Dear Ben and All,
After returning to the office earlier in the week after a couple of weeks
off during the holidays, I had the best of intentions of responding to
some of the earlier emails. Unfortunately it has taken the better part of
the week for me to shovel out my avalanche of email. [This has a lot to
do with the remarkable progress that has been made -- kudos to Ben and others
who have made this possible]. At this point I'd like to add my 2 cents worth
(although with the declining dollar I'm not sure it's worth that much any more)
on several issues, some from earlier email and some from the last day or two.
I had given some thought as to where this article might be submitted.
Although that issue has been settled (IJC) I'd like to add a few related
thoughts regarding the focus of the paper. I think Ben has brokered the
best possible deal, an expedited paper in IJC, that is not treated as a
comment. But I'm a little confused as to whether our paper will be titled
"Comments on ... by Douglass et al." or whether we have a bit more latitude.
While I'm not suggesting anything beyond a short paper, it might be possible
to "spin" this in more general terms as a brief update, while at the same
time addressing Douglass et al. as part of this. We could begin in the
introduction by saying that this general topic has been much studied and
debated in the recent past [e.g. NRC (2000), the Science (2005) papers, and
CCSP (2006)] but that new developments since these works warrant revisiting
the issue. We could consider Douglass et al. as one of several new
developments. We could perhaps title the paper something like "Revisiting
temperature trends in the atmosphere". The main conclusion will be that, in
stark contrast to Douglass et al., the new evidence from the last couple of
years has strengthened the conclusion of CCSP (2006) that there is no
meaningful discrepancy between models and observations.
In an earlier email Ben suggested an outline for the paper:
1) Point out flaws in the statistical approach used by Douglass et al.
2) Show results from significance testing done properly.
3) Show a figure with different estimates of radiosonde temperature trends
illustrating the structural uncertainty.
4) Discuss complementary evidence supporting the finding that the tropical
lower troposphere has warmed over the satellite era.
I think this is fine but I'd like to suggest a couple of other items. First,
some mention could be made regarding the structural uncertainty in satellite
datasets. We could have 3a) for sondes and 3b) for satellite data. The
satellite issue could be handled in as briefly as a paragraph, or with a
bit more work and discussion a figure or table (with some trends). The main
point to get across is that it's not just UAH vs. RSS (with an implied edge
to UAH because its trends agree better with sondes) it's actually UAH vs
all others (RSS, UMD and Zou et al.). There are complications in adding UMD
and Zou et al. to the discussion, but these can be handled either
qualitatively or quantitatively. The complication with UMD is that it only
exists for T2, which has stratospheric influences (and UMD does not have a
corresponding  measure for T4 which could be used to remove the stratospheric
effects). The complication with Zou et al. is that the data begin in 1987,
rather than 1979 (as for the other satellite products).
It would be possible to use the Fu method to remove the stratospheric
influences from UMD using T4 measures from either or both UAH and RSS. It
would be possible to directly compare trends from Zou et al. with UAH, RSS
& UMD for a time period starting in 1987. So, in theory we could include
some trend estimates from all 4 satellite datasets in apples vs. apples
comparisons. But perhaps this is more work than is warranted for this project.
Then at very least we can mention that in apples vs. apples comparisons made
in CCSP (2006) UMD showed more tropospheric warming than both UAH and RSS,
and in comparisons made by Zou et al. their dataset showed more warming than
both UAH and RSS. Taken together this evidence leaves UAH as the "outlier"
compared to the other 3 datasets. Furthermore, better trend agreement between
UAH and some sonde data is not necessarily "good" since the sonde data in
question are likely to be afflicted with considerable spurious cooling biases.
The second item that I'd suggest be added to Ben's earlier outline (perhaps
as item 5) is a discussion of the issues that Susan raised in earlier emails.
The main point is that there is now some evidence that inadequacies in the
AR4 model formulations pertaining to the treatment of stratospheric ozone may
contribute to spurious cooling trends in the troposphere.
Regarding Ben's Fig. 1 -- this is a very nice graphical presentation of the
differences in methodology between the current work and Douglass et al.
However, I would suggest a cautionary statement to the effect that while error
bars are useful for illustrative purposes, the use of overlapping error bars
is not advocated for testing statistical significance between two variables
following Lanzante (2005).
Lanzante, J. R., 2005: A cautionary note on the use of error bars.
Journal of Climate,  18(17), 3699-3703.
This is also motivation for application of the two-sample test that Ben has
implemented.
Ben wrote:
> So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined
> rejection rates? Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to
> the skewness of the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions.
[NB: this is in regard to Ben's Fig. 3 which shows that the rejection rate
in simulations using synthetic data appears to be slightly positively biased
compared to the nominal (expected) rate].
I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution
of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to
explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to
apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then
reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield
data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.
Ben wrote:
> Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the interior
> of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added arrows to
> indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for 5%, 10%, and
> 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors and thicknesses
> of the lines indicating results for the "paired trends". Visually,
> attention is now drawn to the results we think are most reasonable -
> the results for the paired trend tests with standard errors adjusted
> for temporal autocorrelation effects.
I actually liked the earlier version of Fig. 3 better in some regards.
The labeling is now rather busy. How about going back to dotted, thin
and thick curves to designate 5%, 10%, and 20%, and also placing labels
(5%/10%/20%) on or near each curve? Then using just three colors to
differentiate between Douglass, paired/no_SE_adj, and paired/with_SE_adj
it will only be necessary to have 3 legends: one for each of the three colors.
This would eliminate most of the legends.
Another topic of recent discussion is what radiosonde datasets to include
in the trend figure. My own personal preference would be to have all available
datasets shown in the figure. However, I would defer to the individual
dataset creators if they feel uncomfortable about including sets that are
not yet published.
Peter also raised the point about trends being derived differently for
different datasets. To the extent possible it would be desirable to
have things done the same for all datasets. This is especially true for
using the same time period and the same method to perform the regression.
Another issue is the conversion of station data to area-averaged data. It's
usually easier to insure consistency if one person computes the trends
from the raw data using the same procedures rather than having several
people provide the trend estimates.
Karl Taylor wrote:
> The lower panel
...
> ... By chance the mean of the results is displaced negatively ...
> ... I contend that the likelihood of getting a difference of x is equal
> to the likelihood of getting a difference of -x ...
> ... I would like to see each difference plotted twice, once with a positive
> sign and again with a negative sign ...
> ... One of the unfortunate problems with the asymmetry of the current figure
> is that to a casual reader it might suggest a consistency between the
> intra-ensemble distributions and the model-obs distributions that is not real
> Ben and I have already discussed this point, and I think we're both
> still a bit unsure on what's the best thing to do here.  Perhaps others
> can provide convincing arguments for keeping the figure as is or making
> it symmetric as I suggest.
I agree with Karl in regard to both his concern for misinterpretation as
well as his suggested solution. In the limit as N goes to infinity we
expect the distribution to be symmetric since we're comparing the model data
with itself. The problem we are encountering is due to finite sample effects.
For simplicity Ben used a limited number of unique combinations -- using
full bootstrapping the problem should go away. Karl's suggestion seems like
a simple and effective way around the problem.
Karl Taylor wrote:
> It would appear that if we believe FGOALS or MIROC, then the
> differences between many of the model runs and obs are not likely to be
> due to chance alone, but indicate a real discrepancy ... This would seem
> to indicate that our conclusion depends on which model ensembles we have
> most confidence in.
Given the tiny sample sizes, I'm not sure one can make any meaningful
statements regarding differences between models, particularly with regard to
some measure of variability such as is implied by the width of a distribution.
This raises another issue regarding Fig. 2 -- why show the results separately
for each model? This does not seem to be relevant to this project. Our
objective is to show that the models as a collection are not inconsistent
with the observations -- not that any particular model is more or less
consistent with the observations. Furthermore showing results  for different
models tempts the reader to make such comparisons. Why not just aggregate the
results over all models and produce a histogram? This would also simplify
the figure.
Best regards,
_____John


Hi Phil
I'll read it more thoroughly later.  My quick impression, more from the abstract than the
main text, is that you are defensive and it almost seems that there is a denial of the UHI
in part.  Yet later in the abstract and nicely in the first two sentences of the
conclusions, you recognize that the UHI is real and the climate is different in cities.
The point is that the homogenization takes care of this wrt the larger scale record and
that UHI is essentially constant at many sites so that it does not alter trends.  So I urge
you to redo the abstract and be especially careful of the wording.
You might even start with:
The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is a real phenomenon in urban settings that generally makes
cities warmer than surrounding rural areas.   However, UHIs are evident at both London and
Vienna, but do not contribute to the warming trends over the 20th century because the city
influences have not changed much over that time.  Similarly, ...
