Tom,
Good idea with that BAMS paper. There is also the KNMI web site,
which tells that they have restricted data from Europe - on the ECA part.
Both despite WMO-Res40!
On IPCC, I suggested Thomas to not get too many hangers on amongst the LAs.
Chs 2 and 14 are prime candidates for upping the geographic spread. We had
about half of ours not doing that much last time.
Isn't Tom Karl on the US nominating committee?
Away all day tomorrow - CRU barbecue - so will pour down.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote:
Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you.  I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative.  You can point to the
Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops.  All those
workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be
released.  So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South
America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data,
Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric
again for central Africa, etc.  The point being that such agreements are
common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights
into climate change in many parts of the world.  Many countries don't
mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
data (which they might sell to potential users).  Does that help?
Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it.  I have no idea what role
would be deemed appropriate.  One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my
old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
job.  You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
the tasks.  We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an
opportunity, I would say yes.
But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or
even who decides that.  There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and
impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
notes that the nominations had been made.  However, Kumar had earlier
asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details).
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id n6U3Feqd018708
See some suggested mods
BTW the T et al 2002 paper was one that got horribly caught up in the JGR
transition to electronic publication and the doi etc was not properly set.
It was not published on time but delayed by some 6 months when about 10
issues came out all at once, and no one read it!
Kevin
> dear all,
>
> here's a revised intro based on a few iterations between Jim and me.
> Grant--please incorporate this into your next revision of the m.s.,
>
> others feel free to suggest changes/additions/etc.
>
> thanks,
>
> mike
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
>
>> Kia ora all and Austral Jim
>>
>> Don't get sacked now (lol).....well you must be famous if he is
>> making a complaint...I guess he can't get at me here. Mike and I are
>> just putting some wee finishing touches to the intro bit then Mike
>> will circulate it more widely later.
>>
>> It seems that Hildebrandsson was the real originator of atmospheric
>> centres of action (see attached), and that Walker was just using his
>> ideas...interesting stuff - and perhaps it is time for a review by
>> someone....Kevin???
>>
>> I concur with Phil and Mike in that we don't critique their rather
>> bad knowledge of Hadley Cell and stuff and just cut to the chase.
>> Interesting that they are EVEN cherry picking their own paper. They
>> have whipped up a storm through farmers in NZ who are using this to
>> vehemently deny climate change, and therefore not address on farm
>> emissions from CH4 and N2O and leave it to all the rest of us (when
>> 60-70% of our electricity is renewable!) so I guess we all will be
>> walking and cycling very quickly as farmers keep their animals
>> burping out methane...that's my little sermon for this morning!
>>
>> Adios for now
>>
>> Not quite so Austral Jim
>>
>>
>> James Renwick wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>> Great stuff, while I've sat back and watched...  For info, I've just
>>> heard that Bob Carter has sent a formal complaint to NIWA, about
>>> comments I made, to a local reporter, on the paper. I'll be talking
>>> to
>>> our comms people tomorrow about a response (and I haven't actually
>>> seen
>>> the complaint yet).
>>> Regards,
>>> Jim R
>>> -----------------
>>> Dr James Renwick
>>> Principal Scientist, Climate Variability & Change
>>> NIWA
>>> Private Bag 14901, Wellington
>>> +64-4-386-0343  +64-21-178-5550
>>>>>> Jim Salinger
07/30/09 6:22 AM >>>
>>> Kia ora All from the Land of the Long White Cloud and Thursday
>>> Thanks all...Phil I found reference to the Hildrebrandsson stuff
>>> ibn  'Recent Researches on Climate by N N Dickson in The
>>> goegraphical  Journal 10 (3) 1897 303-306. Good fun! Mike and I
>>> will finish  iterating our bit this morning and then it can be
>>> added in to Grant's  fine work!
>>> Talk to you later
>>> Jim
>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
>>>> Hi all
>>>> Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al.  What we should do is
>>>> turn this into a learning experience for everyone: there is often
>>>> misuse of filtering.  Obviously the editor and reviewers need to
>>>> to  also be taken to task here.  I agree with Mike Mann that a
>>>> couple of  other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper.
>>>> Making sure  that the important relationships and role of ENSO on
>>>> interannual  variability of global temperatures should also be
>>>> pointed out with  some select references (as in recent emails and
>>>> the refs therein).   In terms of the paper, I recommend
>>>> consolidating the figures to keep  them fewer in number if this is
>>>> a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 ,  and 6 with 7.  Make sure the
>>>> plots of spectra have period  prominently displayed as well as
>>>> frequency and maybe even highlight  with stipple some bands like
>>>> >10 years.  Glad to sign on: I would  need an acknowledgment that
>>>> NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>>> thanks Grant, the paper is starting to shape up well now. Jim and
>>>>> I  (well, mostly Jim, w/ some input from me) are iterating on a
>>>>> blurb  about past studies on ENSO/temperature relationships and
>>>>> should  have something for you soon on that,
>>>>>
>>>>> As James has pointed out, its important to stick to the key
>>>>> points  and not get sidetracked with nonsense. I would avoid any
>>>>> commentary  on their ignorant ramblings about the Hadley Cell,
>>>>> etc.  We want to  cut straight to the deep flaws in their
>>>>> analysis which are, in  order of importance in my view,
>>>>> 1. indefensible use of a differencing filter, which has the
>>>>> effect  of selectively damping low-frequency variability and
>>>>> renders any  conclusions about factors underlying long-term
>>>>> trends completely  spurious.
>>>>> 2. ignoring the fact that the influence of ENSO on global
>>>>> temperature has been known for decades, and much better
>>>>> quantified  in past studies than in the current deeply flawed
>>>>> analysis. 3. the  selective use of a flawed temperature data and
>>>>> curious splicing in  of inappropriate recent data (UAH TMT) to
>>>>> further suppress trends.   A bit of overkill given that they
>>>>> already eliminated the trends  anyway. Guess they wanted to play
>>>>> it extra cautious just in case  some bit of warming trend tried
>>>>> to sneak in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other stuff is just a distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Grant Foster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is a zip file with LaTeX and pdf for a first draft.
>>>>>> I've  included everybody's name (in alphabetical order after
>>>>>> mine), but  of course it should only include in submission those
>>>>>> who give  explicit consent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few other issues.  One is that MFC have recently
>>>>>> removed the pdf version of their paper from the "New Zealand
>>>>>> Climate Coalition" website.  They've replaced it with this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> which refers to a graph showing only part of figure 7, and
>>>>>> suggests that there's not trend in GTTA so "nothing to worry
>>>>>> about."  Yet the plotted GTTA is from UAH TMT (*not* TLT) so of
>>>>>> course it shows no trend, and the MT channel is contaminated by
>>>>>> stratospheric cooling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In figure 7 of the paper itself they compare the 50-year record
>>>>>> of  SOI and GTTA, but their graph of GTTA is made of RATPAC-A
>>>>>> data  until 1980 grafted onto UAH TMT data afterward -- hence
>>>>>> the lack  of an obvious trend.  I think this too should be
>>>>>> mentioned,  especially as the entire RATPAC-A record shows a
>>>>>> very pronounced  trend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thing: there's a lot of stuff in the paper about
>>>>>> Hadley  cells and heat transport and so forth.  I suspect this
>>>>>> is really a  bunch of gobbledygook -- but I don't know.  But
>>>>>> I'll bet you guys  do.  Comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Grant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite
>>>>>> sports pics. Check it out.
>>>
>> >
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael E. Mann
>>>>> Professor
>>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>>>>
>>>>> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
>>>>> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
>>> 865-3663
>>>>> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
>>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>>>>
>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html
>>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ****************
>>>> Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
>>>> Climate Analysis Section,           www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>> NCAR
>>>> P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
>>>> Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>>>
>>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
>>> Atmospheric Research Ltd.
>>
>> --
>> ******************************************************
>> Dr Jim Salinger
>> Honorary Research Fellow
>> School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science
>> University of Auckland
>> Private Bag 92019
>> Auckland, New Zealand
>>
>> email: j.salinger@auckland.ac.nz
>> Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 84932
>> Fax: + 64 9 373 7434
>> Cell: + 64 27 521 9468
>>
>> President,
>> World Meteorological Organization
>> Commission for Agricultural Meteorology
>> *******************************************************
>>
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
> 503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
> The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html
> "Dire Predictions" book site:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\GrantelalIntro_JS_MEMkt.doc"


