.
Many of the comments relate to the tree-ring section and Keith will
deal with these. They involve some re-organization and some additional refs
on dendro isotope work.
The coral and isotope sections get praised for organization - so well done!
I'll need some help with the one coral comment on 'vital effects', so can
Janice, Kim and Sandy work on that. I think it only needs a few sentences
and maybe extra refs. I know some of you are in Trieste next week, so maybe
you can work on it there.
I'll work on the documentary section a bit and liaise with Juerg. This shouldn't
involve
much extra work.
I'll also look at the borehole section together with what was in Ch 6 of AR4.
The major bit of new text we need is on the high-res varves and laminated lake records,
so this is why I highlighted  Peck. They aren't used in large-area high-freq climate
reconstructions, so emphasis there and to a few key review papers. Is this doable in
the next couple of weeks, Peck? I don't think more than a page or two is required.
Related to the issue of the different proxies use or potential use in high-freq
reconstructions, I'll work on trying to bring that out in the Introduction. I'll
bring out the issues of the maturity of the different proxy disciplines.
Sections 3 and 4 just seem to need some minor wording changes and
some clarification - possibly in a revised introduction. We're hoping that Tim
here will be able to do that.  Note that although the reviewer suggested dropping
the forcing section, John Matthews would like that kept.
In conclusion, we are nearly there. CRU will be able to find the colour costs
envisaged.
To those in Trieste - enjoy the week and I hope it will as fruitful as Wengen was.
If anyone is going to be out of contact during the second half of June and early July
can you let me know.
I've reattached the submission as a word file.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Phil,
I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel room in Trieste--the
weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to be too strong, we may have that
here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and
Jean J. (4 of the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important! Surprisingly, Ben
is not yet, nor am I.  But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I'm guessing
Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had something to do w/ that ;)
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value of "N" where "N" is
the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored that have more than N citations.
N=40 (i.e., an individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at
least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would
be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending--I
think it would be useful is really sealing the case.
2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page bibliography. In my
nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the diverse areas where you've made major
contributions, and I think its well known and obvious to many that two of these are
instrumental data and paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally
important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on climate w/ both
models and observations.  For example, your early Nature papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81
seem to be among the earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don't have copies of the
papers, so can't read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me.  My
suggestion is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection and
include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area including the two early
Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your later work w/
Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of your work in this area isn't as
primary author, but I do think it would be helpful to show this side of your research, and
I'd like to incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your efforts have
been to developments in areas such as D&A).   You could still fit this onto 2 pages by
making the font smaller for the references (10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the
headings at 11 pt, and if necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface
temperature record references to make space for the additional references.
Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or even just the text for
the abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail about those papers so I can
appropriately work them into the narrative of my letter.
thanks for any help,
mike
p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here to Trieste, I was
really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and many others here).  I hope all is well
w/ his daughter.
--
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:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[2]
References
1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2.


thanks Phil--yes, that's perfect. I just wanted to have some idea of the paper, that's more
than enough info. I wouldn't bother worrying about scanning in, etc.
I should have a draft letter for you to comment on within a few days or so, after I return
from Trieste,
talk to you later,
mike
[1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Mike,
Thanks.
The 1980/1981 papers. I don't have the pdfs.
1980:  This paper looked (spatially) at temperatures and
precipitation for the 5 warmest years during the 20th century
and the 5 coldest. We then differenced these to produce
what might happen.  We expanded this in a DoE Tech Report
to look at the warmest/coldest 20-year periods. This latter
effort didn't make much difference.
1981: This looked at statistics of annual/winter/summer
Temperatures for the NH and zones of the NH to see what
signals might you be able to detect. SNR problem really.
Showed that best place to detect was NH annual and
also Tropics in summer.  Last place to look was the Arctic
because variability was so high.
I did look a while ago to see if Nature had back scanned these
papers, but they hadn't.
Is the above enough?  I have hard copies of these two papers -
in Norwich
Cheers
Phil
Hi Phil,
thanks---yes, revised bibliography looks great.
I'll can send you a copy of my nominating letter for comment/suggestions
when done.
also--can you provide one or two sentences about the '80 and '81 Nature
articles w/ Wigley so that I might be able to work this briefly into the
narrative of my letter?
thanks,
mike
[2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Mike.
Will this do?  Have added in a section on D&A.
You didn't send the narrative. Will I have to alter that?
Hope to get out of AVL at 5pm tonight - thunderstorms
permitting.
Cheers
Phil
HI Phil,
OK--thanks, I'll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.
I've attached the 2 page bibliography. I think it would be good to add
some some of the more prominent D&A type papers, especially those
early ones because they seem to be ahead of their time, and it is a
high profile topic (more so than hydrology!). but its your call.
Enjoy Asheville--say hi to Tom for me.
talk to you later,
mike
[4]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
wrote:
Mike,
Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville.
On 1, this is what people call the H index. I've tried working
this out and there is software for it on the web of science.
Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the
software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through
and deleted those in journals I'd never heard of and got
52.  I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s,
so go with 52.
I don't have pdfs of the early papers. I won't be able to do
anything for a few days either.  When do you want this in, by
the way?  Can you email me the piece I wrote for you, as I don't
have this on my lap top. I can then pick it up tomorrow
at some airport.
The D&A work has always been with others.  There is another
area on hydrology that I omitted as well.
Keith's daughter is OK. She had the operation last Tuesday.
He should be over in Birmingham this weekend.
Cheers
Phil
Hi Phil,
I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel
room
in Trieste--the weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to
be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as
supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of
the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important!
Surprisingly,
Ben is not yet, nor am I.  But David Thompson is (quite young for one
of
these). I'm guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had
something to do w/ that ;)
Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of
"N" where "N" is the number of papers an individual
authored/co-authored
that have more than N citations.  N=40 (i.e., an individual has
published
at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is
supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than
that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind
figuring out that number and sending--I think it would be useful is
really sealing the case.
2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page
bibliography. In my nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the
diverse areas where you've made major contributions, and I think its
well
known and obvious to many that two of these are instrumental data and
paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally
important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on
climate w/ both models and observations.  For example, your early
Nature
papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81 seem to be among the earliest efforts
to
try to do this (though I don't have copies of the papers, so can't read
them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me.  My
suggestion
is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection
and include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area
including the two early Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your
later work w/ Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of
your work in this area isn't as primary author, but I do think it would
be helpful to show this side of your research, and I'd like to
incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your
efforts have been to developments in areas such as D&A).   You
could
still fit this onto 2 pages by making the font smaller for the
references
(10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the headings at 11 pt, and if
necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface temperature
record references to make space for the additional references.
Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or
even
just the text for the abstracts, it would be great to have a little
more
detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the
narrative of my letter.
thanks for any help,
mike
p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here
to
Trieste, I was really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and
many
others here).  I hope all is well w/ his daughter.
--  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
[9]
tm
--
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:
[11]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[13]
.htm
--
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]
References
1. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:mid:1079.87.113.67.115.1212941466.squirrel@webmail.uea.ac.uk
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. mailto:mann@psu.edu
8.
9.
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. mailto:mann@psu.edu
12.
13.
14. mailto:mann@psu.edu
15.
16. mailto:mann@psu.edu
17.


To the Editor
American Liberty Publishers
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Dear Sir,
Your website ( was recently
brought to my attention. On this site, you make the following claims:
"In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a
crucial study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global
warming—a conclusion not supported at all by the original data. But two
climatologists, Knappenberger and Michaels, looked up the data and
exposed the fraud. Santer said he adjusted the data to make it agree
with political policy."
These claims have no factual basis whatsoever, and are demonstrably
libelous. I did not falsify data. I did not commit fraud. I did not -
nor have I ever - "adjusted" scientific data "to make it agree with
political policy." Nor did I ever state that I had made data adjustments
in order to conform to political policy.
I request that you retract these claims immediately. They are completely
fictitious, and are harmful to my scientific reputation. If you do not
retract these claims immediately,  I will transfer this matter to the
attention of legal staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Benjamin Santer
U.S. Dept. of Energy Distinguished Scientist (2006)
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award (2002)
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow (1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


thanks Phil--fixed!
waiting on two more letters, then I'll send in the package to AGU.
Should be a no-brainer!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>  Mike,
>     There is one type in your nomination letter. I missed it firts
> time I read it.
>
>  In the second paragraph, second line remove the first 'surface'. You
> have
>  two one before and one after (CRU). Just the one after needed.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
> At 16:59 18/06/2008, you wrote:
>> hey Phil, at Dulles waiting for flight to Orlando Florida.
>>
>> IUGG is the first time I ever met you. but I believe I had already
>> corresponeded w/ you about some of the work I was doing w/ Ray w/
>> proxy records. But the thing we talked about was the quality of the
>> early Trenberth and Paolino SLP gridbox data. you alerted me to some
>> of the early problems w/ that dataset. It was very helpful. I was
>> young and naive!
>> anyway, it made a very positive impression on me that you were so
>> approachable. im' sure many others agree.
>>
>> got to run to my flight now. talk later,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>  Mike,
>>>    This is fine. I don't remember talking to you at IUGG in Boulder !
>>>  I am approachable though and have talked to lots of people. I get
>>> people
>>>  coming up to me now saying we met in 199?  and have no recall
>>>  of our meeting - sometime no recall of even going to the meeting
>>>  where I was supposed to have met them!
>>>
>>>     Another thanks for putting this all togther.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 22:04 14/06/2008, you wrote:
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> I've attached a copy of my nomination letter. I just want to make
>>>> sure I've got all my facts right--please let me know if there is
>>>> anything I've gotten wrong or should be changed. I would be shocked
>>>> is this doesn't go through--you're a no-brainer, and long overdue
>>>> for this.
>>>>
>>>> I've got letters from 3 of the 5 other letter writers now, waiting
>>>> on the 2 last ones, then will submit the package.
>>>>
>>>> talk to you alter,
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael E. Mann
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>>>
>>>> Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
>>>> 503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
>>>> The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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


Caspar
I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
inter-collegial discussion is just that - PRIVATE . Your communication with individual
colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
"demands" undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe
none of us should submit to these "requests". Best wishes
Keith
At 09:01 23/06/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Caspar,
I've just had a quick look at CA.  They seem to think that somehow it is an advantage to
send material outside the formal review process.  But *anybody* could have emailed us
directly.  It is in fact a disadvantage!  If it is outside the formal process then we
could simply ignore it, whereas formal comments had to be formally considered.  Strange
that they don't realise this and instead argue for some secret conspiracy that they are
excluded from!
I'm not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre's conviction!  But
I'd ignore this guy's request anyway.  If we aren't consistent in keeping our
discussions out of the public domain, then it might be argued that none of them can be
kept private.  Apparently, consistency of our actions is important.
Best wishes
Tim
At 07:37 23/06/2008, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Caspar,
In Zurich at MeteoSwiss for a meeting this week.
It doesn't discredit IPCC!
Cheers
Phil
> FYI, more later.
> Caspar
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Brian Lynch
>> Date: June 21, 2008 3:30:28 PM MDT
>> To: ammann@ucar.edu
>> Subject: IPCC FOIA Request
>> Reply-To: killballyowen2003@yahoo.co.uk
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> I have read correspondence on web about your letter to the in
>> relation to expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by you
>> to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process.
>>
>> The refusal to give these documents tends to discredit you and the
>> IPCC in the eyes of the public,
>>
>> Could I suggest that you make your letter and documents pubic. I
>> would be very glad if you gave me a copy and oblige,
>>
>> Yours faithfully,
>>
>> Brian Lynch
>> Galway
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
>> A Smarter Email.
>
> Caspar M. Ammann
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
> 1850 Table Mesa Drive
> Boulder, CO 80307-3000
> email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
>
>
>
>
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [1]~timo/
sunclock: [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.


Hi Phil, Keith and "Confidential Agent Ammann",
At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
This is a confidential email
So is this.
Have a look at Climate Audit.  Holland has put all the
responses and letters up.
There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and
a third later one.
Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim?
I've saved all three threads as they now stand.  No time to read all the comments, but I
did note in "Fortress Met Office" that someone has provided a link to a website that helps
you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a
further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA.  If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information,
then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering
them.  Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.
Tim


Andy
Here's some further results, based on the time series for 1900 to 2007
Results:
(0)     correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the smoothed IPCC decadal
filter: 0.490662
(0)     correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the annual means: 0.527169
(0)     regression coef for PDO with global T : 0.0473447
(0)     regression coef for N34 with global T : 0.0664886
Data sources:
;----------------------------------------------
;  PDO:
;
;----------------------------------------------
;  N34:
;        #Sec5
; ---------------------------------
;  CRU:
;  Hadcrut:
;===================================================================
; Files were manually stripped for 1900 to 2007
;============================================/=======================
These numbers mean that for a one standard deviation in the ENSO index
there is 0.066C change in global T, or from PDO: 0.047C, but that much of
the latter comes from the ENSO index.  Very roughly, since the correlation
is 0.5 between PDO and ENSO, half of the 0.066 or 0.033C of the 0.047 is
from ENSO.  Strictly one should do this properly using screening
regression.
Kevin
> dear all,
> re-sending because of a glitch.