Regards
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
I have mentioned to you all that I've been working on a paper on
Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations
about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims
were groundless.
Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this draft.  I have
spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it is published
that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. I know you're all
very busy and I could have been doing something more useful, but it hasn't
taken too long.
The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the difference
between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to
reference Luke Howard.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
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. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3.


Jim, Gavin,
Thanks for the summary about 2007. We're saying much the same things
about recent temps, and probably when it comes to those idiots
saying global warming is stopping - in some recent RC and CA threads. Gavin
has gone to town on this with 6,7, 8 year trends etc.
What I wanted to touch base on is the issue in this figure I
got yesterday. This is more of the same. You both attribute the differences to
your extrapolation over the Arctic (as does Stefan). I've gone along with
this, but have you produced an NH series excluding the Arctic ? Do these
agree better?
I reviewed a paper from NCDC (Tom Smith et al) about issues with
recent SSTs and the greater number of buoy type data since the late-90s
(now about 70%) cf ships. The paper shows ships are very slightly warmer
cf buoys (~0.1-0.2 for all SST). I don't think they have implemented an
adjustment for this yet, but if done it would raise global T by about 0.1
for the recent few years. The paper should be out in J. Climate soon.
The HC folks are not including SST data appearing in the Arctic for regions
where their climatology (61-90) includes years which had some sea ice. I
take it you and NCDC are not including Arctic SST data where the
climatology isn't correct? You get big positive anomalies if you do.
Some day we will have to solve both these issues. Both are difficult,
especially the latter!
Cheers
Phil
At 21:39 14/01/2008, you wrote:
To be removed from Jim Hansen's e-mail list respond with REMOVE as subject
Discussion of 2007 GISS global temperature analysis is posted at Solar and Southern
Oscillations
[1]~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf
Jim
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. ~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf


Kevin,
Homogeneity only done on mean T. Lots of sites just measure this.
A lot will measure max and min, but I haven't got the data. I also
didn't want to get into max/min as what is relevant to urban-related
warming in the global land series (or China) is the effects on mean T.
I can't then look at max or min against a rural series.
I would expect max to have changed less than min, but I can't
really look at that.
Also I don't want to confuse readers by saying there is an urban-related
temp influence, but it is to a lower DTR. I guess I could refer to Vose et al
(our Fig 3.11) which does show a decrease in DTR for 79-04 over China
(mostly blues).
I'll work on the text.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:50 15/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Phil
I looked at the paper in more detail.   It obviously needs a bit of
polishing throughout.
I have a couple of fairly major comments.  The first is that you only deal
with the mean temperature and nothing on the max and min temperatures.
Are those available?  It would be much more powerful if those could be
included.  The second is the special situation in China associated with
urbanization and that is air pollution.  You do not mention aerosols and
their effects.  We have some on that in AR4 that may be of value: refer to
our chapter.
In China, there has been so much increase in coal fired power and
pollution (11 out of the top worst ten polluted cities in the world are in
China, or something like that).  So you do not see the sun for long
periods of time.  Presumably that greatly cuts down on the max temp but
may also increase the min through a sort of greenhouse effect? Effects of
urban runoff tend to warm and space heating also warms but should mainly
affect the min.  Pollution may not be in the inner city but concentrated
more near the sites of industry and power stations; but also may not be
that local owing to winds?  Pollution may also change fog or smog
conditions, and may also change drizzle and precip.  Looking at other
variables could help with whether the changes are local or linked to
atmospheric circulation.
The unique aspect of urbanization related to air pollution should make
China different, but may not be easily untangled without max and min temps
(and DTR).
Anyway, given these aspects, you may want to at least assemble the
expectations somewhere altogether and discuss max (day) vs night (min)
effects?
Hope this helps
Kevin
>
>>  Dear All,
>          I have mentioned to you all that I've been working on a paper on
>   Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations
>   about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims
>   were groundless.
>       Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this draft.  I
> have
>   spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it
> is published
>   that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. I know you're
> all
>   very busy and I could have been doing something more useful, but it
> hasn't
>   taken too long.
>      The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the
> difference
>   between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to
>   reference Luke Howard.
>
>   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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[1]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Mike,
Good triumphs over bad - eventually!
It does take a long time though!
Maybe Ray P. wants to do something. He is more up to speed
on all this - and reads French!
Cheers
Phil
At 14:33 15/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Phil,
thanks for sending on, I've sent to Ray P.  The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a
Science "news" piece, it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy
who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this.
My french isn't great, but I could see there was something also about the Moberg
reconstructions, Courtilot obviously trying to use that to arge that the recent warming
isn't anomalous (even though the Moberg recon actually supports that it is).
I'll need to read over all of this and try to digest when I have a chance later today.
Keep up the good fight, the attacks are getting more and more desparate as the
contrarians are increasingly losing the battle (both scientifically, and in the public
sphere). one thing I've learned is that the best way to deal w/ these attacks is just to
go on doing good science, something I learned from Ben...
talk to you later,
mike
Well, the Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad.
One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This
isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard.  My French is
poor
at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well !
I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if
this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!
In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were
awfiul.
Cheers
Phil
From: Jean Jouzel [1]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr
[134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (
[2]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Phil,
Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for
your help in getting some support to Edouard,  which is really needed. Certainly one
thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the
fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20°N Briffa et al.
data set as global.
May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles
Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see
attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know ....
Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you   With my best    Jean
At 15:29 +0000 14/01/08, Phil Jones wrote:
Jean,
Will you be going to the EGU in Vienna this April?
This disagreement with Courtillot seems to be getting out of hand.
Edouard isn't having a great time at the moment.
The data Courtillot used is not on the CRU web site. We did produce it,
but for a paper Keith worked on in 2002. Courtillot's global is CRU data, but
not the globe - it is land north of 20N and April to September only!
The French Academy is looking a bit of a laughing stock! I did meet
Courtillot in March last year - he was courteous, but he should read the literature!
Cheers
Phil
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arbois.cerege.fr
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:20:00 +0100
To: Phil Jones [3]
From: Edouard BARD [4]
Subject: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.4
X-UEA-Spam-Level: +
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>Courtillot says he will soon publish two studies arguing that
methods used to measure global T need to be revised. Wonder
if these are the two that I rejected!
Maybe one day he'll realise that there is oceanic data!
Cheers
Phil
Hello Phil,
These are indeed the papers submitted to EPSL. Courtillot has control on other journals
and I'm sure he will manage to publish them somewhere else ...
As you can read below, Courtillot accused me publicly of scientific misconduct in a
written message sent in copy to the president of the Academy of Science, to the
president of the CNRS and to the Director of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Higher
Education and Research. According to Courtillot, my misconduct is that I have acted as a
hacker, introducing a "note added in proof" in my EPSL paper without the editor and the
publisher even knowing it !
Courtillot even requested the organization this week of a secret meeting at the Academy
in order to expose the case (yes, you've read it correctly, this is officially called
"un comité secret"). I am not a member of the Academy and nobody is there to defend my
case. Hence, I was obliged to write this long email to explain my position to some
academicians.
I'm not really planning for sending soon something to Science as my next week will be
hectic with this "inquisition" committee against me and the impact of the "droit de
réponse" in newspaper(s). I am sure that Courtillot will even use Pasotti's poor paper
against me during the audit of the case at the Academy. As I am the main author for the
Comment, sending a rebuttal to Science may even be counterproductive. Do you plan to
send something to Science about the fact that the Figure misrepresent Tglobe ?
I'm quite depressed because this is taking a lot of my time and energy. Everybody at
home is mad at me, children and wife, because I spend hours and days in the lab writing
and checking emails and answering phone calls.
Best wishes, Edouard
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:14 +0100
To: [5]bard@cerege.fr
From: Edouard BARD [6]
Subject: Accusations de M. Courtillot
Destinataires:
Madame la Présidente du CNRS, Monsieur le Président de l'Académie des Sciences, Monsieur
le Directeur de Cabinet de Madame la Ministre de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la
Recherche,
Mesdames et Messieurs, Membres de l'Académie (incluant M. Courtillot).
Chers Collègues,
Je reviens à l'instant d'une tournée de conférences en Angleterre (Royal Geographical
Society de Londres et Université de Cambridge). J'apprends avec stupeur que Monsieur
Courtillot m'attaque personnellement et publiquement d'avoir eu un comportement
contraire à l'éthique scientifique ("contrairement aux règles déontologiques, la note de
M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire critique", cf. plus bas le
message envoyé hier le 11 janvier et dont vous êtes destinataires). Cette accusation
surprenante est totalement infondée.