Gentlemen,
I've combined everything (I hope!) into the latest revision.  I've probably made some
glaring mistake somewhere, so read it critically.
It's also necessary to ensure that it all fits together coherently, and that anything we
claim we'll do is actually done.  I want this to be airtight, let's not leave them any
"wiggle room."
Referring to the inappropriate application of filters, I have a feeling that saying
"perhaps not an uncommon error" is too easy on them.  I have no motivation to go easy on
them.  Perhaps I'm being too aggressive; I defer to the majority opinion.
On a few technical details, I need altaffils and authoraddresses for everybody.  And make
sure I've got your name right!
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. [1]Try it now. Attachment
Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comment.zip"
References
1.


Dear Tom,
Thanks for forwarding the message from John Christy. Excuse me for being
so blunt, but John's message is just a load of utter garbage.
I got a laugh out of John's claim that Santer et al. (2008) was "poorly
done". This was kind of ironic coming from a co-author of the Douglass
et al. (2007) paper, which used a fundamentally flawed statistical test
to compare modeled and observed tropospheric temperature trends. To my
knowledge, John has NEVER acknowledged that Douglass et al. used a
flawed statistical test to reach incorrect conclusions - despite
unequivocal evidence from the "synthetic data" experiments in Santer et
al. (2008) that the Douglass et al. "robust consistency" test was simply
wrong. Unbelievably, Christy continues to assert that the results of
Douglass et al. (2007) "still stand". I can only shake my head in
amazement at such intellectual dishonesty. I guess the best form of
defense is a "robust" attack.
So how does John support his contention that Santer et al. (2008) was
"poorly done"? He begins by stating that:
"Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been
changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there".
Maybe you or Tom Peterson or Dick Reynolds can enlighten me on this one.
How exactly have NOAA ERSST surface data changed? Recall that Santer et
al. (2008) actually used two different versions of the ERSST data
(version 2 and version 3). We also used HadISST sea-surface temperature
data, and combined SSTs and land 2m temperature data from HadCRUT3v. In
other words, we used four different observational estimates of surface
temperature changes. Our bottom-line conclusion (no significant
discrepancy between modeled and observed lower-tropospheric lapse-rate
trends) was not sensitive to our choice of observed surface temperature
dataset.
John next assets that:
"Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 (of the radiosonde data) are clearly spurious due
to the error in ECMWF as published many places".
I'll let Leo Haimberger respond to that one. And if v1.2 of Leo's data
is "clearly spurious", why did John Christy agree to be a co-author on
the Douglass et al. paper which uses upper-air data from v1.2?
Santer et al. (2008) comprehensively examined structural uncertainties
in the observed upper-air datasets. They looked at two different
satellite and seven different radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. As in the case of the surface temperature data,
getting the statistical test right was much more important (in terms of
the bottom-line conclusions) than the choice of observational upper-air
dataset.
Christy's next criticism of our IJoC paper is even more absurd. He
states that:
"Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different question...than we did. Our
question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data
(including RSS)?" Answer - No.  Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC
model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.
Actually, we asked and answered BOTH of these questions. "Tests with
individual model realizations" are described in Section 4.1 of Santer et
al. (2008), while Section 4.2 covers "Tests with multi-model
ensemble-mean trend". As should be obvious - even to John Christy - we
did NOT just compare observations with results from individual models.
For both types of test ("individual model" and "multi-model average"),
we found that, if one applied appropriate statistical tests (which
Douglass et al. failed to do), there was no longer a serious discrepancy
between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates or in
tropical tropospheric temperatures.
Again, I find myself shaking my head in amazement. How can John make
such patently false claims about our paper? The kindest interpretation
is that he is a complete idiot, and has not even bothered to read Santer
et al. (2008) before making erroneous criticisms of it. The less kind
interpretation is that he is deliberately lying.
A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the errors he or she commits
(such as applying an inappropriate statistical test). John Christy is
not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to
thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the
"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.
I hope you don't mind, Tom, but I'm copying this email to some of the
other co-authors of the Santer et al. (2008) IJoC paper. They deserve to
know about the kind of disinformation Christy is spreading.
With best regards,
Ben
Thomas R. Karl wrote:
> FYI
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]
> Date: 	Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:22 -0500
> From: 	John Christy
> To: 	Thomas C Peterson
> CC: 	Thomas R Karl
> References:
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> I've been on a heavy travel schedule and just now getting to emails I've
> delayed.  I was in Asheville briefly Thursday for a taping for the CDMP
> project at the Biltmore estates (don't know why that was the backdrop)
> while traveling between meetings in Chapel Hill, Atlanta and here.
>
> We disagree on the use of available climate information regarding the
> many things related to climate/climate change as I see by your responses
> below - that is not unexpected as climate is an ugly, ambiguous, and
> complex system studied by a bunch of prima donnas (me included) and
> which defies authoritative declarations.  I base my views on hard-core,
> published literature (some of it mine, but most of it not), so saying
> otherwise is not helpful or true.  The simple fact is that the opinions
> expressed in the CCSP report do not represent the real range of
> scientific literature (the IPCC fell into the same trap - so running to
> the IPCC's corner doesn't move things forward).
>
> I think I can boil my objections to the CCSP Impacts report to this one
> idea for the SE (and US): The changes in weather variables (measured in
> a systematic settings) of the past 30 years are within the range of
> natural variability.  That's the statement that should have been front
> and center of this whole document because it is
> mathematically/scientifically defensible.  And, it carries more weight
> with planners so you can say to them, "If it happened before, it will
> happen again - so get ready now."  By the way, my State Climatologist
> response to the CCSP was well-received by legislators and stakeholders
> (including many in the federal government) and still gets hits at
>
>
> There also was a page or so on the tropical troposphere-surface issue
> that I didn't talk about on my response.  It was wrong because it did
> not include all the latest research (i.e. since 2006) on the continuing
> and significant difference between the two trends.  Someone was acting
> as a fierce gatekeeper on that one - citing only things that agreed with
> the opinion shown even if poorly done (e.g. Santer et al. 2008 used
> ERSST data which I understand has now been changed in a way that
> discredits the conclusion there, and Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 are clearly
> spurious due to the error in ECMWF as published many places, but
> analyzed in detail in Sakamoto and Christy 2009).  The results of
> Douglass et al. 2007 (not cited by CCSP) still stand since Santer et al.
> 2008 asked a very different question (and used bad data to boot) than we
> did.  Our question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best
> Data (including RSS)?" Answer - No.  Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC
> model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.
> The fact my 2007 tropical paper (the follow-on papers in 2009 were
> probably too late, but they substantiate the 2007 paper) was not cited
> indicates how biased this section was.  Christy et al. 2007 assessed the
> accuracy of the datasets (Santer et al. did not - they assumed all
> datasets were equal without looking at the published problems) and we
> came up with a result that defied the "consensus" of the CCSP report -
> so, it was doomed to not be mentioned since it would disrupt the
> storyline.  (And, as soon as RSS fixes their spurious jump in 1992, our
> MSU datasets will be almost indistinguishable.)
>
> This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the
> consensus of those who agree with the consensus.  The
> government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest
> brokers of information.  That is a real tragedy, because when someone
> becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a gatekeeper - and
> begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus scientists are just nuts
> (... it's more comfortable that way rather than giving them credit for
> being skeptical in the face of a paradigm).
>
> Take care.
>
> John C.
>
> p.s. a few quick notes are interspersed below.
>
>
> Thomas C Peterson wrote:
>> Hi, John,
>>    I didn't want this to catch you by surprise.
>>             Tom
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     concerns about the Southeast chapter
>> Date:     Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:45 -0400
>> From:     Thomas C Peterson
>> To:     jim.obrien@coaps.fsu.edu
>> CC:     Tom Karl
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jim,
>>
>>
>> First off and most importantly, congratulations on your recent
>> marriage. Anthony said it was the most touching wedding he has ever
>> been to. I wish you and your bride all the best.
>>
>> Thank you for your comments and for passing on John Christy's detailed
>> concerns about the Southeast chapter of our report, /Global Climate
>> Change Impacts in the United States/. Please let me respond to the key
>> points he raised.
>>
>> In Dr. John Christy's June 23, 2009 document "Alabama climatologist