>
> finally got round to posting on an earlier inquiry I made to some of
> you about whether there was a 'clean' graph of multi-decades
> temperature trends with ENSO wiggles removed -- thanks to gavin (and
> david thompson) posting on realclimate.
> here's Dot Earth piece with link to Realclimate etc..
>
>
> next step is PDO. has anyone characterized how much impact (if any)
> PDO has on hemispheric or global temp trends, and if so is there a
> graph showing what happens when that's accounted for?
>
> as you are doubtless aware, this is another bone of contention with a
> lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks and some scientists (the post
> 1970s change is a PDO thing, etc etc). hoping to show a bit of how
> that works.
>
> thanks for any insights.
> and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current
> post to add context etc.
>
> --
> Andrew C. Revkin
> The New York Times / Science
> 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
> Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
> Fax:  509-357-0965
> www.nytimes.com/revkin
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318


Dear Phil,
The wedding was really very moving and beautiful. I had a great time.
I'm sending along a picture of Tom and Helen which was taken at Granite
Island (near Victor Harbor). I don't know whether I've ever seen Tom as
happy as he is now...
Myles (if it is Myles) was a bit pedantic in his second review. Karl
(who is a very-mild-mannered guy) described the tone of the review as
"whining". It seems like the Reviewer was saying, "I'm a lot smarter
than you, and I could do all of this stuff much better than you've
done". I was very unhappy about the "wilfully ignoring" bit. That was
completely uncalled for.
Have a great time at Lake Constance, Phil. It's a beautiful part of the
world.
Best regards, and best wishes to Ruth,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>    Will read the comments in detail tomorrow, when at CRU.
>  I presume the wedding went well and a good time was had
>  by all.
>
>    I'm in CRU tomorrow, but away next week. I'm off to one
>  your old hunting grounds - Friedrichshafen. I am going to
>  a summer school on the other side of the Lake near Konstanz.
>  Can't recall the village name - somthing like Treffpunkt.
>
>    Only gone a week, back Friday week.
>
>   From a quick scan below Myles does seem to be a pain!
>  As we both know he can be.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there.
>> Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding
>> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see,
>> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.
>> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor
>> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is
>> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
>>
>> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting higher-order
>> autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper.
>> As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor
>> technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the
>> standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main
>> error in their analysis.
>>
>> In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1
>> model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable
>> for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a
>> number of previous studies.
>>
>> Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive models
>> to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult business,
>> particularly given the relatively short length of the time series
>> available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the parameters
>> of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The same applies
>> to reliable estimation of the spectral density at frequency zero (since
>> we have only 2-3 independent samples for estimating the spectral density
>> at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's comments are not particularly relevant
>> to the specific problem we are dealing with here.
>>
>> It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for
>> estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER effective
>> sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even more
>> difficult to find significant differences between modelled and observed
>> trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to obtain
>> "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences between
>> modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore, that our
>> test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a non-significance
>> trend difference - which they might claim if we used a
>> (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard
>> errors.
>>
>> The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper
>> become established as the default method of estimating standard errors
>> in climatological time series". We do not claim universal applicability
>> of our approach. There may well be circumstances in which it is more
>> appropriate to use higher-order AR models in estimating standard errors.
>> I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper.
>>
>> I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's
>> comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was
>> uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang
>> Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of
>> estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency
>> domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a
>> paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in
>> DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the shorter
>> paper requested by the Reviewer.
>>
>> It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response to
>> Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft
>> response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there!
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel:   (925) 422-3840
>> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
>> email: santer1@llnl.gov
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\DSCN2786.JPG"


Dear Glenn,
I thought you might be interested in this email exchange with Francis
Zwiers. It's directly relevant to the third criticism raised by Reviewer 2.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Account-Key: account1
Return-Path:
Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:08 -0700
Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82])
by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m6AK864P023034
for
; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:07 -0700
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="21284881"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000";
d="scan'208";a="21284881"
Received: from nsziron-2.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.82])
by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:08:06 -0700
X-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao4AAHkJdkjH1BOCmmdsb2JhbACSJgEBAQEBCAUIBxGfMgE
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="42743336"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000";
d="scan'208";a="42743336"
Received: from ecdow130.tor.ec.gc.ca (HELO OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca) ([199.212.19.130])
by nsziron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:07:46 -0700
Received: from OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca ([142.97.202.217]) by OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:45 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:45 -0400
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Thread-Index: Acjiw9lJw91pKfupQQOFEbAg5s2/SgAAHtnA
References:
From: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]"
To:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 20:07:45.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E3BB9B0:01C8E2C8]
Hi Ben, sure, that would be fine.
Cheers, Francis
Francis Zwiers
Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
Phone: 416 739 4767,  Fax 416 739 5700
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Santer
Sent: July 10, 2008 3:33 PM
To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Dear Francis,
Thanks - this information will be extremely helpful in responding to
Reviewer 2. I really do feel that the Reviewer is getting overly
exercised about a relatively minor technical point. As you note, the key
issue is that, in terms of the statistical significance testing, we are
making it easier to get a "Douglass-like" result by using an AR-1 model
for calculating the adjusted standard errors.
I'm concerned that going down the road proposed by Reviewer 2 could
leave us open to unjustified criticism. It would be a shame if Douglass
et al. argued (erroneously) that our failure to find significant
differences between modelled and observed trends was spurious, and arose
primarily from use of higher-order autoregressive models for calculating
the adjusted standard errors.
Would it be o.k. to share your email with Glenn McGregor and with my
other coauthors on the paper? Since you've looked at these issues in
detail in your previous papers with Thiebaux and with Hans, your
comments would be very useful background information for Glenn.
With best regards,
Ben
Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Sorry the 2nd reviewer is being a pain.  As you say, there is already
> quite a bit of literature on dealing with dependence in tests of the
> mean (and this referree would have been critical if this paper had
> gone over that ground again :)).
>
> Regardless, you might be interested in the attached papers. Both
> contain relevant information and might help to formulate a response to
> the editor.
>
> Thiebaux and Zwiers show that the equivalent sample size is hard to
> estimate well, particularly from small samples. The approach proposed
> by the reviewer is what we termed the "ARMA" method, and it produces
> equivalent sample size estimates that have unacceptably large RMSE's
> when the sample is small, even when the time series in question is not
> very persistent (see Table 6).
>
> Zwiers and von Storch show the performance of an estimator of
> equivalent sample size using the approach you use (i.e., assume the
> data are AR(1)). They show that the equivalent sample size tends to be
> over-estimated (Table 1) particularly when samples are small, and that
> the corresponding t-test tends to operate at significance levels above
> the nominal level (i.e., rejects too frequently - Table 2).  So using
> such a test in effect gives those who would like to reject the null
> hypothesis a small leg up.