Je rappelle que dans mon Commentaire qui vient d'être publié par la revue Earth &
Planetary Science Letters (EPSL, pdf attaché), je n'ai proféré aucune accusation à
l'égard de M. Courtillot. J'évite justement d'avoir un ton polémique en me cantonnant à
des discussions dans l'arène scientifique, par exemple mes interventions lors du
colloque organisé par M. Courtillot à l'Académie des Sciences (conférence et débat
disponibles sur le site internet de l'Académie:
[7]
[8]
ou mes publications, notamment ce 'Commentaire' Bard & Delaygue (2008 EPSL). Sur cette
affaire, je n'ai accepté de faire aucun commentaire dans la presse et j'ai refusé toutes
les demandes d'interview par les media audiovisuels. Même si je ne le voulais pas, je
suis maintenant forcé de sortir de ma réserve et de me défendre publiquement contre les
accusations de M. Courtillot.
La "note added in proof" dont vous parle M. Courtillot a été soumise normalement pour
approbation au rédacteur d'EPSL (editor en anglais), M. Rob van de Hilst du MIT, comme
le demande classiquement l'éditeur Elsevier (publisher) lorsqu'il envoie les épreuves
d'un article à son auteur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous la copie de mon dernier échange à
ce sujet avec M. van der Hilst qui explique clairement que je n'ai absolument rien à me
reprocher. M. van der Hilst écrit lui-même "INDEED, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING IN ASKING MY
APPROVAL.". Le fait que ma "note added in proof" ait été incluse dans la version sous
presse de notre Commentaire est simplement dû à une erreur technique de l'éditeur
Elsevier. Il est évidemment IMPOSSIBLE pour un auteur de modifier lui-même quoi que ce
soit sur le site web d'Elsevier !
La meilleure preuve que cette fameuse note a été CRUCIALE pour clarifier l'origine des
données utilisées par M. Courtillot est que justement le rédacteur, M. van der Hilst, a
finalement décidé de la publier in extenso pour expliquer aux lecteurs son importance
(sa note éditoriale complète est copiée plus bas). M. van der Hilst écrit ainsi "Bard
and Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in Courtillot et
al. (2008). and Courtillot et al. (2007)..." "instead of global, annual means they are
seasonal estimates from land regions north of 20°N.  With access to the correct data
files readers can form their own opinion on the analysis of and conclusions by
Courtillot et al. (2007)."
Il aura donc fallu une année (voire plus, depuis Le Mouël et al. 2005 EPSL) et de
nombreux courriers et publications, pour que l'on sache enfin quelles sont les
températures représentées par Courtillot  et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005). La
réalité est que la courbe de température utilisée par Courtillot & Le Mouël provient
d'un calcul de moyenne régionale et saisonnière (Briffa et al. JGR 2001) fondé sur les
séries de températures de Jones et al. (1999 Rev. Geophys.). Le fichier cité par
Courtillot et al. (2007) n'est donc pas un de ceux distribués par M. Philip D. Jones
(University of East Anglia & Hadley Center), ni même tiré directement de l'article de
Jones et al. (1999). La citation correcte aurait dû être l'article de Briffa et al.
(2001) dont Jones est coauteur. Ceci étant dit, le problème CRUCIAL est qu'il ne s'agit
pas de moyenne annuelle mondiale (Tglobe) comme l'ont écrit Courtillot et al. (2007) et
Le Mouël et al. (2005), mais en fait de données régionales ET saisonnières (latitudes
>20°N ET seulement sur les continents ET seulement pendant la saison chaude d'Avril à
Septembre). Les courbes de la température moyenne annuelle mondiale (de MM. Phil Jones
d'UEA ou de Jim Hansen de la NASA) ne présentent pas de corrélation marquée avec
l'éclairement solaire et les indices géomagnétiques, en particulier au niveau des années
70 (voir la Figure 1 de notre Commentaire publié par EPSL qui représente la VERITABLE
courbe de température globale distribuée par M. Phil Jones).
Pour ce qui concerne les données d'irradiance solaire totale, les lecteurs d'EPSL sont
maintenant pleinement informés du fait que les données utilisées par Courtillot et al.
(2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) NE sont PAS des données d'irradiance totale (Solanki
2002), mais seulement de la petite composante ultraviolette (Tobiska 2001).
Dans leur Réponse publiée par EPSL, M. Courtillot et ses collègues accompagnent la
nouvelle citation d'une note  très surprenante (page 2, colonne 1): "(Tobiska, 2001;
note that in Le Mouël et al., (2005), this data set was erroneously attributed to
Solanki, 2002, although resulting changes are negligible)". Dans leurs deux articles Le
Mouël et al. (2005) et Courtillot et al. (2007) auraient donc fait la même erreur de
citation (Solanki 2002  au lieu de Tobiska 2001). Le problème est que justement les
changements qui en résultent NE sont PAS du tout négligeables. Si Courtillot et al.
(2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) avaient effectivement utilisé Solanki (2002), ils
auraient inévitablement représenté la courbe d'irradiance S(t) sur tout le 20e siècle
car leur figure est focalisée sur tout ce siècle et que l'analyse de Solanki (2002)
porte précisément sur TOUT le 20e siècle. Pour que l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki
n'entraîne que des changements négligeables, comme ils l'écrivent, il faudrait que ces
auteurs tronquent délibérément la courbe de Solanki pour n'en montrer que la moitié (les
derniers 50 ans). C'est une accusation grave que je ne fais bien évidemment pas. Par
conséquent, l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki (2002) devant être faite pour tout le
20e siècle, ceci entraîne des changements importants comme les lecteurs de notre
Commentaire peuvent le constater (voir la Figure 1 qui représente la VERITABLE courbe
d'irradiance solaire totale distribuée par M. S. Solanki pour TOUT le 20e siècle). En
particulier, il apparaît clairement que les deux courbes géomagnétiques ESK et SIT
proposées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) sont en DESACCORD
FLAGRANT vers les années 70 avec les VERITABLES courbes de la température moyenne
annuelle mondiale et de l'irradiance solaire totale (dans notre Commentaire, nous
soulignons au passage que l'index géomagnétique AA est en bien meilleur accord, fait
connu et publié depuis dix ans, e.g. Cliver et al. 1998 GRL).
Monsieur Courtillot n'apporte aucune réponse à ces nombreux problèmes. Par ailleurs, il
est navrant de constater que dans ses conférences publiques récentes (voir celle donnée
lors du 125e anniversaire de l'ESPCI avec fichier powerpoint disponible sur le site web
[9] ), M. Courtillot continue encore de
montrer le même diagramme erroné, avec une courbe de température "Tglobe" qui n'est pas
une courbe de moyenne annuelle mondiale de la température et une courbe "S(t)" qui n'est
pas une courbe d'irradiance solaire totale. De plus, M. Courtillot montre encore cette
courbe sur 50 ans seulement, alors même qu'il a pleinement connaissance de travaux qui
donnent l'irradiance sur le tout le 20e siècle (Solanki 2002, article qu'il a lui-même
cité depuis 2005).
Je vous prie de croire, Chers Collègues, à l'assurance de mes sentiments respectueux et
dévoués.
Edouard Bard
----------------------------------------------
Edouard BARD
Professeur au Collège de France
Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan
Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635
Le Trocadéro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80
13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4
Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.)
Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email [10]bard@cerege.fr
[11]
----------------------------------------------
**************************************************
De : Vincent Courtillot [[12]courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr]
Envoyé : vendredi 11 janvier 2008 12:13
À : MALAUSSENA Béatrice
Cc : [13]lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [14]fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr;
[15]gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [16]zerbib@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [17]dyon@ipgp.jussieu.fr;
[18]catherine.brechignac@lac.u-psud.fr; [19]catherine.brechignac@cnrs-dir.fr;
[20]J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr; [21]jules.hoffmann@academie-sciences.fr; COURTOIS
Gérard; [22]laurentjoffrin@yahoo.fr; [23]smarchand@lefigaro.fr;
[24]pgillet@geologie.ens-lyon.fr; [25]philippe.gillet@recherche.gouv.fr
Objet : Droit de réponse
Importance : Haute
Madame,
étant donné le contenu du message que j'ai reçu de vous hier, je préfère continuer notre
échange en en gardant des traces écrites et en le communicant à des tiers en tant que de
besoin, en cas de suites juridiques.
Un résumé sans doute un peu simplifié mais me semble t'il non faux de notre dernière
conversation et de votre message sur ma boite vocale est le suivant.
"Votre journaliste ne m'a pas calomnié; il a simplement retranscrit des accusations
formulées dans une publication scientifique. En revanche, ma réponse vous poserait des
problèmes juridiques et vous auriez des amendements à m'y faire apporter."