>> responds to U.S. government report on regional impacts of global
>> climate change", he primarily focused on 4 prime concerns:
>>
>> 1.  Assessing changes since 1970.
>>
>> 2.  Statements on hurricanes.
>>
>> 3.  Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section).
>>
>> 4.  Using models to assess the future.
>>
>>
>>
>> /1.  Assessing changes since 1970./
>>
>> The Southeast section has 5 figures and one table.  One figure is on
>> changes in precipitation patterns from 1901-2007. The next figure is
>> on patterns of days per year over 90F with two maps, one 1961-1979,
>> the other 2080-2099.  One figure is on the change in freezing days per
>> year, 1976-2007. The next figure is on changes to a barrier island
>> land from 2002 to 2005. And the last figure was on Sea Surface
>> Temperature from 1900 to the present.  The table indicates trends in
>> temperature and precipitation over two periods, 1901-2008 and
>> 1970-2008.  As Dr. Christy indicates in his paper, the full period and
>> the period since 1970 are behaving differently. To help explain this,
>> the table shows them both. Of the 5 figures, only one shows the
>> changes over this shorter period.
>>
>> Since, as the IPCC has indicated, the human impact on climate isn't
>> distinguishable from natural variability until about 1950, describing
>> the changes experienced in the majority of the time since 1950 would
>> be a more logical link to future anthropogenic climate change.  In
>> most of the report, maps have shown the changes over the last 50
>> years. Because of the distinct behavior of time series of
>> precipitation and temperature in the Southeast, discussing the period
>> since 1970 seemed more appropriate. Though as the figures and table
>> indicate, this shorter period is not the sole or even major focus.
>
> See crux of the matter in email above - looking at the whole time series
> is demanded by science.  Any 30 or 50-year period will give changes -
> blaming the most recent on humans ignores the similar (or even more
> rapid) changes that occurred before industrialization (e.g. western
> drought in 12th century).  The period since 1970 WAS the major focus in
> the SE section (mentioned 6 times in two pages).  And, OF COURSE any
> 30-year sub-period will have different characteristics than the 100-year
> population from which it is extracted ... that doesn't prove anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> /2.  Statements on hurricanes./
>>
>> Dr. Christy takes issue with the report's statements about hurricanes
>> and quotes a line from the report and quotes an individual hurricane
>> expert who says that he disagrees with the conclusions. The line in
>> the report that Dr. Christy quotes comes almost word for word out of
>> CCSP SAP 3.3. While individual scientists may disagree with the
>> report's conclusions, this conclusion came directly out of the
>> peer-reviewed literature and assessments. Dr. Christy also complains
>> that "the report did not include a plot of the actual hurricane
>> landfalls".  However, the section in the Southeast chapter discussing
>> landfalling hurricanes states "see /National Climate Change/ section
>> for a discussion of past trends and future projections" and sure
>> enough on page 35 there is a figure showing land falling hurricanes
>> along with a more in depth discussion of hurricanes.
>>
> You didn't read my State Climatologist response carefully - I mentioned
> page 35 and noted again it talked about the most recent decades (and
> even then, the graph still didn't go back to 1850).  This hurricane
> storyline was hit hard by many scientists - hence is further evidence
> the report was generated by a gatekeeper mentality.
>>
>>
>> /3.  Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section)./
>>
>> Moving out of the Southeast, Dr. Christy complains about one figure in
>> the Energy Chapter. Citing a climate skeptic's blog which cites an
>> individual described as the keeper of the data for the Energy
>> Information Administration (EIA), John writes that the rise in weather
>> related outages is largely a function of better reporting.  Yet the
>> insert of weather versus non-weather-related outages shows a much
>> greater increase in weather-related outages than non-weather-related
>> outages.  If all the increases were solely due to better reporting,
>> the differences between weather- and non-weather-related outages would
>> indicate a dramatic decrease over this time period in non-weather
>> related problems such as transmission equipment failures, earthquakes,
>> faults in line, faults at substations, relaying malfunctions, and
>> vandalism.
>>
>> Thanks to the efforts of EIA, after they took over the responsibility
>> of running the Department of Energy (DOE) data-collection process
>> around 1997, data collection became more effective. Efforts were made
>> in subsequent years to increase the response rate and upgrade the
>> reporting form. It was not until EIA's improvement of the data
>> collection that the important decoupling of weather- and
>> non-weather-related events (and a corresponding increase in the
>> proportion of all events due to weather extremes) became visible.
>>
>> To adjust for potential response-rate biases, we have separated
>> weather- and non-weather-related trends into indices and found an
>> upward trend only in the weather-related time series.
>>
>> As confirmed by EIA, *if there were a systematic bias one would expect
>> it to be reflected in both data series (especially since any given
>> reporting site would report both types of events).*
>>
>> As an additional precaution, we focused on trends in the number of
>> events (rather than customers affected) to avoid fortuitous
>> differences caused by the population density where events occur. This,
>> however, has the effect of understating the weather impacts because of
>> EIA definitions (see survey methodology notes below).
>>
>> More details are available at:
>>
>
> The data were not systematically taken and should not have been shown
> .. basic rule of climate.
>>
>>
>>
>> /4.  Using models to assess the future./
>>
>> Can anyone say anything about the future of the Southeast's climate?
>> Evidently according to John Christy, the answer is no. The basic
>> physics of the greenhouse effect and why increasing greenhouse gases
>> are warming and should be expected to continue to warm the planet are
>> well known and explained in the /Global Climate Change/ section of the
>> report. Climate models are used around the world to both diagnose the
>> observed changes in climate and to provide projections for the
>> future.  There is a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, including a
>> large number of peer-reviewed climate change assessments, supporting
>> this use. But in Dr. Christy's "view," models should not be used for
>> projections of the future, especially for the Southeast.  The report
>> based, and indeed must base, its results on the huge body of
>> peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than the view of one
>> individual scientist.
>
> No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting.
> Modelers write and review their own literature - there are millions of
> dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect?
> Publication volume shouldn't impress anyone.  The simple fact is we
> demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the actual
> trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the envelop of
> model predictions ... no one has disputed that finding with an
> alternative analysis - even when presented before congressional hearings
> where the opportunity for disagreement was openly available.
>>
>> I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>     Tom Peterson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ************************************************************
> John R. Christy
> Director, Earth System Science Center   voice: 256-961-7763
> Professor, Atmospheric Science          fax:   256-961-7751
> Alabama State Climatologist
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>
> Mail:	 ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville AL 35899
> Express:   Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>
> Director, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>
> Lead, NOAA Climate Services
>
> Veach-Baley Federal Building
>
> 151 Patton Avenue
>
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>
> Tel: (828) 271-4476
>
> Fax: (828) 271-4246
>
> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have a go from me.  By all means clean up.  I think you should argue
that it should be expedited for the reasons of interest by the press.  Key
question is who was the editor who handled the original, because this is
an implicit criticism of that person.  May need to point this out and
ensure that someone else handles it.
Thanks
Kevin
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
> changes myself.  Here's the latest version.  Enjoy!
>
> Sincerely,
> Grant
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
>
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318


folks, I was thinking exactly the same thing. the problems are so unusually fundamental and
obvious, as we lay them out, that it does immediately call into suspicion the integrity of
the review process.
We probably need to take this directly to the chief editor at JGR, asking that this not be
handled by the editor who presided over the original paper, as this would represent a
conflict of interest. if we are told that is not possible, then we would at least want the
chief editor himself to closely monitor the handling of the paper.
I too am happy to sign of at this point,
mike
On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
You have a go from me.  By all means clean up.  I think you should argue
that it should be expedited for the reasons of interest by the press.  Key
question is who was the editor who handled the original, because this is
an implicit criticism of that person.  May need to point this out and
ensure that someone else handles it.
Thanks
Kevin
Gentlemen,
I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
changes myself.  Here's the latest version.  Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live SkyDrive: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
[1]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[2]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]
References
Visible links
1.
2.
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. ~mann/Mann/index.html
5.
Hidden links:
6.