>
> Directly comparable results are not shown in the two papers, but you
> can infer, from the comparison between equivalent sample size results
> (Table
> 6 in TZ, Table 2 in ZvS) that the "ARMA" approach for estimating
> equivalent sample size would be much less reliable than the approach
> that you are using (and thus, the sampled series would have to be very
> far from being AR(1) for the ARMA approach to be beneficial). The
> absolute key is to keep things as parsimonius as possible - there is
> simply not enough data to entertain complex models of the
> auto-covariance structure.
>
> Cheers, Francis
>
>
> Francis Zwiers
> Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
> 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
> Phone: 416 739 4767,  Fax 416 739 5700
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Santer
> Sent: July 10, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John
> Lanzante; ssolomon@frii.com; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; 'Philip D.
> Jones'; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin
> Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz
> Subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
>
> Dear folks,
>
> I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there.
> Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding
> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see,
> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.
> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor
> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is
> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
>
> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting
> higher-order autoregressive models to the temperature time series used
in our paper.
> As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor
> technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the
> standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main
> error in their analysis.
>
> In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1
> model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable
> for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a
> number of previous studies.
>
> Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive
> models to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult
> business, particularly given the relatively short length of the time
> series available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the
> parameters of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The
> same applies to reliable estimation of the spectral density at
> frequency zero (since we have only 2-3 independent samples for
> estimating the spectral density at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's
> comments are not particularly relevant to the specific problem we are
dealing with here.
>
> It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for
> estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER
> effective sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even
> more difficult to find significant differences between modelled and
> observed trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to
> obtain "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences
> between modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore,
> that our test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a
> non-significance trend difference - which they might claim if we used
> a
> (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard
> errors.
>
> The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper
> become established as the default method of estimating standard errors
> in climatological time series". We do not claim universal
> applicability of our approach. There may well be circumstances in
> which it is more appropriate to use higher-order AR models in
estimating standard errors.
>
> I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper.
>
> I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's
> comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was
> uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang
> Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of
> estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency
> domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a
> paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in
> DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the
> shorter paper requested by the Reviewer.
>
> It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response
> to Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft
> response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there!
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ----
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence
> Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore,
> CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel:   (925) 422-3840
> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
> email: santer1@llnl.gov
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ----
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore,
CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Dear Ben,
well, thanks for your thanks.  I'm not sure that I did all that much, but glad that the
small amount is appreciated.  It's a shame that the process couldn't have been quicker
still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly.
Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I've skim read already -- looks very carefully done
and therefore convincing (I'm sure you already heard that from others).
I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM).  Provision of SOM is a
relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething problems.
A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has its
SOM missing!  Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I'll now email Glenn to remind him
of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM.  I think this
is a problem on the publisher's side of things rather than an editorial problem.
Because of our absent SOM, we've temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personal
website.  If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain if the
paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your own website
when the paper appears online.  But hopefully there'll be no problem with it!
I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom's wedding -- hope that was fun!
Best regards
Tim
At 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote:
Dear Tim,
Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and is
"in press" at IJoC. I've appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It's
been a long and rocky road, and I'll be quite glad if I never have to write another MSU
paper again - ever!
I'd be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since  IJoC now has
online publication, we're hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks.
Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the
submission of the paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear  Jason and Jerry (and Karl and Ron)--One of my suggestions on an
earlier round was such a simulation--to determine how models might do and
compare with a declining concentration (optimistic as such a scenario might
be). The one you are doing would seem to have an overshoot on the forcing,
but probably not (or not much) on the global average temperature due to lag
effects in the system. It seems to me it would be worthwhile figuring out
such a run that also got the temperature decreasing, so maybe returned to
below the equivalent concentration we have now (so below something like 375
ppm when counting aerosol effects). In that such scenarios would likely lead
to sharp cuts in CO2 emissions, they would also presumably lead to sharp
reductions in the SO2/SO4 offset, we are really already at about 450 ppm CO2
equivalent for GHGs alone--and so to really get cooling started, the run
would likely have to go back to 350 ppm or below--so basically to the level
Jim Hansen has been arguing is required to get back near 1990s climatic
conditions.
I would also note that the CO2 equivalence calculations are being done using
the 100-year GWPs. While there is not much difference for N2O and most
halocarbons, the 20-year GWP for methane is about 3 times the 100-year value
and so over the near-term methane changes (from stringent methane control,
or additional release from thawing tundra) could have a very large effect on
the short-term forcing and so on temperature change over the next several
decades, so when the peak occurs and how one comes back thereafter. While
CO2 control may well take time, methane control is very cost effective and
should be being pushed very hard as a strategy (along with soot and air
pollutants contributing to tropospheric ozone--a point made several years
ago by Jim Hansen). In any case, it seems to me it is not implausible to
imagine that we could get to conditions where radiative forcing is coming
down, and that type of run needs to be explored--so having some sort of
standard run that groups could try if they have resources would make good
sense.
Mike MacCracken
On 7/29/08 4:48 PM, "Jason Lowe"
wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I seem to be the only person not in Snowmass!
>
> In addition to the Japanese proof of concept the EU Ensembles project
> is also running a model intercomparison with a low end scenario that
> peaks at a little over 500ppm CO2eq before declining to an eventual
> 450ppm. Emissions will be diagnosed and, hopefully, many of
> the groups with C-C cycle feedback will also diagnose the feedback!
> It will be interesting to see the spread.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:48 -0600, Jerry Meehl wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> How long will you be in Snowmass?  I get there tomorrow late afternoon
>> and will be there for the sessions Thursday and Friday.  Ron and I were
>> planning on re-visiting the experimental design more then, and if you
>> could join in that would be great.
>>
>> Regarding your point in favor of using the RCPs for carbon cycle
>> feedback, I think Ron and I arrived at this conclusion independently
>> while we both attended a US-Japan workshop in Colorado a few weeks ago.
>>   The Japanese have performed a proof-of-concept experiment using two
>> idealized mitigation scenarios and basically computed numbers for the
>> Aspen experiments you originally proposed in 2006.  There were two key
>> additional points that we noted--one was that they started from a
>> pre-industrial control run so they had 20th and 21st century in the
>> "climate-carbon feedback" contrasted to "no-climate carbon feedback"
>> allowable emissions plots.  Second, they had some kind of 20th century
>> "observations" of carbon emissions they plotted on their allowable
>> emissions graphs to show that their model with carbon-climate feedback
>> actually tracked those observations for 20th century.  Since there are
>> so few observations to compare carbon cycle feedback to, this seemed
>> like a fairly compelling reason to use RCPs, which is what you also note
>> below.