Je vous demande tout simplement de me renvoyer mon texte avec les modifications qui vous
paraissent nécessaires en rouge, naturellement maintenues à leur minimum, puisqu'il
s'agit d'une lettre que j'écris et dont j'endosse la responsabilité, avec toute la force
que me donne l'évident droit de réponse (pas un lecteur que j'ai rencontré ne l'a nié,
quelque soir par ailleurs la réalité du fond) que vous me devez et que Gérard Courtois a
reconnu a plusieurs reprises depuis le 21 décembre dernier (tout cela traîne de façon
étonnante...).
En ce qui concerne vos échanges avec M. Foucart tels que vous me les rapportez dans le
message vocal (que j'ai conservé), juste deux commentaires:
1) vous me dites que le fond du débat entre nous deux est scientifique. M. Foucart est
un journaliste pas un scientifique (ce sont deux métiers différents, a priori également
estimables). Seuls les propos qu'il peut valablement citer avec leurs sources provenant
de scientifiques qui en portent alors la responsabilité sont des débats scientifiques.
2) Vous me dites que M. Foucart a tout fait pour me joindre. Il est exact (je l'ai
vérifié) qu'il a téléphoné à M. Dyon à l'IPGP, une demi-heure après que je sois rentré
chez moi victime d'une grippe qui m'a tenu au lit trois jours avec 38°5. Une fois guéri,
je suis passé à la garde de mes enfants et petits enfants qui étaient balayés par le
virus. Rien de grave et nombreux sont ceux qui y sont passés à Noël. Donc j'étais
réellement souffrant (et pas entre guillements) ce soir là. Mais je n'ai fait barrage à
aucune demande qui m'aurait été faite: mon numéro de téléphone est public, dans les
pages planches du bottin, pas sur liste rouge, il était facile de m'appeler chez moi. Je
n'ai reçu aucun coup de téléphone de M. Foucart, ni d'ailleurs d'aucun des autres
journalistes. Et faire son travail en l'occurence, alors que  rien ne justifiait
l'urgence de la publication de ce sujet, c'était attendre un ou deux jours et faire
l'effort de me téléphoner et d'avoir mon témoignage. L'effort fait s'est limité à ce
coup de fil à l'IPGP...
J'ai eu la possibilité de démontrer hier pendant deux heures devant un auditoire
scientifique de plus de 150 personnes que non seulement les accusations portées contre
nous, notamment par votre journaliste, étaient purement et simplement sans fondement,
mais que de plus les critiques scientifiques formulées par Edouard Bard et Gilles
Delaygue étaient pour l'essentiel fausses ou fondées sur des témoignages faux que leur
avaient fourni certains de leurs collègues. Nos conclusions scientifiques restent donc
dans leur totalité. mais ceci est la partie scientifique et ce qui m'intéresse en ce qui
vous concerne c'est de faire savoir à vos lecteurs que les allégations de M. Foucart
dans l'article incriminé étaient fausses, et j'ai le droit de le faire et rapidement et
sans censure!
Dans ce séminaire hier, étaient présentes de très nombreuses personnes qui pourront
porter témoignage. C'est le cas de l'ancienne directrice de la recherche, Mme Giacobino,
de la présidente du CNRS Madame Catherine Bréchignac qui m'a publiquement assuré de son
soutien et m'a assuré qu'elle était totalement convaincue par ma démonstration (sa
compétence scientifique ne devrait pas être trop inférieure à celle de M. Foucart).
Etaient également présents un journaliste de l'AFP et un journaliste de Science et
Avenir. Cette conférence, comme toutes celles de l'IPGP, sera bientot disponible sur cd
et intranet.
Mardi prochain, je suis invité par le président de l'académie des sciences à exposer
pendant 20mn l'ensemble de nos arguments. Je pense que le résultat sera le même qu'hier
à l'IPGP. A cette occasion, puisqu'aucune n'est encore sortie, je remettrai à l'ensemble
des académiciens une copie des trois lettres de droit de réponse envoyées aux journaux,
dont le vôtre. J'aurais préféré qu'elles soient publiées avant cette date (je note que
ni Libération ni le Figaro ne m'ont à ce jour donné la moindre indication sur la
publication de mes droits de réponse; le Monde aura pour l'instant été le plus réactif.
Je mets en copie les trois personnes à qui j'ai originellement envoyé mon droit de
réponse dans ces trois journaux).
J'attends donc la version amendée que vous souhaitez me voir accepter.
Sincèrement, VC
PS J'ai eu copie, comme M. Foucart l'évoquait, d'une réponse qu'il a fournie à un de mes
amis qui lui avait écrit;  je la reproduis ci dessous. Je ne souhaite y relever qu'une
seule phrase: "Le blog RealClimate cité dans l'article n'est que la façade d'une
polémique qui se joue dans une revue savante, EPSL en l'occurrence. " Cette présentation
est inexacte. L'échange dans EPSL est un échange scientifique, sans polémique et surtout
sans diffamation. Il est cependant désormais établi que, contrairement aux règles
déontologiques, la note de M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire
critique. Le rédacteur de la revue vient de nous envoyer copie de l'éditorial qu'il va
faire publier en en-tête de nos deux articles dès la publication papier (qui fait
autorité et doit avoir lieu très prochainement). Je vous joins également copie de cet
éditorial. La ligne jaune est celle qui sépare le débat scientifique de la diffamation.
La diffamation n'apparait pas dans EPSL mais dans le blog Real Climate et elle est
reprise activement, sous leur signature et non pas seulement en citation entre
guillements) par les journalistes. Là est la faute juridiquement répréhensible qu'ils
ont commise. Là est la base de mon droit de réponse.  La journaliste neutre et semblable
au lecteur de base du Monde que vous m'avez dit être doit facilement s'en convaincre si
elle est impartiale.
**************************************************
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:44:17 -0500
From: Rob van der Hilst [26]
Organization: MIT-EAPS
To: Edouard BARD [27]
Subject: Re: ESPL comment & reply
Dear Edouard, a very quick response - I cannot do anything until I hear from Elsevier's
production office that changes can or cannot be made.  But I want to avoid
misunderstandings between us.  I do not ACCUSE you of adding material and hide it from
me - indeed, you did the right thing in asking my approval.  However, if you now go on
line and check your "comment" you will see that it does have the 'note added in proof'.
So by returning the proofs with the addition it did make it to the public domain
REGARDLESS of me approving it or not.  The EPSL production staff should have picked up
on this. So I am not pointing fingers here - I just have to deal with an unfortunate
situation in which a significant addition to an already accepted text may make it into
the literature even if the other party has no chance to repond or clarify the issue.
OK? Cheers,  Rob
**************************************************
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:27:37 +0100
To: Rob van der Hilst [28]
From: Edouard BARD [29]
Subject: ESPL comment & reply
Dear Rob,
>In principle, after approval of a  'comment' the other party is given the opportunity
to respond, and approval of the 'reply' closes the process.  To avoid
going-back-and-forth, in my view the material should not appear on line until after
approval of the corrected proofs.
I agree.
>In this case you added material to the 'comment' after seeing the 'reply', and without
my consent.
I disagree with your accusation. I did NOT try to add anything and hide it from you.
Indeed, I immediately sent an email to you in order to propose our 'note added in
proof'. I did this because I knew very well that such a note could not be published
without your consent (during 4 years I also served EPSL). Indeed, the Elsevier message
accompanying the uncorrected proofs is very clear on this issue "Significant changes to
the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with
permission from the Editor." This was exactly the purpose of my email to you.
>In my view the sole purpose of your addition is - or, at least, should be -
> to help clarify an important issue for the readers.
This is precisely my goal.
>(NB I am sure you realize that your 'note added in proof' could be perceived by readers
as an accusation that Courtillot et al are not honest about the source of the data, in
particulare related to the Tglobe file, and that would be quite a serious matter.)
I am open for revision of the note if you think it could be misinterpreted. Whatever the
reason for the discrepancy, it is important that the reader can identify exactly the
source of these important data (published paper or valid URL). This is clearly a problem
with many source of data cited by Courtillot et al (and Le Mouel et al.). For example
the (flawed) TSI SOLAR2000 curve now cited in the Reply by Courtillot et al. should be
accompanied by its URL and/or its reference (Tobiska 2001). It is even worse for the
Tglobe curve which source is still completely unclear: it does not correspond to the
cited reference and the code file cited in the Reply is not available. As previously
stated, it is even possible to see that it does not correspond to the cited Tglobe curve
just by looking at their shapes (see Fig. 1 of our Comment that provides the two very
similar Tglobe curves developed at UEA by the group of Phil Jones and at NASA by the
group of Jim Hansen). If you compare these two Tglobe curves with the one represented on
Fig. 3 of Courtillot et al. (2007), you will immediately see that there are important
differences in the shape of the maximum in the 40s, the pause (or minimum) in the 60-70s
and the phase lag in the 30s. Comparison with the Tglobe curve is obviously central to
all climate-related discussions in these papers.