Dear All My colleague Emma and I are submitting everything this morning. I'm doing the
email version, Emma the 4 hard copies to the office in York before 2pm. Peter provided a
very useful edit yesterday which has got the proposal down under 4,000 words. Please find
attached: 1. Proposal registration form (I have just put in CAG details as main proposer
but flagged up its a partnership bid) 2. Summary (just under 600 words as required) 3.
Proposal 4. Budget form (their's and an extra one they agreed I could do to show who does
what days - don't worry about days shown - its provisional - we can revise and rearrange it
if we get the job!) 5. Staff Costs forms (attached to the budget form but not filled in as
they agreed we didn't have to submit these - they don't work with day rates) 6. Full CVs
for all Proposers (Emma is adding in some final material she has but coudnt access
yesterday - we will send round the very final version for your records once done this
morning) 7. Three appendices as one Word document (to go with the proposal but separately
so as not to increase the word count of the proposal) 8. A rather long covering letter to
go with email and hard copy versions. If you notice I've missed something please email me!
Thanks to everyone for the their work on this. Very much appreciated. I will let you know
as soon as I hear anything. best wishes Susan ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Dr Susan Parham
Director - CAG Consultants Tel: 020 7704 0018 Mob: 07967 816 295 sp@cagconsult.co.uk
www.cagconsult.co.uk Office: 30 Aberdeen Road, London, N5 2UH HQ: Gordon House, 6 Lissenden
Gardens, London, NW5 1LX Dear All
My colleague Emma and I are submitting everything this morning. I'm doing the email
version, Emma the 4 hard copies to the office in York before 2pm.
Peter provided a very useful edit yesterday which has got the proposal down under 4,000
words.
Please find attached:
1. Proposal registration form (I have just put in CAG details as main proposer but flagged
up its a partnership bid)
2. Summary (just under 600 words as required)
3. Proposal
4. Budget form (their's and an extra one they agreed I could do to show who does what days
- don't worry about days shown - its provisional - we can revise and rearrange it if we get
the job!)
5. Staff Costs forms (attached to the budget form but not filled in as they agreed we
didn't have to submit these - they don't work with day rates)
6. Full CVs for all Proposers (Emma is adding in some final material she has but coudnt
access yesterday - we will send round the very final version for your records once done
this morning)
7. Three appendices as one Word document (to go with the proposal but separately so as not
to increase the word count of the proposal)
8. A rather long covering letter to go with email and hard copy versions.
If you notice I've missed something please email me!
Thanks to everyone for the their work on this. Very much appreciated. I will let you know
as soon as I hear anything.
best wishes
Susan
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644;
x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=CAG and Partners Application Registration Form.doc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners Application Registration
Form.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CAG and Partners Application Registration
Form.doc" Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644;
x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=Application summary CAG and partners.doc Content-Disposition:
attachment; filename="Application summary CAG and partners.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\Application summary CAG and partners.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Application Final.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG
and Partners Application Final.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CAG and
Partners Application Final.doc" Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
x-mac-type=584C5338; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=5843454C; name=CAG and Partners Budget
Form.xls Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners Budget Form.xls"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CAG and Partners Budget Form.xls" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Additional Budget Form and Explanatory Notes.doc Content-Disposition:
attachment; filename*0="CAG and Partners Additional Budget Form and Explanatory Notes.do";
filename*1=c Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CAG.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners CVs.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CAG and Partners
CVs.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CAG and Partners CVs.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="CAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\CAG and Partners Application Appendices.doc" Content-Type:
application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=CAG and Partners covering letter final.doc Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="CAG and Partners covering letter final.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\CAG and Partners covering letter final.doc"
Dr Susan Parham
Director - CAG Consultants
Tel: 020 7704 0018 Mob: 07967 816 295
[1]sp@cagconsult.co.uk
www.cagconsult.co.uk
Office: 30 Aberdeen Road,
London, N5 2UH
HQ: Gordon House, 6 Lissenden Gardens, London, NW5 1LX
References
1. mailto:sp@cagconsult.co.uk


>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:57 -0400
>From: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov
>Subject: did you get a chance to see
>To: Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov
>Cc: Phil Jones
>X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug 26 2004)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Priority: normal
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
>X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
>APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983044 - 2dc0798c114f
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>[1]
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>[2]
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>[3]
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
>
>[4]
-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
>Subject: Re: This and that
>
> > Hi, Phil,
> >
> > Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> > interest in you.  I was thinking about sending an email of
> > sympathy, but
> > I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> > morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> > airport on my way
> > home.
> >
> > Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> > Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> > violate agreements
> > and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> > don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
> >
> > But I can give you a good alternative.  You can point to the
> > Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops.  All
> > thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> > peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> > would be
> > released.  So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> > agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> > data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> > SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> > data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> > Enricagain for central Africa, etc.  The point being that such
> > agreements are
> > common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> > insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world.  Many
> > countries don't
> > mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> > Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> > data (which they might sell to potential users).  Does that help?
> >
> > Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it.  I have no idea what
> > rolewould be deemed appropriate.  One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> > in my
> > old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> > different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> > job.  You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> > delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> > the tasks.  We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> > get an
> > opportunity, I would say yes.
> >
> > But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> > be or
> > even who decides that.  There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> > extremes and
> > impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> > nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> > notes that the nominations had been made.  However, Kumar had earlier
> > asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> > details).
> > Regards,
> >    Tom
> >
>
>>  Tom,
>          If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
>  Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
>  a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
>  for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
>  quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
>  went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
>      Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
>  going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
>  wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
>  I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
>      The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
>  containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in
> GHCN). Presumably
>  this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
>  data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
>  have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
>
>    On something positive - attached is the outlines for the
> proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
>  Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
>  only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between
> some of the
>  data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
>    I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2
> if I decide. At the
>  moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
>  from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you
> considering
>  getting involved?
>    I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
>  the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
>  is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last
> time, and others in
>  the US have had.
>
>  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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


Gentlemen,
We're very close to being ready for submission; here's the latest version.  I suggest a
close reading, and don't forget to point out all the typos you notice.
James, since you can cover the page charges I suggest you handle the actual submission
(when the time comes).  Would you be willing to write the cover letter?  Any other
volunteers?
So far I've produced versions in 2-column format with graphs inline (so we can all see what
it'll look like), but when we're ready I'll create a draft version with all the figures at
the end (or if you really want to James, you can do this as well).  The 2-column version
takes jpg files as input, but I've already created eps files for all the figures.
I *think* I've got everybody's suggestions in here, but if I've missed anything or you have
further suggestions send 'em along.  We're still waiting for explicit consent (and
afilliation info) from B. Mullan and G. Schmidt!  If either of you fellas would rather opt
out that's OK -- as far as I'm concerned you're completely welcome to join or to decline.
If we're as close as I think, we may be ready by Monday.
Thanks, Phil, for the link to the video; a good laugh!  Maybe the most amusing blog post
I've seen about MFC09 is this one:

What amuses me most is that "in its original news item on the paper, the International
Climate Science Coalition had actually substituted the title of the first press release for
for the actual title in its link to the paper ... Thats right according to the ICSC, the
papers title was Nature, not Man, is responsible for global warming. Stop the presses!

Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. [1]Try it now. Attachment
Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comment2.zip"
References
1.


Grant el al
All good to me apart from adding in the IPCC 2007 WG1 Chap 3 reference.
I checked with IJC chief editor here (Glenn McGregor) and editors
usually like to publish comments asap, and send them only to the
original authors to respond to as soon as possible.
So once the USA contingent has signed it off 'today' (Friday) and
submitted it, I will send a copy to our Australian colleagues for
information.
All good stuff
Best
Auckland Jim
Grant Foster wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I've added additional suggestions received today, and made a few minor
> changes myself.  Here's the latest version.  Enjoy!
>
> Sincerely,
> Grant
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
>


Hi Grant,
I have been tied up with other things.  In looking at the paper some questions.
1) In Fig 1, why is the scale zero to 2?  Normally a filter would be scaled to have a
response function zero to 1.
2) In Fig 2 and 3 what are the units of "power"? It is not in the caption.  Are these
normalized spectra so that the area under the curve is unity?  My guess is that this is the
case and hence the amplification at ENSO bands.  But it is important to say this and
perhaps point out.  Maybe the captions are sufficient?   Add something like:  The spectra
have been normalized to have unit variance, which relatively inflates the values in the 0.2
to 0.5 frequency band.   In a couple of places in text add "normalized" before "power
spectrum" such as 2 lines above Fig 3 in the JGR set version.
3) A minor point: in the  x= sin(2*pi*vt) I would be inclined to add an amplitude which
would then be included also in eq (1) on RHS emphasizing how the amplitude is changed.
[My own preference would be to call the amplitude A and the A you have R (for response
function)].  However it is fine as is.
Thanks
Kevin
Grant Foster wrote:
Gentlemen,
Well, I got some free time and it didn't take as long as I expected.  Attached are:
comment.zip    Comment in preprint form
draft.zip      Comment in draft form (for submission)
freeform.zip   Comment NOT as preprint or draft, with larger font and double-wide graphs
I suggest we don't circulate it until folks have had one further day to check.  And
double check and triple-check.  If we don't hear an objection by tomorrow morning, I
suggest we submit it to JGR and feel free to circulate it.
So -- this is your last chance to suggest changes before submission, or to suggest
restraint in circulation.
Sincerely,
Grant
___________________________________________________________________________________
Windows Live(TM): Keep your life in sync. [1]Check it out.
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [2]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
1.
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3.


Dear James
From the Land of the Long White Cloud to the Land of the Rising Sun....
Should we not also inquire about their time line for publishing the
comment, and on the basis that is so serious, and the implications of
their flawed findings ask it to be expedited.
Perhaps
We also note that the paper is now being used as the basis of campaigns
against climate change policy and, should you decide to go ahead and
publish our comment, expedite its acceptance.
Best
Auckland James
James Annan wrote:
> Grant Foster wrote:
>> James, since you can cover the page charges I suggest you handle the
>> actual submission (when the time comes).  Would you be willing to
>> write the cover letter?  Any other volunteers?
>
> Sure, I propose something like the below. I don't think there is
> anything to be gained by being overly combative wrt JGR.
>
> I look forward to the next final version of the paper :-)
>
>
> Covering Letter:
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Please consider the attached manuscript for publication in the Journal
> of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres). We consider that the errors in
> the analysis of McLean et al are so serious that the publication of a
> Comment to correct the public record is amply justified. In view of the
> high profile of the issue, we would prefer if one of the senior editors
> could take charge of the editorial process.
>
> Yours sincerely..
>
>


Hi all,
Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
We have Ben Santer in common !  Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and
the awful original, without any prompting.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:50 05/08/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
I went to JGR site to look for index codes, and I see that the offending article has
been downloaded  128 times in past week (second).  All the mnore reason to get on with
it.
see below
Kevin
Grant Foster wrote:
Gentlemen,
I've completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I
hope you can help me with.
1) Keyword
Please provide 1 unique keyword
global temperatures, statistical methods, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, global warming
2) Index Terms
Please provide 3 unique index terms
1600    GLOBAL CHANGE
1616    Climate variability
3309    Climatology
1694    Instruments and techniques
3) Suggested Reviewers to Include
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give
an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,
collaborators, or family members.  (this requires name, email, and institution).
Tom Wigley  [1]wigley@ucar.edu  NCAR
Ben Santer [2]
Lawrence Livermore
Mike Wallace [3]
U Washington     [May not be most
responsive]
Dave Thompson  [4]
Col State Univ
Dave Easterling [5]
NCDC
Sincerely,
Grant
___________________________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [6]Check it out.
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [7]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:wigley@ucar.edu
2. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov
3. mailto:wallace@atmos.washington.edu
4. mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu
5. mailto:David.Easterling@noaa.gov
6.
7. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
8.