>>
>> I think Karl and Ron had lumped the carbon cycle feedback experiments in
>> the 1% runs both because this had come up as a possibility in the
>> post-Aspen WGCM meeting in Victoria in 2006, and because it could
>> possibly present a more pleasing context to evaluate all feedbacks,
>> carbon cycle and all others.  However, on further review, in addition to
>> the points you raised, deriving allowable emissions from RCPs allows a
>> check to what the IAMs used for emissions in the first place (and used
>> to derive concentrations used in the ESMs).  Also, it seems to me that
>> carbon cycle feedback falls into a new category of feedback that we in
>> the AOGCM world are not used to evaluating.  We must depend on the
>> advice from you and others in that community.  Though it's tempting to
>> think that everything can be boiled out of 1% runs, I think those are
>> most useful for feedbacks basically "managed" by the atmosphere (like
>> clouds, water vapor, etc.).  The original Aspen concept for carbon cycle
>> feedback always depended on using actual mitigation scenarios, and I
>> think we're coming around again to agreeing on that.
>>
>> Another point is that the cloud feedback community will make a proposal
>> to WGCM to enlarge the idealized 1% feedback experiment list, so that
>> makes separating out the carbon cycle feedback experiments in a separate
>> category using RCPs more compelling.
>>
>> Hopefully we can discuss this more Thursday.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Cox, Peter wrote:
>>> Dear Karl and Ron
>>>
>>> Thanks for this very thorough document.
>>>
>>> Generally speaking I think we should be focusing much more on realistic
>>> policy relevant scenarios rather than 1% per year type experiments. There
>>> are two reasons for this:
>>> 1) Most now consider a ("business as usual") 1% per year scenario not to
>>> represent a viable future. So detailed information on these scenarios is
>>> less and less relevant to people outside of the GCM modeling community.
>>> 2) More realistic scenarios allow us to utilize observations to validate
>>> models/reduce uncertainties in a way that idealized scenarios do not.
>>>
>>> So I am in favour of diagnosing feedbacks in the more policy-relevant RCP
>>> scenarios wherever possible. I say this even though Ron, who is sitting
>>> beside me here now in Snowmass, has told me that this makes identifying
>>> model differences more difficult. Ron also tells me that this is a fight not
>>> worth fighting, but I can't resist commenting anyway..:-)
>>>
>>> More usefully I would like to respond to your PS. regarding the diagnosis of
>>> carbon cycle feedbacks. I strongly believe these should be diagnosed
>>> relative to the RCP scenarios. Carbon cycle feedbacks cannot easily be
>>> reduced to an equilibrium response plus a timescale. Carbon uptake
>>> essentially relies on disequilibrium and is therefore dependent on scenario,
>>> so I don't think it is very helpful to define c cycle feedback relative to
>>> idealised 1% per year runs. There are also the potential for significant
>>> "cold-start" problems with the carbon cycle (as land and ocean uptake are
>>> both highly dependent on history). So I vote for diagnosing carbon cycle
>>> feedbacks (at least) relative to the RCP scenarios.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE NEW MOBILE NUMBER
>>> Prof Peter Cox,
>>> Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics,
>>> Room 336, Harrison Building,
>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics,
>>> University of Exeter,
>>> Exeter,
>>> EX4 4QF,
>>>
>>> Email: P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk,
>>> Tel (univ): 01392 269220,
>>> Tel (mob) : 07827 412572
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Karl Taylor
>>> Sent: Tue 22-Jul-08 09:25 AM
>>> To: bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr; Curtis Covey; Jerry Meehl; Mitchell,
>>> John FB (Chief Scientist); mlatif@ifm-geomar.de; Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov;
>>> Andreas Hense; Asgeir Sorteberg; Erich Roeckner; Evgeny Volodin; Gary L.
>>> Russell; Gavin Schmidt; GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov; Greg Flato; Helge
>>> Drange; Jason Lowe; Jean-Francois Royer; Jean-Louis Dufresne; Jozef Syktus;
>>> Julia Slingo; Kimoto Masahide; Peter Gent; Qingquan Li; Seita Emori;
>>> Seung-Ki Min; Shan Sun; Shoji Kusunoki; Shuting Yang; Silvio Gualdi;
>>> Stephanie Legutke; Tongwen Wu; Tony Hirst; Toru Nozawa; Wilhelm May; Won-Tae
>>> Kwon; Ying Xu; Yong Luo; Yongqiang Yu; Kamal Puri; Tim Stockdale; Gabi
>>> Hegerl; James Murphy; Marco Giorgetta; George Boer; Myles Allen; claudia
>>> tebaldi; Ben Santer; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; Phil Jones; David Karoly;
>>> Dáithí Stone; Stott, Peter; Francis Zwiers; Toru Nozawa; Ken Sperber; Dave
>>> Bader; Mike MacCracken; boyle5@llnl.gov; Stephen Klein; A. Pier Siebesma;
>>> William Rossow; Chris Bretherton;
>>  George Tselioudis; Mark Webb; Sandrine Bony; James Hack; Martin Miller; Ken
>> Kunkel; Christian Jakob; Kathy Hibbard; Eyring, Veronika;
>> pasb@lsce.saclay.cea.fr; giorgi@ictp.trieste.it; c.lequere@uea.ac.uk;
>> naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at; stephen.griffies@noaa.gov; Cox, Peter; Pierre
>> Friedlingstein; Olivier Boucher; Bala Govindasamy; Jonathan Gregory; Chris
>> Jones; Jones, Gareth S; David Lobell; peter gleckler; Cath Senior; Keith
>> Williams; stephen e. schwartz; David Easterling; Inez Fung; Duane Waliser;
>> William Collins; Ken Caldeira; Dave Randall; Joyce Penner; Anna Pirani; Bjorn
>> Stevens
>>> Cc: Ronald Stouffer
>>> Subject: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> As most of you know, plans are well underway for a coordinated set of
>>> climate model experiments, which will constitute the Fifth phase of
>>> CMIP.  Attached is a description of the proposed experiments.   As
>>> members of the CMIP panel, which was established by the WCRP's Working
>>> Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to help coordinate this activity, we
>>> are seeking your comments.  Considerable thought and input from a wide
>>> community of scientists have already contributed to the CMIP5 design,
>>> and therefore major changes are not envisioned.  Competing interests and
>>> various tradeoffs have been carefully considered before coming up with
>>> the proposed suite of experiments.  Please keep in mind that modeling
>>> groups have limited resources and the experiment must represent a
>>> compromise among various priorities. We will not be able to please everyone.
>>>
>>> The CMIP panel must present a final design plan for CMIP5 to the WGCM at
>>> its annual meeting in September, just two months from now.   Given this
>>> tight deadline (which cannot slip if the CMIP5 results are to be
>>> available in time for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report).   For this
>>> reason, we ask that you send us (taylor13@llnl.gov and
>>> Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov) any comments and suggestions you have by
>>> September 1, 2008.