Best regards,
Edouard
**************************************************
Editorial Note
The paper entitled "Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and
climate?" published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Courtillot et al., 2007)
triggered a "comment" (Bard and Delaygue, 2008) and a "reply" (Courtillot et al, 2008).
These publications, and EPSL's handling of the "comment" and "reply" (hereinafter C08),
have received significant attention in electronic and printed news media.
In a "comment-reply" exchange, standard editorial policy gives the responder the last
word and requires that the "comment" is not changed once accepted by the Editor and
replied to by the authors whose work is being criticized.  In this case, Bard and
Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in C08 and Courtillot
et al. (2007) after the (accepted) "comment" and "reply" had appeared online (but before
they received galley proofs).  They pointed this out in a "Note added in Proof" to their
"comment".  Being against EPSL's policy this modification was disapproved (and
removed).  However, properly reporting data is an essential aspect of scientific
communication in that it enables independent evaluations of the analysis presented by
authors.  Therefore, Courtillot et al. were asked to clarify (in C08) the source of the
data used.
For full disclosure, the note by Bard and Delaygue is reproduced here:
"In their Response to our Comment, Courtillot et al. state that for the total irradiance
curve S(t) they had used the SOLAR2000 model product by Tobiska (2001) instead of the
century-long record by Solanki (2002) cited in their original paper (Courtillot et al.
2007). However, the SOLAR2000 model is restricted to the UV component and their total
solar irradiance is severely flawed as pointed out by Lean (2002). For the global
temperature Tglobe curve cited from Jones et al. (1999) in Courtillot et al. (2007),
these authors now state in their response that they had used the following data file:
monthly_land_and_ocean_90S_90N_df_1901-2001mean_dat.txt.  We were unable to find this
file even by contacting its putative author who specifically stated to us that it is not
one of his files (Dr. Philip D. Jones, written communication dated Oct. 23, 2007)."
In response, Courtillot et al. (2007) provided two modifications (in italics) in C08:
"The solar irradiance daily time series we used is that from the SOLAR2000 research
grade model upgraded to v1.23A (file Five_cycle_v1_23a.txt dated 23 April 2003) which
covers the time period from 14 February 1947 to 31 May 2002 (Tobiska, 2001; note that in
Le Mouël et al, 2005, this data set was erroneously attributed to Solanki, 2002,
although resulting changes are negligible)." and
"The temperature series we actually used is obtained from Briffa et al. (2001) -
specifically, column 7 of
[30]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa200
1jgr3.txt , that is, years 1871 to 1997 - which is, originally, from Jones et al (1999)
as quoted. All we did was to average it over an 11yr sliding window."
The ftp link shows that the temperatures used are indeed from Jones and co-workers, but
instead of global, annual means they are seasonal estimates from land regions north of
20°N.  With access to the correct data files readers can form their own opinion on the
analysis of and conclusions by Courtillot et al. (2007).
Robert D. van der Hilst
Editor for Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., 'Comment on "Are there connections between the Earth's
magnetic field and climate?" by V. Courtillot, Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, A.
Genevey', Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 265, 302-307, 2008
Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., Are there
connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.,
253, 328-339, 2007
Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., 'Response to
comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate" by Bard,
E., and Delaygue, G., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 265, 302-307, 2008
--
----------------------------------------------
Edouard BARD
Professeur au Collège de France
Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan
Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635
Le Trocadéro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80
13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4
Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.)
Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email [31]bard@cerege.fr
[32]
----------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------
Edouard BARD
Professeur au Collège de France
Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan
Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635
Le Trocadéro, Europole de l'Arbois BP80
13545 Aix-en-Provence cdx 4
Tel 04 42 50 74 18, 04 42 50 74 20 (secr.)
Fax 04 42 50 74 21, email [33]bard@cerege.fr
[34]
----------------------------------------------
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    [35]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Attention new mail address : [36]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin
Bâtiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE
tél :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682
- Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3ème étage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu,
75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : [37]jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr, 01 44 27 49 92
- Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13,
fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, e-mail : [38]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
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    [39]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [40]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[41]
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:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
2.
3. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
5. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
6. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
7.
8.
9.
10. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
11.
12. mailto:courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr
13. mailto:lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr
14. mailto:fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr
15. mailto:gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr
16. mailto:zerbib@ipgp.jussieu.fr
17. mailto:dyon@ipgp.jussieu.fr
18. mailto:catherine.brechignac@lac.u-psud.fr
19. mailto:catherine.brechignac@cnrs-dir.fr
20. mailto:J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr
21. mailto:jules.hoffmann@academie-sciences.fr
22. mailto:laurentjoffrin@yahoo.fr
23. mailto:smarchand@lefigaro.fr
24. mailto:pgillet@geologie.ens-lyon.fr
25. mailto:philippe.gillet@recherche.gouv.fr
26. mailto:hilst@MIT.EDU
27. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
28. mailto:hilst@MIT.EDU
29. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
30. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt
31. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
32.
33. mailto:bard@cerege.fr
34.
35. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
36. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
37. mailto:jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr
38. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
39. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
40. mailto:mann@psu.edu
41.


Ray,
Glad to see you're onto this. Obviously anything shouldn't make it even worse
for Edouard, but you're in contact with him.
I'd be happy to sign onto any letter from Science, but this isn't essential. I know
the series Courtillot has used (and Pasotti re-uses) came from here, but it isn't
what he and the authors says it was. I also know it doesn't make much difference
if the correct one was used - given the smoothing. It is just sloppy and a
principle thing. The correct data are sitting on our web site and have been since
Brohan et al (2006) appeared in JGR. Even the earlier version (HadCRUT2v) would
have been OK, but not a specially produced series for a tree-ring reconstruction
paper back in 2001/2 and not on our web site.
Then there are all the science issues you and Edouard have raised in RC and the EPSL
comment.
I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from
March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of
grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can
change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at
NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of
the French Academy in early March.
What he understands below is my refusal to write a paper for the proceedings of
the French Academy for the meeting in early March. He only mentioned this requirement
afterwards and I said I didn't have the time to rewrite was already in the literature.
It took me several more months of emails to get my expenses for going to Paris!
Cheers
Phil
From Courtillot 26 March 2007
Dear Phil,
Sure I understand. Now research wise I would like us to remain in contact. Unfortunately, I
have too little time to devote to what is in principle not in my main stream of research
and has no special funding. But still I intend to try and persist. I find these temperature
and pressure series fascinating. I have two queries:
1) how easy is it for me (not a very agile person computer wise) to obtain the files of
data you use in the various global or non global averages of T (I mean the actual montly
data in each 5° box prior to any processing, including computation of the "temperature
anomaly")? How do I do it?  What I would like to be able to extract is for instance all of
the data within a given 5° by 5° box with their dates (so: lat, lon, time, value). I
understand these are monthly means, though we find that there may be some quite important
information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging, but this is
another question...
2) I know you answered my question but still I have trouble grasping the answer. Could you
explain how the global T average for periods say before 1900 can haev a total uncertainty
under 0.2°C back to 1850. This can only be true, given the data distribution in the Rayner
et al paper, if T is an incredibly smooth function of location. Did you really answer me
that by extracting from the recent (post 1950) database data with the same geographical and
temporal distributions as the 1850-1900 data you get almost the same result as with the
full modern data (with an uncertainty just above 0.1°C). This seems truly amazing, and
would never work with the global magnetic field data I am accustomed to work on. Yet it
does not seem to me that climate varies as slowly and with as long spatial scales as the
magnetic field...
I will very much appreciate your comments and help on those.
Thank you again for having come to our meeting.
Yours very sincerely,
Vincent
--
Vincent Courtillot
Professor of Geophysics University Paris 7,
Director Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris,
Member Institut Universitaire de France,
Member Academia Europaea and French Academy of Sciences
President, Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, American Geophysical Union
President, Scientific Council, City of Paris
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:20:57 -0500
From: Michael Mann
Reply-To: mann@psu.edu
Organization: Penn State University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
To: Phil Jones
, Gavin Schmidt
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
update from Ray P...
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:20:59 -0600
From: Raymond P. [1]
To: Group RealClimate [2]
References: [3]
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [4]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[5]
Content-Type: text/enriched;
name="[6]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/TEMP/nsmail.1"
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="[7]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/TEMP/nsmail.1"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id
m0FHKxKM050156
Yes indeed. I am writing a letter to Science today regarding Pasotti's ridiculous
article.  If anybody things the rest of RC should sign on to that as well, just let
me know.