Dear Tom,
I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Some people are accessible to rational
scientific debate. They are good Bayesians - when confronted with new
scientific information, they are capable of modifying previously-held
views. John Christy is not accessible to rational scientific debate. New
evidence does not cause him to change his views. He simply claims that
the new evidence is wrong. From John's perspective, any datasets in
disagreement with UAH-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change
constitute "bad data".
John is incapable of recognizing and admitting that Douglass et al. used
a flawed statistical test to reach incorrect conclusions. He continues
to misrepresent the analyses we performed in our response to Douglass et
al. I don't see what useful purpose can be served by trying to engage
him in reasonable scientific debate.
At the Hawaii IPCC meeting in March, John stood up in front of an
audience of IPCC Working Group I Lead Authors and attempted to portray
himself as a victim of scientific discrimination. He claimed that his
"alternative" views on the nature and causes of climate change were
being ignored by the mainstream scientific community. This claim is
bogus. The "mainstream" scientific community has not ignored the
"alternative" views of folks like John Christy. The sad reality is that
we've wasted an inordinate amount of time responding to the flawed
science and incorrect claims of John and his colleagues.
I'm hopeful that I won't have to waste much more time on the "great
satellite debate". In my personal opinion, we're already well past the
point of diminishing returns on this debate. The point of diminishing
returns was reached three years ago, when you overcame great obstacles
to lead a fractious bunch of scientists to the successful completion of
the first CCSP Report.
With best regards,
Ben
Thomas R. Karl wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Just got to this.  I wonder if it would be useful to directly respond to
> John, or would this be a time sink?  Maybe a cleaned up version of this
> is a single reponse?  Just thinking out loud.
>
> Thanks Ben
>
> P.S.  I have no idea what he is talking about regarding ERST.
>
>
> Ben Santer said the following on 7/30/2009 9:41 PM:
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for forwarding the message from John Christy. Excuse me for
>> being so blunt, but John's message is just a load of utter garbage.
>>
>> I got a laugh out of John's claim that Santer et al. (2008) was
>> "poorly done". This was kind of ironic coming from a co-author of the
>> Douglass et al. (2007) paper, which used a fundamentally flawed
>> statistical test to compare modeled and observed tropospheric
>> temperature trends. To my knowledge, John has NEVER acknowledged that
>> Douglass et al. used a flawed statistical test to reach incorrect
>> conclusions - despite unequivocal evidence from the "synthetic data"
>> experiments in Santer et al. (2008) that the Douglass et al. "robust
>> consistency" test was simply wrong. Unbelievably, Christy continues to
>> assert that the results of Douglass et al. (2007) "still stand". I can
>> only shake my head in amazement at such intellectual dishonesty. I
>> guess the best form of defense is a "robust" attack.
>>
>> So how does John support his contention that Santer et al. (2008) was
>> "poorly done"? He begins by stating that:
>>
>> "Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been
>> changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there".
>>
>> Maybe you or Tom Peterson or Dick Reynolds can enlighten me on this
>> one. How exactly have NOAA ERSST surface data changed? Recall that
>> Santer et al. (2008) actually used two different versions of the ERSST
>> data (version 2 and version 3). We also used HadISST sea-surface
>> temperature data, and combined SSTs and land 2m temperature data from
>> HadCRUT3v. In other words, we used four different observational
>> estimates of surface temperature changes. Our bottom-line conclusion
>> (no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed
>> lower-tropospheric lapse-rate trends) was not sensitive to our choice
>> of observed surface temperature dataset.
>>
>> John next assets that:
>>
>> "Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 (of the radiosonde data) are clearly spurious
>> due to the error in ECMWF as published many places".
>>
>> I'll let Leo Haimberger respond to that one. And if v1.2 of Leo's data
>> is "clearly spurious", why did John Christy agree to be a co-author on
>> the Douglass et al. paper which uses upper-air data from v1.2?
>>
>> Santer et al. (2008) comprehensively examined structural uncertainties
>> in the observed upper-air datasets. They looked at two different
>> satellite and seven different radiosonde-based estimates of
>> tropospheric temperature change. As in the case of the surface
>> temperature data, getting the statistical test right was much more
>> important (in terms of the bottom-line conclusions) than the choice of
>> observational upper-air dataset.
>>
>> Christy's next criticism of our IJoC paper is even more absurd. He
>> states that:
>>
>> "Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different question...than we did. Our
>> question was "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data
>> (including RSS)?" Answer - No.  Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC
>> model agree with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.
>>
>> Actually, we asked and answered BOTH of these questions. "Tests with
>> individual model realizations" are described in Section 4.1 of Santer
>> et al. (2008), while Section 4.2 covers "Tests with multi-model
>> ensemble-mean trend". As should be obvious - even to John Christy - we
>> did NOT just compare observations with results from individual models.
>>
>> For both types of test ("individual model" and "multi-model average"),
>> we found that, if one applied appropriate statistical tests (which
>> Douglass et al. failed to do), there was no longer a serious
>> discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse
>> rates or in tropical tropospheric temperatures.
>>
>> Again, I find myself shaking my head in amazement. How can John make
>> such patently false claims about our paper? The kindest interpretation
>> is that he is a complete idiot, and has not even bothered to read
>> Santer et al. (2008) before making erroneous criticisms of it. The
>> less kind interpretation is that he is deliberately lying.
>>
>> A good scientist is willing to acknowledge the errors he or she
>> commits (such as applying an inappropriate statistical test). John
>> Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure
>> willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not
>> the "gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.
>>
>> I hope you don't mind, Tom, but I'm copying this email to some of the
>> other co-authors of the Santer et al. (2008) IJoC paper. They deserve
>> to know about the kind of disinformation Christy is spreading.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Thomas R. Karl wrote:
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     Re: [Fwd: concerns about the Southeast chapter]
>>> Date:     Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:22 -0500
>>> From:     John Christy
>>> To:     Thomas C Peterson
>>> CC:     Thomas R Karl
>>> References:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom:
>>>
>>> I've been on a heavy travel schedule and just now getting to emails
>>> I've delayed.  I was in Asheville briefly Thursday for a taping for
>>> the CDMP project at the Biltmore estates (don't know why that was the
>>> backdrop) while traveling between meetings in Chapel Hill, Atlanta
>>> and here.
>>>
>>> We disagree on the use of available climate information regarding the
>>> many things related to climate/climate change as I see by your
>>> responses below - that is not unexpected as climate is an ugly,
>>> ambiguous, and complex system studied by a bunch of prima donnas (me
>>> included) and which defies authoritative declarations.  I base my
>>> views on hard-core, published literature (some of it mine, but most
>>> of it not), so saying otherwise is not helpful or true.  The simple
>>> fact is that the opinions expressed in the CCSP report do not
>>> represent the real range of scientific literature (the IPCC fell into
>>> the same trap - so running to the IPCC's corner doesn't move things
>>> forward).
>>>
>>> I think I can boil my objections to the CCSP Impacts report to this
>>> one idea for the SE (and US): The changes in weather variables
>>> (measured in a systematic settings) of the past 30 years are within
>>> the range of natural variability.  That's the statement that should
>>> have been front and center of this whole document because it is
>>> mathematically/scientifically defensible.  And, it carries more
>>> weight with planners so you can say to them, "If it happened before,
>>> it will happen again - so get ready now."  By the way, my State
>>> Climatologist response to the CCSP was well-received by legislators
>>> and stakeholders (including many in the federal government) and still
>>> gets hits at
>>>
>>> There also was a page or so on the tropical troposphere-surface issue
>>> that I didn't talk about on my response.  It was wrong because it did
>>> not include all the latest research (i.e. since 2006) on the
>>> continuing and significant difference between the two trends.
>>> Someone was acting as a fierce gatekeeper on that one - citing only
>>> things that agreed with the opinion shown even if poorly done (e.g.
>>> Santer et al. 2008 used ERSST data which I understand has now been
>>> changed in a way that discredits the conclusion there, and
>>> Haimberger's v1.2-1.4 are clearly spurious due to the error in ECMWF
>>> as published many places, but analyzed in detail in Sakamoto and
>>> Christy 2009).  The results of Douglass et al. 2007 (not cited by
>>> CCSP) still stand since Santer et al. 2008 asked a very different
>>> question (and used bad data to boot) than we did.  Our question was
>>> "Does the IPCC BEST ESTIMATE agree with the Best Data (including
>>> RSS)?" Answer - No.  Santer et al. asked, "Does ANY IPCC model agree
>>> with ANY data set?" ... I think you can see the difference.  The fact
>>> my 2007 tropical paper (the follow-on papers in 2009 were probably
>>> too late, but they substantiate the 2007 paper) was not cited
>>> indicates how biased this section was.  Christy et al. 2007 assessed
>>> the accuracy of the datasets (Santer et al. did not - they assumed
>>> all datasets were equal without looking at the published problems)
>>> and we came up with a result that defied the "consensus" of the CCSP
>>> report - so, it was doomed to not be mentioned since it would disrupt
>>> the storyline.  (And, as soon as RSS fixes their spurious jump in
>>> 1992, our MSU datasets will be almost indistinguishable.)
>>>
>>> This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the
>>> consensus of those who agree with the consensus.  The
>>> government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than