>>>
>>> Feel free to pass this document on to anyone you think will have an
>>> interest in it.  We invite comments from scientists associated with all
>>> aspects of the climate change issue, spanning the three IPCC working groups.
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Karl Taylor (PCMDI) and Ron Stouffer (Chair, CMIP panel).
>>>
>>> P.S. Please note that there are remaining details yet to be worked out.
>>> In particular it has been suggested that experiments 4.2 a&b described
>>> in the document should be performed in conjunction with the so-called
>>> RCP-driven experiments given in Table 2 rather than with the idealized
>>> (1% CO2 increase per year) experiments of Table 4.  Experiments 4.2
>>> allow us to separate out the climate-carbon cycle feedback. The original
>>> proposal was in fact to do this separation for the RCP runs, but several
>>> scientists offered compelling arguments for switching this diagnostic
>>> analysis to the 1% runs.  Some of the reasons for making this change
>>> from the original proposal can be found in section 9.  Still, there are
>>> some scientists who continue to express a preference for the original
>>> design.  Please let us know what you think about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>


At 13:35 20/05/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for this.
In response:
1. I can't remember the thinking behind this - can you?
2. I don't think we'll be doing anything with UKCIP08 material, or briefing people;
initially at least it will be about user needs without people thinking about how they
might use UKCIP08, if that makes sense!
3. This is fine, although we may want some consistency between us e.g. Newcastle rates
have been revised and are substantially larger than yours.
4.  We need a pen portrait for Tim.
5. Thanks - we'll use this in with the other text.
Best wishes,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 May 2008 15:36
To: Darch, Geoff J; Jim Hall; C G Kilsby; Mark New; ana.lopez@ouce.ox.ac.uk; Anthony
Footitt; Suraje Dessai; Clare Goodess; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Cc: McSweeney, Robert; Arkell, Brian; Sene, Kevin
Subject: Re: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on
climate change impacts - PCC(08)01
Geoff,
Clare is off to Chelsea - back late tomorrow. We (Clare, Tim and me)
have had a brief meeting. Here are some thoughts and questions we had.
1. Were we going to do two sets of costings?
2. Those involved in UKCIP08 (both doing the work and involved in the SG) have
signed confidentiality texts with DEFRA. Not sure how these affect access to
the headline messages in the drafts we're going to be looking at over the next few
months.  Also not sure how these will affect the UKCIP workshops that are coming
up before the launch.
3. We then thought about costs for the CRU work. We decided on 25K for all
CRU work. At £500 per day this comes to 50 days. We then split this into
the tasks:  5 - 5 days, 6 - 5 days, 7 - 30 days, 10/11 - 5 days, which leaves 5
more days for meetings. Assumed the 25K was without travel to the meetings.
4. On CVs and pen portraits. Clare will send one before she leaves. Are what you
have for Tim and me OK?
5. Some thoughts on Tasks 6 and 7
Task 6 - assumed this was mostly Newcastle.
Tim's work on rainfall extremes could be
fed in, and we can do something on non-rainfall variables. Assume also you expect us
to
do waves, but not sure what we can do. It seems as though sea level has become waves?
Task 7 - assumed here Newcastle (Chris/Hayley) would be doing something on
blocking (large-scale variability). Oxford would do the final bit on conceptual
representation
of emissions and climate system and sensitivities, so based on GCMs.
This leaves CRU for the other three, which we base mainly on the 11 RCM runs,
which we can access through LINK. We could also use ENSEMBLES runs for the others,
but these would be RCMs. They seem more relevant for the sorts of scales UKCOP08
is working at.
All just a few thoughts at this time.
Can you send the UKWIR bid that went off, so we have a copy?
Cheers
Phil
At 09:06 16/05/2008, Darch, Geoff J wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Please find attached the final tender pack for the Environment Agency
>bid.  The tasks have been re-jigged, with the main change being a
>broadening of flood risk management to flood and coastal erosion risk
>management (FCERM).  This means a wider audience to include all
>operating authorities, and the best practice guidance required (new
>Task
>11) is now substantial element, to include evaluation of FCERM climate
>change adaptation, case studies and provision of evidence to help
>upgrade the FCDPAG3 Supplementary Note.
>
>We have just one week to finish this tender, as it must be posted on
>Friday 23rd.  We are putting together the bid document, which we'll
>circulate on Monday 19th, but in the meantime, and by the end of
>Tuesday 20th, I need everyone to send information (as indicated in
>brackets) to support the following structure:
>
>+ Understanding of the tender
>+ Methodology and programme (methodology for tasks / sub-tasks - see
>below - and timing)
>+ Project team, including individual and corporate experience (who you
>are putting forward, pen portraits, corporate case studies)
>+ Financial and commercial (day rates and number of days; please also
>highlight potential issues with the T&Cs e.g. IPR)
>+ Health & Safety, Quality and Environmental Management Appendices
>+ (full CVs, limited to 6 pages)
>
>Please send to me and Rob McSweeney.  The information I have already
>e.g. on day rates, core pen portraits etc will go straight into the
>version we're working on, so no need to re-send.
>
>In terms of tasks (new nos.), the following organisation is suggested
>based on what has been noted to date:
>
>Task 1 (Inception meeting and reporting) Atkins, supported by lead
>representatives of partners Task 2 (Project board meetings) Atkins,
>supported by lead representatives of partners Task 3 (Analysis of user
>needs) Atkins with Tyn@UEA and OUCE, plus Futerra depending on style
>Task 4 (Phase 2 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task 5 (Interpret
>messages from UKCIP08 projections) CRU, OUCE and Newcastle, with Atkins
>advice on sectors Task 6 (Development of business specific projections)
>Newcastle and CRU, with Atkins advice on policy and ops Task 7 (Putting
>UKCIP08 in context) CRU, Newcastle and OUCE Task 8 (User guidance)
>Atkins, Tyn@UEA, Futerra Task 9 (Pilot studies) Atkins, Newcastle,
>OUCE, Tyn@UEA Task 10 (Phase 3 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task
>11 (Best Practice Guidance for FCERM) Newcastle and Atkins, with CRU
>Task 12 (Awareness raising events) Atkins, key experts, Futerra
>(perhaps as an option as EA are quite specific here) Task 13 (Training
>events) Atkins and Futerra
>
>Note that Futerra is a communications consultancy, specialising in
>sustainability, who will input on workshops and on the guidance
>documents.
>
>I'll be in touch again early next week.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Geoff
>
>Geoff Darch
>
>Senior Consultant
>Water and Environment
>ATKINS
>
>Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough,
>PE2 6YS, UK
>Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969
>Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999
>Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590
>E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com
>Web: [2]www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
>
>
>
>
>
>This email and any attached files are
>confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any
>dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
>otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this
>communication shall be legally binding.