I will also have to write a Part III, covering all the junk mentioned by Edouard and
by Phil Jones.  Courtillot's response (published via a legal device activated where
there is the possibility of threatening a libel suit) appeared in Le Monde today. I
may give it a week or so for new developments to settle down before writing.
For example, Foucart may get a chance to write a response in Le Monde.
While I'll wait a bit before doing the RC piece, I plan to send off the letter to
Science this week.
--Ray
On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Michael Mann wrote:
fyi,
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Edouard Bard
Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:59:44 +0000
From:
Phil Jones
To:
gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
CC:
Michael E. Mann
References:
Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad.
One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This
isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard.  My French is
poor
at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well !
I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if
this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!
In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were
awfiul.
Cheers
Phil
From: Jean Jouzel
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr
[134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (
[8]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Phil,
Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for
your help in getting some support to Edouard,  which is really needed. Certainly one
thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the
fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20°N Briffa et al.
data set as global.
May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles
Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see
attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know ....
Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you   With my best    Jean
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:rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu
2. mailto:group@realclimate.org
3. mailto:478CC27D.1040900@meteo.psu.edu
4. mailto:mann@psu.edu
5.
6. file://C:\DOCUME~1\MICHAE~1\LOCALS~1\TEMP\nsmail.1/
7. file://C:\DOCUME~1\MICHAE~1\LOCALS~1\TEMP\nsmail.1/
8.


"
Received:  from [29]useclpexw213.nbcuni.ge.com ([[30]3.44.150.24]) by
[31]rkfmlef01.e2k.ad.ge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 15 Jan 2008
14:59:24 -0500
Received:  from [32]int-ch1gw-3.online-age.net ([[33]3.159.232.67]) by
[34]useclpexw213.nbcuni.ge.com (SonicWALL 6.0.1.9157) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008
14:59:24 -0500
Received:  from [35]ext-ch1gw-9.online-age.net (int-ch1gw-3 [[36]3.159.232.67]) by
[37]int-ch1gw-3.online-age.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/20050510-SVVS) with ESMTP id
m0FJxNgI021683 for
; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:23 -0500 (EST)
Received:  from [39]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov ([40]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov [[41]140.90.121.157]) by
[42]ext-ch1gw-9.online-age.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/20051111-SVVS-TLS-DNSBL) with ESMTP id
m0FJxKss007414 for
; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:23 -0500
Received:  from [44]HCHB-WIRNS.noaa.gov ([[45]170.110.255.148]) by
[46]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr  3 2006))
with ESMTPSA id
for [48]bob.ryan@nbc.com; Tue,
15 Jan 2008 14:59:16 -0500 (EST)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:00:00 -0500
Message-ID:
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide
Thread-Index: AchXsSO/aYafvboCRgCNpqPHISPHPg==
From: "NOAA News Releases"
To: "Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal)"
TO: Ryan, Bob; WRC-TV
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 15, 2008
*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: John Leslie, 301-713-2087, ext. 174
NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide
The average temperature for the contiguous
U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on
record, according to data from scientists at
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in
Asheville, N.C. The agency also determined the
global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record.
U.S. Temperature Highlights
* The average U.S. temperature for 2007 was 54.2
degrees F; 1.4 degrees F warmer than the 20th
century mean of 52.8 degrees F. NCDC originally
estimated in mid-December that 2007 would end as
the eighth warmest on record, but below-average
temperatures in areas of the country last month
lowered the annual ranking. For Alaska, 2007 was
the 15th warmest year since statewide records began in 1918.
* Six of the 10 warmest years on record for the
contiguous U.S. have occurred since 1998, part of
a three decade period in which mean temperatures
for the contiguous U.S. have risen at a rate near 0.6 degrees F per decade.
* For the contiguous U.S., the December 2007 mean
temperature was 33.6 degrees F, near the 20th
century average of 33.4 degrees F. The Southeast
was much warmer than average, while 11 states,
from the Upper Midwest to the West Coast, were cooler than average.
* Warmer-than-average temperatures for December
2007 in large parts of the more heavily populated
eastern U.S. resulted in temperature related
energy demand about 1.9 percent below average for
the nation as a whole, based on NOAA's
Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. For
the year, the REDTI estimates that national
residential energy consumption was about 2.5 percent below average.
U.S. Precipitation Highlights December 2007
* December 2007 was wetter than normal for the
contiguous U.S., the 18th wettest December since
national records began in 1895. Thirty-seven
states were wetter, or much wetter, than average.
Only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Dakota were drier than average.
* Precipitation was much above average in
Washington state, due to a powerful storm that
struck the Pacific Northwest in early December.
Heavy rain and wind gusts greater than 100 mph
caused widespread damage and the worst flooding
in more than a decade in parts of western Oregon
and Washington. Many locations received more than
10 inches of rainfall during the first three days of the month.
* While above-average precipitation in late
November and December led to improving drought
conditions in parts of the Southwest, Southeast,
and New England, more than three-fourths of the
Southeast and half of the West remained in some stage of drought.
Global Highlights
* For December 2007, the combined global land and
ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest on
record (0.72 degrees F or 0.40 degrees C above
the 20th century mean). Separately, the global
December land-surface temperature was the eighth
warmest on record. The most anomalously warm
temperatures occurred from Scandinavia to central Asia.
* La Niña continued to strengthen as ocean
surface temperatures in large areas of the
central and eastern equatorial Pacific were more
than 3 degrees F (1.7 degrees C) below average.
The continuation of cooler-than-average
temperatures dampened the global ocean average,
which was the 18th warmest on record for December.
* For 2007, the global land and ocean surface
temperature was the fifth warmest on record.
Separately, the global land surface temperature
was warmest on record while the global ocean
temperature was 9th warmest since records began
in 1880. Seven of the eight warmest years on
record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise
in temperatures of more than 1 degree F (0.6
degrees C) since 1900. Within the past three
decades, the rate of warming in global
temperatures has been approximately three times
greater than the century scale trend.
Note to Editors: Additional information on U.S.
climate conditions in December and for 2007 is
available online at:
[52]
and [53] .
- 30 -
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    [54]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:Bob.Ryan@nbcuni.com
3. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
4. mailto:anthes@ucar.edu
5. mailto:kseitter@ametsoc.org
6. mailto:7C368A942599A944A0C43774DE6412EE044C9964@DCNMLVEM01.e2k.ad.ge.com
7. mailto:478F89E4.10405@ucar.edu
8. mailto:478FBF64.1020500@ucar.edu
9. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
10. mailto:anthes@ucar.edu
11. mailto:kseitter@ametsoc.org
12. mailto:mfrostic@pop100.gsfc.nasa.gov
13. mailto:mfrostic@pop100.gsfc.nasa.gov
14. mailto:mfrostic@pop100.gsfc.nasa.gov
15.
16.
17. mailto:Press.Releases@noaa.gov
18. mailto:bob.ryan@nbc.com
19. mailto:bob.ryan@nbc.com
20.
21.
22. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
23.
24. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38. mailto:bob.ryan@nbc.com
39.
40.
41.
42.
43. mailto:bob.ryan@nbc.com
44.
45.
46.
47. mailto:0JUP00MVJBIAQ7B0@mmp2.nems.noaa.gov
48. mailto:bob.ryan@nbc.com
49. mailto:0JUP00MZVBISQ7B0@mmp2.nems.noaa.gov
50. mailto:Press.Releases@noaa.gov
51. mailto:Bob.Ryan@nbcuni.com
52.
53.
54. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk


Hi Jean,
no problem, I think Phil and I have it all sorted out. Sorry I won't be there to see you
this time,
mike
Jean Jouzel wrote:
Dear Phil, Dear Mike,
I feel that I come too late in the discussion, but it's really fine for me.
Thanks a lot            Jean
At 14:24 +0000 18/01/08, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I didn't read it properly! I see the Jan 25 deadline. I was looking
at a Feb date which is for room and scheduling options.
So I will let you enter the session on Monday. I'll send
something over the weekend or first thing Monday, once I've
been through them. There a number of issues which relate to
last year and who got orals/posters then.
The other thing is for a room for 250+ people. If we have a medallist
we want more. We had 500 last year (due to Ray) but we did keep
most for the next few talks. We still had about ~200 for the session after
Ray's.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:01 18/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
thanks--sounds fine, I'll let you enter the session then.
I thought they wanted it sooner though (before Jan 25). I'm forwarding that email, maybe
I misunderstood it,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Have printed out the abstracts. Looks like many reasonable ones.
Pity we only have the limited numbers.  I can put the session in
once we're agreed. It seems as though we can't do that till mod-Feb.