>>> honest brokers of information.  That is a real tragedy, because when
>>> someone becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a
>>> gatekeeper - and begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus
>>> scientists are just nuts (... it's more comfortable that way rather
>>> than giving them credit for being skeptical in the face of a paradigm).
>>>
>>> Take care.
>>>
>>> John C.
>>>
>>> p.s. a few quick notes are interspersed below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas C Peterson wrote:
>>>> Hi, John,
>>>>    I didn't want this to catch you by surprise.
>>>>             Tom
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject:     concerns about the Southeast chapter
>>>> Date:     Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:25:45 -0400
>>>> From:     Thomas C Peterson
>>>> To:     jim.obrien@coaps.fsu.edu
>>>> CC:     Tom Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jim,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First off and most importantly, congratulations on your recent
>>>> marriage. Anthony said it was the most touching wedding he has ever
>>>> been to. I wish you and your bride all the best.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your comments and for passing on John Christy's
>>>> detailed concerns about the Southeast chapter of our report, /Global
>>>> Climate Change Impacts in the United States/. Please let me respond
>>>> to the key points he raised.
>>>>
>>>> In Dr. John Christy's June 23, 2009 document "Alabama climatologist
>>>> responds to U.S. government report on regional impacts of global
>>>> climate change", he primarily focused on 4 prime concerns:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Assessing changes since 1970.
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Statements on hurricanes.
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section).
>>>>
>>>> 4.  Using models to assess the future.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /1.  Assessing changes since 1970./
>>>>
>>>> The Southeast section has 5 figures and one table.  One figure is on
>>>> changes in precipitation patterns from 1901-2007. The next figure is
>>>> on patterns of days per year over 90F with two maps, one 1961-1979,
>>>> the other 2080-2099.  One figure is on the change in freezing days
>>>> per year, 1976-2007. The next figure is on changes to a barrier
>>>> island land from 2002 to 2005. And the last figure was on Sea
>>>> Surface Temperature from 1900 to the present.  The table indicates
>>>> trends in temperature and precipitation over two periods, 1901-2008
>>>> and 1970-2008.  As Dr. Christy indicates in his paper, the full
>>>> period and the period since 1970 are behaving differently. To help
>>>> explain this, the table shows them both. Of the 5 figures, only one
>>>> shows the changes over this shorter period.
>>>>
>>>> Since, as the IPCC has indicated, the human impact on climate isn't
>>>> distinguishable from natural variability until about 1950,
>>>> describing the changes experienced in the majority of the time since
>>>> 1950 would be a more logical link to future anthropogenic climate
>>>> change.  In most of the report, maps have shown the changes over the
>>>> last 50 years. Because of the distinct behavior of time series of
>>>> precipitation and temperature in the Southeast, discussing the
>>>> period since 1970 seemed more appropriate. Though as the figures and
>>>> table indicate, this shorter period is not the sole or even major
>>>> focus.
>>>
>>> See crux of the matter in email above - looking at the whole time
>>> series is demanded by science.  Any 30 or 50-year period will give
>>> changes - blaming the most recent on humans ignores the similar (or
>>> even more rapid) changes that occurred before industrialization (e.g.
>>> western drought in 12th century).  The period since 1970 WAS the
>>> major focus in the SE section (mentioned 6 times in two pages).  And,
>>> OF COURSE any 30-year sub-period will have different characteristics
>>> than the 100-year population from which it is extracted ... that
>>> doesn't prove anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /2.  Statements on hurricanes./
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Christy takes issue with the report's statements about
>>>> hurricanes and quotes a line from the report and quotes an
>>>> individual hurricane expert who says that he disagrees with the
>>>> conclusions. The line in the report that Dr. Christy quotes comes
>>>> almost word for word out of CCSP SAP 3.3. While individual
>>>> scientists may disagree with the report's conclusions, this
>>>> conclusion came directly out of the peer-reviewed literature and
>>>> assessments. Dr. Christy also complains that "the report did not
>>>> include a plot of the actual hurricane landfalls".  However, the
>>>> section in the Southeast chapter discussing landfalling hurricanes
>>>> states "see /National Climate Change/ section for a discussion of
>>>> past trends and future projections" and sure enough on page 35 there
>>>> is a figure showing land falling hurricanes along with a more in
>>>> depth discussion of hurricanes.
>>>>
>>> You didn't read my State Climatologist response carefully - I
>>> mentioned page 35 and noted again it talked about the most recent
>>> decades (and even then, the graph still didn't go back to 1850).
>>> This hurricane storyline was hit hard by many scientists - hence is
>>> further evidence the report was generated by a gatekeeper mentality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /3.  Electrical grid disturbances (from the Energy section)./
>>>>
>>>> Moving out of the Southeast, Dr. Christy complains about one figure
>>>> in the Energy Chapter. Citing a climate skeptic's blog which cites
>>>> an individual described as the keeper of the data for the Energy
>>>> Information Administration (EIA), John writes that the rise in
>>>> weather related outages is largely a function of better reporting.
>>>> Yet the insert of weather versus non-weather-related outages shows a
>>>> much greater increase in weather-related outages than
>>>> non-weather-related outages.  If all the increases were solely due
>>>> to better reporting, the differences between weather- and
>>>> non-weather-related outages would indicate a dramatic decrease over
>>>> this time period in non-weather related problems such as
>>>> transmission equipment failures, earthquakes, faults in line, faults
>>>> at substations, relaying malfunctions, and vandalism.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to the efforts of EIA, after they took over the
>>>> responsibility of running the Department of Energy (DOE)
>>>> data-collection process around 1997, data collection became more
>>>> effective. Efforts were made in subsequent years to increase the
>>>> response rate and upgrade the reporting form. It was not until EIA's
>>>> improvement of the data collection that the important decoupling of
>>>> weather- and non-weather-related events (and a corresponding
>>>> increase in the proportion of all events due to weather extremes)
>>>> became visible.
>>>>
>>>> To adjust for potential response-rate biases, we have separated
>>>> weather- and non-weather-related trends into indices and found an
>>>> upward trend only in the weather-related time series.
>>>>
>>>> As confirmed by EIA, *if there were a systematic bias one would
>>>> expect it to be reflected in both data series (especially since any
>>>> given reporting site would report both types of events).*
>>>>
>>>> As an additional precaution, we focused on trends in the number of
>>>> events (rather than customers affected) to avoid fortuitous
>>>> differences caused by the population density where events occur.
>>>> This, however, has the effect of understating the weather impacts
>>>> because of EIA definitions (see survey methodology notes below).
>>>>
>>>> More details are available at:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The data were not systematically taken and should not have been shown
>>> .. basic rule of climate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /4.  Using models to assess the future./
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone say anything about the future of the Southeast's climate?
>>>> Evidently according to John Christy, the answer is no. The basic
>>>> physics of the greenhouse effect and why increasing greenhouse gases
>>>> are warming and should be expected to continue to warm the planet
>>>> are well known and explained in the /Global Climate Change/ section
>>>> of the report. Climate models are used around the world to both
>>>> diagnose the observed changes in climate and to provide projections
>>>> for the future.  There is a huge body of peer-reviewed literature,
>>>> including a large number of peer-reviewed climate change
>>>> assessments, supporting this use. But in Dr. Christy's "view,"
>>>> models should not be used for projections of the future, especially
>>>> for the Southeast.  The report based, and indeed must base, its
>>>> results on the huge body of peer-reviewed scientific literature
>>>> rather than the view of one individual scientist.
>>>
>>> No one has proven models are capable of long-range forecasting.
>>> Modelers write and review their own literature - there are millions
>>> of dollars going into these enterprises, so what would you expect?
>>> Publication volume shouldn't impress anyone.  The simple fact is we
>>> demonstrated in a straightforward and reproducible way that the
>>> actual trends over the past 30, 20, and 10 years are outside of the
>>> envelop of model predictions ... no one has disputed that finding
>>> with an alternative analysis - even when presented before
>>> congressional hearings where the opportunity for disagreement was
>>> openly available.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps relieve some of your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Tom Peterson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ************************************************************
>>> John R. Christy
>>> Director, Earth System Science Center   voice: 256-961-7763
>>> Professor, Atmospheric Science          fax:   256-961-7751
>>> Alabama State Climatologist
>>> University of Alabama in Huntsville
>>>
>>>
>>> Mail:     ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville,
>>> Huntsville AL 35899
>>> Express:   Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>>>
>>> Director, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>>>
>>> Lead, NOAA Climate Services
>>>
>>> Veach-Baley Federal Building
>>>
>>> 151 Patton Avenue
>>>
>>> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>>>
>>> Tel: (828) 271-4476
>>>
>>> Fax: (828) 271-4246
>>>
>>> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>
> Director, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>
> Lead, NOAA Climate Services
>
> Veach-Baley Federal Building
>
> 151 Patton Avenue
>
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>
> Tel: (828) 271-4476
>
> Fax: (828) 271-4246
>
> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