>
>The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc.
>Registered in England No.
>1885586.  Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey
>KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in
>the United Kingdom can be found at
>[3]
>
>Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
>really need to.
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - (see

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2.
3.


Gavin,
Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening.
On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of
yours making it read a little better.
Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so
I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book.  I did rephrase the bit
about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing - he
used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his
mind and its inherent bias(es).
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and
traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to
something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible.
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our
FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions
not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an
aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself
from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with
this hassle.
The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the
skeptics
have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info
the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't
have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:07 19/08/2008, you wrote:
Phil, here are some edits - mostly language, a couple of bits of logic,
an attempt to soothe Mike on the borehole bit, and a paragraph for
consideration in the Appendix. Two questions require a little thinking -
the reference to 'regional freshening' on the coral section needs to be
more specific - I doubt it is a global phenomena, second there is an 'in
prep' reference to some new work by van Ommen - I don't think this is
appropriate and should either be removed and put as a personal
communication.
Having looked over the tropical trees section, I think that's fine.
The fig A1 does need labelling though.
Gavin
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:11, Phil Jones wrote:
>  Mike,
>     Peck didn't do the speleothem bit either.
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>  Mike,
>    Have your text in - just need to read the borehole section again.
>  Noted your comment re the final Appendix figure. Will look at more
>  when Tim back.
>    Peck's bit is 2.5 and the terrestrial part of 2.6 - except for the
>  borehole text.
>
>     Next time I co-ordinate anything I'll get the GB cycling coach
>  involved. We've just one our 7th gold medal on two wheels. Only
>  one short of Phelps.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
> At 13:52 19/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
> > thanks Phil--which part is Peck's? I'd like to read it over
> > carefully,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > Phil Jones wrote:
> > >  Mike, Gavin,
> > >       On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of
> > > the annual CET record
> > >  were omitted from the smoothed plot.  Tim's away, but when he did
> > > this with
> > >  them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The
> > > purpose of the piece
> > >  was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same.
> > > It wasn't
> > >  to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the
> > > red/blue lines,
> > >  as they are crap anyway.
> > >       The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in
> > > the IPCC
> > >  diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully
> > > back in or
> > >  dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes
> > > quite
> > >  a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is
> > > that CET
> > >  has been so warm the last 20 years or so.
> > >      Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the
> > > summer is
> > >  lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year.
> > > Warmth
> > >  in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds
> > >  when it comes to warming.
> > >
> > >    Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been
> > > written
> > >  by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I
> > > will
> > >  mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff.
> > >
> > >  Cheers
> > >  Phil
> > >
> > > At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over.
> > > > only 2 substantial comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3
> > > > (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement
> > > > here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of
> > > > 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling.
> > > > the end of the first sentence:
> > > > e.g., Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Küttel et al., 2007),
> > > > should be changed to:
> > > > e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and González-Rouco,
> > > > 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; Küttel et al., 2007),
> > > >
> > > > 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the
> > > > description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1.  It sounds like
> > > > the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If
> > > > so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past
> > > > decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would
> > > > suggest one of two alternative approaches:
> > > > a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I
> > > > don't see any objective justification for doing that) or
> > > > b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how
> > > > the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press
> > > > in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to
> > > > publication (which should be one or two weeks from now).
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil Jones wrote:
> > > > > Dear All,
> > > > >      Here's the revised version of the paper, together with
> > > > > the responses to the reviewers.
> > > > >  We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him
> > > > > by the beginning
> > > > >  of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next
> > > > > Monday is a national
> > > > >  holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look
> > > > > through your
> > > > >  parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week
> > > > > or over the
> > > > >  weekend?
> > > > >     Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and
> > > > > let me know of
> > > > >  any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I
> > > > > think just look
> > > > >  wrong?
> > > > >     I hope you'll think of this as an improvement.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Cheers
> > > > >  Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Prof. Phil Jones
> > > > > Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> > > > > School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> > > > > University of East Anglia
> > > > > Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> > > > > NR4 7TJ
> > > > > UK
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > website:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > "Dire Predictions" book site:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > website:
> >
> > [3]
> > "Dire Predictions" book site:
> >
> > [4]
> >
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4.


Thanks Tim! We'll have another round later, confirmed by Tim, when we
discuss storage and
documentation - probably should try before WGCM meeting so that David
can present results.
the 'near term prediction' is a mip all by itself, so there will be some
guidance coming up hopefully!
In terms of ensemble size: for the stuff I was involved in, even one run
from a model was good since
it increased the overall ensemble size for multi model means and
estimates of variance - did you analyze
models individually? I would be keen to hear from the group:
is say a single 20th c run, single natural only run, single ghg run
a) useless
b) much better than nothing?
| vouch for b) for things I was involved in but it would be good to know
for which applications its a!
Gabi
Tim Barnett wrote:
> hi gabi..in real haste.....people will use the AR5 data set for impact
> studies no doubt about it.  so what will they find when they jump
> in....same as we did trying to do the western D&A work with AR4....a very
> disparate set of numbers.
> 1.some models don't give the data one would like.
> 2.some models have only 1 realization...which makes them useless.  we
> found that with multiple realizations one can do statistics with ensemble
> techniques which give a lot more statistical power.  suggesting 10 member
> ensembles.  with less the S/N can be small...e.g. we could not use the
> GFDL runs very well as they were so noisey and had few (5) realizations)
> 3.  daily data is required.  storage is cheap these days so at least daily
> data for order 100 years is desired. otherwise it is finageled a la the
> current downscaling methods (save one).
> 4.  the 20th century runs need to go to 2015 as suggested by IDAG.  we had
> to stop at 1999 and lost 8 years we would well like to have studies.
> 5.  some of the variables we needed to compare with satellite obs were
> largely missing, e.g. clouds information.
> 6.  to Mike's point....just what data is going to be saved?
> 7.  i hope potential users of the data aside from the modeling groups get
> a say in what is archived.  we are to the point now where policy makers
> want our best guesses as to what will happen in the next 20 years.  the
> people who will make those 'guesses' are most likely not in the major
> model centers.
>
> I invite David Pierce to chip in here as he spend alot of time in the
> details of the data sets and associated problems.
>
> sorry to be so hasty but such is life at the moment.  best, tim
>
>
>
>
>> Hi IDAG'ies,
>>
>> As you probably know, a proposal for the AR5 experiments is being
>> circulated in the moment, with comments due by September 1. This will
>> then be presented at the working group for coupled modelling (WGCM)
>> meeting in Paris, which David Karoly will attend.
>> Peter Stott and I discussed the draft when I visited last week, and we
>> drafted a response and suggestions from IDAG (attached) Please let me
>> know if you are ok with this (if I dont hear back I assume you are),
>> if you suggest changes and if you want us to add another topic/concern.