I've contacted Gerrit and Gerard to see if we have to accommodate
a medalist talk for the Hans Oeschger prize.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:15 18/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
thanks, that sounds fine to me. I'll await further word from you after you look this
over again, and I'll await feedback from Jean. No rush, I'm hoping to finalize the
session on Monday.
The Vinther et al stuff sounds very interesting--I'm looking forward to hearing more,
sorry I won't actually be at EGU.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Jean
Thanks. I'll probably go with Vinther et al for the third invited. Not just
as I'm on the author list, but because he'll show (will submit soon) that
the Greenland borehole records (Dorthe Dahl Jensen) are winter proxies.
Has implications for the Norse Vikings - as the summer isotopes (which
unfortunately respond much to Icelandic than SW Greenland temps) don't
show any Medieval warming.
Jean probably knew all this. The bottom line is that annual isotopes are
essentially winter isotopes as they vary 2-3 times as much as summer ones.
If the squeezing of the layers doesn't distort anything this implies longer series
are very winter half year dominant.
I mostly agree with the other orals, but I have to look at a few. There is one
on the Millennium project (EU funded) which Jean knows about. Might have to give
this an oral slot.
Jean - any thoughts?  I assume you're happy to chair a session.
I also need to check whether we will have to talk a medallist talk? No
idea who?
Cheers
Phil
At 17:05 17/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id
m0HH5gQ6025372
Dear Phil and Jean,
We got an impressive turnout this year for our session, 37 total submitted abstracts.
Please see attached word document. Based on the rules described by EGU below, I suggest
we have 2 oral sessions (consisting of morning and afternoon), with a total of  10 oral
presentations w/ 7  of those being regular 15 minutes slots and 3 of those invited 25
minute slots. The other 27 abstracts will be posters, conforming w/ the fairly harsh
limits imposed by EGU on oral presentations.
My suggestions would be as follow:
Invited Presentations (25 minutes):
1 Ammann et al
2 Hughes et al
3 either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al (preferences?)
Other Oral (15 minutes):
4. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al
5. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al
6. Riedwyl et al
7. Graham et al
8. Smerdon et al
9. Kleinen et al
10. Jungklaus et al
Posters:
All others
Please let me know what you think. If these sound good to you, I'll go ahead and arrange
the session online,
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: EGU 2008
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:03:43 +0100
From: Andrea Bleyer [1]
To: [2]Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens.fr, [3]thomas.wagner@ncl.ac.uk,
[4]f.doblas-reyes@ecmwf.int, [5]tilmes@ucar.edu, [6]p.wadhams@damtp.cam.ac.uk,
[7]jbstuut@marum.de, [8]harz@gfz-potsdam.de, [9]w.hoek@geo.uu.nl, Johann Jungclaus
[10]
, Heiko Paeth [11]
,
[12]piero.lionello@unile.it, [13]boc@dmi.dk, [14]helge.drange@nersc.no,
[15]chris.d.jones@metoffice.com, [16]martin.claussen@zmaw.de,
[17]gottfried.kirchengast@uni-graz.at, [18]matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk,
[19]martin.beniston@unige.ch, [20]d.stainforth1@physics.ox.ac.uk,
[21]rwarritt@bruce.agron.iastate.edu, Seneviratne Sonia Isabelle
[22]
, Wild Martin [23]
, Nanne
Weber [24]
, [25]Hubertus.Fischer@awi.de, [26]rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de,
[27]azakey@ictp.it, [28]mann@psu.edu, [29]steig@u.washington.edu,
[30]nalan.koc@npolar.no, [31]florindo@ingv.it, [32]ggd@aber.ac.uk, [33]oromero@ugr.es,
[34]v.rath@geophysik.rwth-aachen.de, [35]awinguth@uta.edu,
[36]l.haass@mx.uni-saarland.de , [37]Gilles.Ramstein@cea.fr, Andre Paul
[38]
, [39]lucarini@adgb.df.unibo.it, Martin Trauth
[40]
, [41]nathalie.fagel@ulg.ac.be,
[42]hans.renssen@geo.falw.vu.nl, [43]Xiaolan.Wang@ec.gc.ca,
[44]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, alessandra negri [45]
,
[46]ferretti@unimore.it, [47]Mark.Liniger@meteoswiss.ch , Geert Jan van Oldenborgh
[48]
, [49]pjr@ucar.edu, [50]keith@ucalgary.ca,
[51]piacsek@nrlssc.navy.mil, [52]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, [53]hatte@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr,
[54]peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, [55]icacho@ub.edu, [56]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch,
Thomas Felis [57]
, [58]olander@gfy.ku.dk,
[59]karenluise.knudsen@geo.au.dk, [60]aku@geus.dk,
[61]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, [62]reichart@geo.uu.nl,
[63]M.N.Tsimplis@soton.ac.uk, [64]c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, [65]r.sutton@reading.ac.uk,
[66]valexeev@iarc.uaf.edu, [67]victor.brovkin@pik-potsdam.de, [68]zeng@atmos.umd.edu,
[69]terray@cerfacs.fr, [70]dufresne@lmd.jussieu.fr, [71]Burkhardt.Rockel@gkss.de,
[72]hurkvd@knmi.nl, [73]philippe.ciais@lsce.ipsl.fr, [74]rolf.philipona@meteoswiss.ch,
[75]Masa.Kageyama@lsce.ipsl.fr , [76]jules@jamstec.go.jp, [77]ewwo@bas.ac.uk,
[78]raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, [79]omarchal@whoi.edu,
[80]claire.waelbroeck@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Phil Jones [81]
,
[82]jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, [83]Jeff.Blackford@Manchester.ac.uk,
[84]gerardv@nioz.nl, [85]dharwood1@unl.edu, [86]lang@liv.ac.uk, Irka Hajdas
[87]
, [88]x.crosta@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr,
[89]pascal.claquin@unicaen.fr, Gonzalez-Rouco [90]
,
[91]jsa@ig.cas.cz, [92]dankd@atmos.umd.edu, [93]kbice@whoi.edu, "Brinkhuis, dr. H.
(Henk)" [94]
, [95]andy@seao2.org, [96]kbillups@udel.edu,
[97]anita.roth@uni-tuebingen.de, Gerrit Lohmann [98]
,
[99]P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk, [100]strecker@geo.uni-potsdam.de,
[101]mmaslin@geog.ucl.ac.uk, [102]marie-france.loutre@uclouvain.be,
[103]aurelia.ferrari@oma.be, [104]j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk, Torsten Bickert
[105]
, [106]chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk,
[107]elsa.cortijo@lsce.ipsl.fr, [108]gerald.ganssen@falw.vu.nl,
[109]arne.richter@copernicus.org, Andrea Bleyer [110]
, "Amelung B
(ICIS)" [111]
, [112]spn@env.ethz.ch, [113]bgomez@ub.edu,
[114]wmson@ucar.edu, [115]d.vance@bristol.ac.uk
Dear convener and co-convener,
Thanks a lot for your effort for sucessful sessions at the EGU 2008.
>From our experience of the last years, there will be an
oral-to-poster ratio of about 1:2 (e.g. ~33% of the contributions can
get
a talk). This means that for a complete session, you need 18
contributions. 18:3 * 15min = 1.5h = 1 block
For those of you who are under the number of 18, there are several
options:
1) a pure poster session
2) merging with a related session
3) the contributions will go to the open session (CL0)
4) if you are just below 18, you may manage to get late contributions
within the next days (please no dummy posters)
Please tell me which option do you like most (email to
[116]andrea.bleyer@awi.de).
In case 2), please contact the respective conveners in advance.
The session could be also from other divisions (BG, OS, AS, IS, ..).
In case of merging, you may speak with the persons whether it would be
appropiate to modify the title of the new session or to have a combined
name with both titles.
I think the general rule is that the convener of the merged session is
the person with the bigger session.
Kind regards
Gerrit
---
Prof. Dr. Gerrit Lohmann
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Bussestr. 24
D-27570 Bremerhaven
Germany
Email: [117]Gerrit.Lohmann@awi.de
Telephone: +49(471)4831-1758 / 1760
Fax: +49(471)4831-1797
[118]
[119]
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker
Building
FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:  [120]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[121]
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    [122]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker
Building
FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:  [123]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[124]
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    [125]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker
Building
FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:  [126]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[127]

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    [128]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Attention new mail address : [129]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin
Bâtiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE
tél :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682
- Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3ème étage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu,
75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : [130]jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr, 01 44 27 49 92
- Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13,
fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, e-mail : [131]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [132]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[133]
References
1. mailto:Andrea.Bleyer@awi.de
2. mailto:Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens.fr
3. mailto:thomas.wagner@ncl.ac.uk
4. mailto:f.doblas-reyes@ecmwf.int
5. mailto:tilmes@ucar.edu
6. mailto:p.wadhams@damtp.cam.ac.uk
7. mailto:jbstuut@marum.de
8. mailto:harz@gfz-potsdam.de
9. mailto:w.hoek@geo.uu.nl
10. mailto:johann.jungclaus@zmaw.de
11. mailto:heiko.paeth@mail.uni-wuerzburg.de
12. mailto:piero.lionello@unile.it
13. mailto:boc@dmi.dk
14. mailto:helge.drange@nersc.no
15. mailto:chris.d.jones@metoffice.com
16. mailto:martin.claussen@zmaw.de
17. mailto:gottfried.kirchengast@uni-graz.at
18. mailto:matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk
19. mailto:martin.beniston@unige.ch
20. mailto:d.stainforth1@physics.ox.ac.uk
21. mailto:rwarritt@bruce.agron.iastate.edu
22. mailto:sonia.seneviratne@env.ethz.ch
23. mailto:martin.wild@env.ethz.ch
24. mailto:weber@knmi.nl
25. mailto:Hubertus.Fischer@awi.de
26. mailto:rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de
27. mailto:azakey@ictp.it
28. mailto:mann@psu.edu
29. mailto:steig@u.washington.edu
30. mailto:nalan.koc@npolar.no
31. mailto:florindo@ingv.it
32. mailto:ggd@aber.ac.uk
33. mailto:oromero@ugr.es
34. mailto:v.rath@geophysik.rwth-aachen.de
35. mailto:awinguth@uta.edu
36. mailto:l.haass@mx.uni-saarland.de
37. mailto:Gilles.Ramstein@cea.fr
38. mailto:apau@palmod.uni-bremen.de
39. mailto:lucarini@adgb.df.unibo.it
40. mailto:trauth@geo.uni-potsdam.de
41. mailto:nathalie.fagel@ulg.ac.be
42. mailto:hans.renssen@geo.falw.vu.nl
43. mailto:Xiaolan.Wang@ec.gc.ca
44. mailto:Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr
45. mailto:a.negri@univpm.it
46. mailto:ferretti@unimore.it
47. mailto:Mark.Liniger@meteoswiss.ch
48. mailto:oldenborgh@knmi.nl
49. mailto:pjr@ucar.edu
50. mailto:keith@ucalgary.ca
51. mailto:piacsek@nrlssc.navy.mil
52. mailto:kiefer@pages.unibe.ch
53. mailto:hatte@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr
54. mailto:peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au
55. mailto:icacho@ub.edu
56. mailto:kiefer@pages.unibe.ch
57. mailto:tfelis@uni-bremen.de
58. mailto:olander@gfy.ku.dk
59. mailto:karenluise.knudsen@geo.au.dk
60. mailto:aku@geus.dk
61. mailto:Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr
62. mailto:reichart@geo.uu.nl
63. mailto:M.N.Tsimplis@soton.ac.uk
64. mailto:c.goodess@uea.ac.uk
65. mailto:r.sutton@reading.ac.uk
66. mailto:valexeev@iarc.uaf.edu
67. mailto:victor.brovkin@pik-potsdam.de
68. mailto:zeng@atmos.umd.edu
69. mailto:terray@cerfacs.fr
70. mailto:dufresne@lmd.jussieu.fr
71. mailto:Burkhardt.Rockel@gkss.de
72. mailto:hurkvd@knmi.nl
73. mailto:philippe.ciais@lsce.ipsl.fr
74. mailto:rolf.philipona@meteoswiss.ch
75. mailto:Masa.Kageyama@lsce.ipsl.fr
76. mailto:jules@jamstec.go.jp
77. mailto:ewwo@bas.ac.uk
78. mailto:raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr
79. mailto:omarchal@whoi.edu
80. mailto:claire.waelbroeck@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr
81. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
82. mailto:jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr
83. mailto:Jeff.Blackford@Manchester.ac.uk
84. mailto:gerardv@nioz.nl
85. mailto:dharwood1@unl.edu
86. mailto:lang@liv.ac.uk
87. mailto:hajdas@phys.ethz.ch
88. mailto:x.crosta@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr
89. mailto:pascal.claquin@unicaen.fr
90. mailto:fidelgr@fis.ucm.es
91. mailto:jsa@ig.cas.cz
92. mailto:dankd@atmos.umd.edu
93. mailto:kbice@whoi.edu
94. mailto:H.Brinkhuis@bio.uu.nl
95. mailto:andy@seao2.org
96. mailto:kbillups@udel.edu
97. mailto:anita.roth@uni-tuebingen.de
98. mailto:Gerrit.Lohmann@awi.de
99. mailto:P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk
100. mailto:strecker@geo.uni-potsdam.de
101. mailto:mmaslin@geog.ucl.ac.uk
102. mailto:marie-france.loutre@uclouvain.be
103. mailto:aurelia.ferrari@oma.be
104. mailto:j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk
105. mailto:bickert@rcom-bremen.de
106. mailto:chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk
107. mailto:elsa.cortijo@lsce.ipsl.fr
108. mailto:gerald.ganssen@falw.vu.nl
109. mailto:arne.richter@copernicus.org
110. mailto:Andrea.Bleyer@awi.de
111. mailto:B.Amelung@ICIS.unimaas.nl
112. mailto:spn@env.ethz.ch
113. mailto:bgomez@ub.edu
114. mailto:wmson@ucar.edu
115. mailto:d.vance@bristol.ac.uk
116. mailto:andrea.bleyer@awi.de
117. mailto:Gerrit.Lohmann@awi.de
118.
119.
120. mailto:mann@psu.edu
121.
122. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
123. mailto:mann@psu.edu
124.
125. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
126. mailto:mann@psu.edu
127.
128. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
129. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
130. mailto:jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr
131. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
132. mailto:mann@psu.edu
133.


Phil,
will do. And regarding TSI, it looks like that 1361 or 1362 (+/-) are going to be the new
consensus. All I hear is that this seems to be quite robust. Fodder for the critics: all
these modelers, they always put in too much energy - no wonder it was warming - and now
they want to reduce the natural component? The SORCE meeting is going to be on that
satellite stuff but also about climate connections : Sun-Earth. Tom Crowley is going to be
there, Gavin Schmidt, David Rind, and a few others; of course Judith.
Thanks for Bo Vinther's manuscript!
Caspar
On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:12 PM, [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Caspar,
OK. Keep me informed. Also I'd like to know more the conclusions
of the meeting you're going to on the solar constant.
Just that it can change from 1366.5 to 1361!!
Cheers
Phil
Phil,
we should hook together on this 1257 event (I call it 1257 because of
the timings but its just a bit better than an informed guess). We now
have these simulations of contemporary high-lat eruptions and can
compare them with low-lat ones.
Just a couple thoughts
pro high-lat:
- climate signal looks better in short and longer term
- potential for in-ice-core migration of some sulfur species ... some
new work that has been done ...
con:
- deposition duration
- old fingerprints
- no high-lat calderas/flows of appropriate size : compare it to
Eldgja or Laki, this thing is bigger!
- no large ash layers
What we need is fingerprinting. I'm participating in a project
Icelandic volcanism and climate in the last 2000 years. There we have
money to do some chemical fingerprinting. I'm pursuing to get
somebody to run these samples. That will be the deciding thing.
Remember, instrumentation has dramatically increased in sensitivity,
so I think it should be possible. its not that one would have to go
dig around too much in the ice cores as the depth/location of that
monster sulfate spikes are well known.
Should be interesting.
Caspar
On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:57 PM, [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Caspar,
The meeting I'm at is less interesting than IDAG.
I'll send the Greenland isotope data when I get back.
536 is a good story. 1258/9 needs to be good story too...
I think it isn't at the moment.
Cheers
Phil
Thanks Phil,
will have a look. I certainly like it, and I only was a bit picky on
the "largest eruption" versus "largest volcanic signal in trees". I
like the isotope work very much and will now look if I can pick on
something more substantial ;-)
Caspar
On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:24 PM, [3]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [4]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [5]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [6]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
References
1. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu
5. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu
6. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu


Dear All,
I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
"There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action".
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for "action"
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.
It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.
It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
"greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance".
2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.
3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?
Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.
Regards,
Shukla
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC-Sec wrote:
> Dear LAs & CLAs,
>
> Please find attached a letter and issues related to the future of the
> IPCC.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Annie
>
> IPCC Secretariat
> WMO
> 7bis, Avenue de la Paix
> P.O. Box 2300
> 1211 Geneva 2
> SWITZERLAND
> Tel: +41 22 730 8208/8254/8284
> Fax: +41 22 730 8025/8013
> Email: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int
> Website:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>