good news Grant, we can trust him to be professional.
on a related note, a few folks have expressed concern that the galley-formatting of the
article w/out any label such as "submitted to JGR"  is a bit misleading. some people think
the paper has already gone to press!
we should add a clear label such as "sub judice" or "submitted" to any posted and/or
circulating version of this,
mike
p.s. I've already had to correct both Andy Revkin and Joe Romm on this!
On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Grant Foster wrote:
Greetings,
I thought I'd let you all know that Steve Gahn has been assigned as editor for the
submission.
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [1]Check it out.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [2]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [3]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[4]
References
Visible links
1.
2. mailto:mann@psu.edu
3. ~mann/Mann/index.html
4.
Hidden links:
5.


Mike, Gavin,
See the attached - odd quote by McIntyre in the middle of this
.. he is not interested in challenging the science of climate change or in nit-picking,
but is simply asking that the data be made available. "The only policy I want people to
change is their data-access policy"
I must have been in a parallel universe for the past 7-8 years!
The CRU web page referred to in the article is this one.
[1]
I'm off at noon today - back in on Aug 20. I'll be checking email once a day,
but will not be looking at blog sites.
Olive Heffernan at Nature expects the Nature blog site to be hijacked by the deniers.
She also said she would put up an expanded article, but I can't see this.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Nick,
Apologies if I've asked you this before, but I'm being asked about
the ECOCHANGE budget that appears to be available to UEA.
With the UEA budget there is money in categories that UEA has not
had money in before (in other EU projects). Do you know what this money
is supposed to be for?  We understand the budget for personnel and also
travel, but it is the other categories - which seem to relate to more travel
and costs for capital equipment.
Keith is still off work, but is recovering well from his operation.
I'm off in the next few hours for 2 weeks away.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nick,
Thanks. Perhaps I'll need to contact Keith
as to why some of the items are in the budget.
I understand about the salary money.
Cheers
Phil
> Dear Phil, Emmanuel,
>
>          sorry for late reply, I undergo
> evaluation these days. I add Emmanuel, so that he
> can correct if my answers are wrong!!!
>
> - In general, you decide how much you spend where as long
>    as you have open tasks you are expected to contribute
>    (which is the case for UEA, you are still involved in A5).
>
> - This means that you spend the money by declaration on
>    the project netboard, and not by the original budget.
>
> - You cannot spend more salary, should there be no open
>    task left for you.
>
> - You can spend more salary months than expected from the
>    budget for a specific position, but you cannot spend
>    more total money than the budget is.
>
> - One major constraint is teaching activity, which can
>    only be spent in ECOCHANGE teaching activities (summer
>    school), but you did not list any here.
>
> best,
> Nick
>
> PS: Dear Keith, I wish you all the best for
> recovery! Hope to see you soon again.
>
> At 17:34 26.08.2009, Phil Jones wrote:
>
>>   Nick,
>>     I've now found out some more information.
>>
>>   In the Consumables category, we had £5070 and
>> have left £4543. There is little, we are
>> generally able to buy in this category.
>>
>>   In a new category to us (called Recurrent
>> costs) there is £7013, with nothing spent.
>>
>>   In another new category to us (called
>> Equipment under £5000) there is £5766, again with nothing spent.
>>
>>   In another new category to us (called
>> Exceptional Non Payments) there is £3844, again with nothing spent.
>>
>>  Finally in travel there was £22923 of which
>> we've spent (for meetings so far) £3445 so far, leaving £19477.
>>
>>  These numbers were in Euros, but our accounts have them in UK pounds.
>>  They have been converted using the official EU
>> rates eoros/pounds. This should be about
>>  1.2 Euros equals one UK pound.
>>
>>   We are talking about 36 thousand pounds!  We
>> are almost spent up on salaries.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>  Nick,
>>     Apologies if I've asked you this before, but I'm being asked about
>>  the ECOCHANGE budget that appears to be available to UEA.
>>
>>     With the UEA budget there is money in categories that UEA has not
>>  had money in before (in other EU projects). Do you know what this money
>>  is supposed to be for?  We understand the budget for personnel and also
>>  travel, but it is the other categories - which seem to relate to more
>> travel
>>  and costs for capital equipment.
>>
>>    Keith is still off work, but is recovering well from his operation.
>>
>>  I'm off in the next few hours for 2 weeks away.
>>
>>  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
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Niklaus E. Zimmermann
> Research Unit Head
> Land Use Dynamics
> Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL,
> Zuercherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
>
> phone:     +41 (0)44-739-2337, fax: +41 (0)44-739-2215
> Secretary: +41 (0)44-739-2579, Sibylle.Hauser@wsl.ch
>
> email: niklaus.zimmermann@wsl.ch
> URL:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>


Hi Tim
I've re-run with the same database used for the previous 2006 run
(tmp.0705101334.dtb).
/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top/gridded_finals/data/data.0909041051/
tmp/cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gz
Is that any better? If not please can you send the traditional multi-
page country plots for me to pore over?
Cheers
Harry
On 3 Sep 2009, at 17:04, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Harry and Phil,
>
> the mean level of the "updated-to-2008" CRU TS 3.0 now looks good,
> matching closely with the 1961-1990 means of the earlier CRU TS 3.0
> and
> CRU TS 2.1.
>
> Please see the attached PDF of country mean time series, comparing
> last-year's CRU TS 3.0 (black, up to 2005) with the most-recent CRU
> TS 3.0
> (pink, up to 2008).
>
> Latest version matches last-year's version well for the most part, and
> where differences do occur I can't say that the new version is any
> worse
> than last-year's version (some may be better).
>
> One exception is the hot JJA in Europe in 2003.  This is less
> extreme in
> the latest version.  See attached PNG for a blow-up of France in JJA.
>
> I'm sure some people will use CRU TS 3.0 to look at 2003 in Europe,
> so we
> need to be happy with the version we release.
>
> Perhaps some hot stations have been dropped as outliers (more than 3
> standard deviations from the mean?)?
>
> But I'm not sure if that is the reason, since outlier checking was
> already
> used in last-year's version, wasn't it?
>
> Does the outlier checking always check +-3 SD from 61-90 mean (or
> normal),
> or does it check +-3 SD from the local mean (30-years centred on the
> value) which would allow for a gradual warming in both mean and
> outlier
> threshold?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, September 2, 2009 6:08 pm, Ian Harris wrote:
>> Tim
>>
>> When you have the time and/or the inclination, please can you run the
>> new TMP output through your IDL thingummajig?
>>
>> /cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top/gridded_finals/data/data.
>> 0909021348/
>> tmp/cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gz
>>
>> Please let me know if you can't access it. I do appreciate your help!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Harry
>
> --
> Dr. Tim Osborn
> RCUK Academic Fellow
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Ian "Harry" Harris
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom


All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn't be
wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series
has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the
calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the
density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of
the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have
used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact
that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that
directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I
suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief  update showing the corrected composite
(Nick's graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do
we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there's
also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and
doesn't seem to be included in Keith's recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met
our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide
some advise?
(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?
(3) We didn't publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did
do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update?
The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of
errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration.
(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of
that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be
related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want
to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct
temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add
those records in and show that the primary signals remain?
(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
published). The only "non-published" data are the annual series from the ice cores
(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch
our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed?
Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
Please let me -- better yet, the entire group -- know whether you think we should post a
revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
through 5 above). I'm also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to
apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
Other thoughts or advise?
Darrell
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?
This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn't enter the calibration, nor does it
affect the recent warming trend.
The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the
reconstruction. It doesn't change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.
Nick
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay
wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't checked the original reference for it's interpretation, but I checked the code
and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He's also right that flipping
doesn't affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with
the 1900-year trend.
I've attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.
Nick
Embedded Content: Effect of
flipping Korttajarvi.jpg: 00000001,0da94ca9,00000000,00000000
References
1. mailto:nmckay@email.arizona.edu