>>
>> I would need this by next thursday to add it to a comment 'from IDAG'
>> to be sent in time, and then hopefully David can present this also in
>> Paris at the WGCM meeting.
>>
>> hope you all had a nice summer, and still remember our next meeting in
>> planning, and your IDAG tasks :))
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>>
>> p.s. we were wondering also about forcing, and if the forcing issue
>> (how stored, synchronized?) should be added. However, given even some
>> 'rich' modelling groups worry about getting the mandatory experiments
>> through we should however not hope that groups will run more than 1
>> single forcing set for the 20th century, and arguments against
>> synchronizing are that its not feasible for many forcings (eg
>> aerosols) and that we loose quite a bit of information if only a
>> single, for example, set of solar forcings were used and with this
>> open the AR5 up for criticism. Ideally, of course, one center would
>> systematically explore all the forcings - but I am not sure somebody
>> is planning to do this - in that case, a common set of 20th century
>> forcings may be an advantage. Based on some EU project, forcings are
>> synchronized for some European modeling centers - we could draw
>> attention to that if you feel strongly about this...anyway, I hesitate
>> to start a discussion about this...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gabriele Hegerl
>> School of GeoSciences
>> University of Edinburgh
>>
>>
>> --
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Dr Gabriele Hegerl
School of GeoSciences
The University of Edinburgh
Grant Institute, The King's Buildings
West Mains Road
EDINBURGH EH9 3JW
Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184
Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


Caspar,
Thanks.
Phil
At 14:16 27/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Phil,
I worked on the figures yesterday and sent them off to Gene for double check. Will be
one panel each (6), much improved legibility and significantly reduced "footprint" in
the appearance of the text. You should have them before the end of your day.
Thanks for all your work on this paper! (Tim too!)
Cheers,
Caspar
On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Caspar, Gene,
We're going to send the manuscript back tomorrow. If we get a
revised diagram we'll include - otherwise we won't.
Have had a few more comments, but nothing substantial. All yours Gene
are in, as are those from Gavin, Mike, Juerg and the coral people. There
is a completely revised tropical dendro section and Peck finally came
through with a section on less-resolved proxies and varves.
All in all it reads very well and the recommendations should prove very
useful for PAGES.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:52 26/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Hey Gene,
I'll see how I can adjust the figures to fit.
Caspar
On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Eugene Wahl wrote:
Hi Phil and Tim, and Caspar:
Here are my full set of comments on the entirety of section 3, the figures relevant to
section 3, the authors' address, and abstract (none there).  I made slight changes in
the portion of the text already sent last night, sorry that I could not avoid that!
Caspar, please note that I've operated here on the assumption that Figure 3 is
simplified to one panel for each section, according to the suggestions we have talked
about, but does contain all 6 portions, A-F.
There are two versions:  one with just the relevant portions of the text, and the full
amended text document.  The changes noted should be identical in each version.
Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Physical Scientist
NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch
325 Broadway Street
Boulder, CO 80305
303-497-6297
[1]
[2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Gene,
Thanks. Today is a holiday here. We'll all be back in
CRU tomorrow.  So, we'll begin revising Section 3 then.
Have had quite a few comments so far, and all are in.
New Figure 3 most appreciated. We must send this off
on Thursday or Friday.
Hope you're settling in to Boulder life. At least you
should be able to contact Caspar more easily!
Cheers
Phil
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: New Wengen Draft
From:    [3]Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov
Date:    Mon, August 25, 2008 2:45 am
To:      [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Phil:
I've had to wait to the weekend to get to this, due to several other
matters that had to be attended to here at NOAA this week and in
relation to a report required by a funder that was due Friday.
I've looked over about half of section 3 (up to the start of section
3.4.2), and also the abstract and the authors' address section.
Attached are my comments on those sections.  I will be getting to the
rest of section 3 tonight and tomorrow and will send anything else to
you.  Everything is done in WORD with "Track Changes" turned on.
HIGHLIGHTS
1) My address information has been updated to include my NOAA
information, which is now appropriate.  The original Alfred information
is kept, as also appropriate.  I've condensed it all to not change the
overall page spacing of the address citations.
2)  The addition to the results description of the Riedwyl et al.
(2008) paper across pp 10-11 here (near the top of p 56 in the text you
sent this week).  It is NECESSARY to keep this addition, as the text as
it was "overemphasized" the differential quality of the RegEM results
in this study.  Their graphs 4 and 6 clearly show the results I added,
in which RegEM for winter adds quite problematic artifacts at the
highest levels of noise added.  The white-noise SNR at which this
happens (0.25), while low, is not outside of what reality might bring.
[NB: I have talked with Juerg about this situation, and he is clearly
aware of my sense that RegEM is given too high marks in this context.]
3)  I added very brief descriptions how the CFRs actually come up with
a reconstruction to the descriptions of them in section 3.2.  If you
feel these three sentences cannot be included I understand, but I think
they are useful for the readers to know HOW the covariance information
we are talking about there is actually used.
TO COME:  Caspar and I are working out a much simplified version of
Figure 3 (one panel per each section A-F), which I think will be much
better than what is there now.  We communicated on that Friday and
yesterday, and are now close to having a new graphic.  I will adapt the
references to Figure 3 in section 3.4.2 and in the figure caption in my
next message accordingly, which I plan will come either tonight or
tomorrow.
Peace, and again thanks!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: From Phil Jones     New Wengen Draft
Dear All,
Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the
responses to the reviewers.
We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by
the beginning
of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next
Monday
is a national
holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look
through
your
parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or
over
the
weekend?
Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let
me
know of
any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I
think
just look
wrong?
I hope you'll think of this as an improvement.
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    [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
>
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [6]ammann@ucar.edu     tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [8]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
6. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu
7. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
8. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu


yeah, its statistically real, but an artifact almost certainly of
natural variability. As Josh Willis nicely pointed out in a recent
interview, anyone citing this as a reason to doubt the reality of
anthropogenic climate change is like a vegas roller thinking he can beat
the system because he's on a momentary winning streak...
m
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> Curt,
>
> At this point the leveling off is more of a Blog myth than any change
> point scientific analysis
>
> Tom
> Kevin Trenberth said the following on 8/29/2008 3:47 PM:
>> No
>> Kevin
>>
>> Curtis Covey wrote:
>>> Very interesting. Does it mean that the apparent leveling-off of
>>> global mean surface temperature since the turn of the century is due
>>> to "artificial suppression of trends near the time series boundaries" ?
>>>
>>> - Curt
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> dear all,
>>>>
>>>> attached is a paper of mine (GRL) on time series smoothing that
>>>> might be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website:
"Dire Predictions" book site: