"Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience--but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution--with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change.  I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred--so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code--which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work--and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics--like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how credible scientific replication should proceed.
Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent--to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value in public policy"--what you resort to when you can't win the intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS.
Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used.
Cheers, Steve
PS Please do not copy or forward this email.
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F:  650 725 4387
Websites:  climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Santer"
To: "Peter Thorne"
, "Leopold Haimberger"
, "Karl Taylor"
, "Tom Wigley"
, "John Lanzante"
, "Susan Solomon"
, "Melissa Free"
, "peter gleckler"
, "Philip D. Jones"
, "Thomas R Karl"
, "Steve Klein"
, "carl mears"
, "Doug Nychka"
, "Gavin Schmidt"
, "Steven Sherwood"
, "Frank Wentz"
Cc: "David C. Bader"
, "Bill Goldstein"
, "Pat Berge"
, "Cherry Murray"
, "George Miller"
, "Anjuli Bamzai"
, "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"
, "Doug Rotman"
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:23:41 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [Fwd: data request]
Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology
paper (and other interested parties),
I am forwarding an email I received this morning from a Mr. Geoff Smith.
The email concerns the climate model data used in our
recently-published International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper.
Mr. Smith has requested that I provide him with these climate model
datasets. This request has been made to Dr. Anna Palmisano at DOE
Headquarters and to Dr. George Miller, the Director of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.
I have spent the last two months of my scientific career dealing with
multiple requests for these model datasets under the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). I have been able to do little or no productive
research during this time. This is of deep concern to me.
From the beginning, my position on this matter has been clear and
consistent. The primary climate model data used in our IJoC paper are
part of the so-called "CMIP-3" (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project)
archive at LLNL, and are freely available to any scientific researcher.
The primary observational (satellite and radiosonde) datasets used in
our IJoC paper are also freely available. The algorithms used for
calculating "synthetic" Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from
climate model data (to facilitate comparison with actual satellite
temperatures) have been documented in several peer-reviewed
publications. The bottom line is that any interested scientist has all
the scientific information necessary to replicate the calculations
performed in our IJoC paper, and to check whether the conclusions
reached in that paper were sound.
Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Stephen McIntyre (Mr. McIntyre is the
initiator of the FOIA requests to the U.S. DOE and NOAA, and the
operator of the "ClimateAudit.com" blog) is interested in full
replication of our calculations, starting from the primary climate model
and observational data. Instead, they are demanding the value-added
quantities we have derived from the primary datasets (i.e., the
synthetic MSU temperatures).
I would like a clear ruling from DOE lawyers - ideally from both the
NNSA and DOE Office of Science branches - on the legality of such data
requests. They are troubling, for a number of reasons.
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any
derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to
FOIA requests. At LLNL's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the
calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These
derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat
content changes, and so-called "cloud simulator" products suitable for
comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type,
altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such
calculations is substantial.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that "there is no valid intellectual property
justification for withholding this data". I believe this argument is
incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper - and
the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above - are integral
components of both PCMDI's ongoing research, and of proposals we have
submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor
simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed
full scientific analysis of these datasets?
3. There is a real danger that such FOIA requests could (and are
already) being used as a tool for harassing scientists rather than for
valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests to DOE and NOAA
are but the latest in a series of such requests. In the past, Mr.
McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the U.K.
Climatic Research Unit, and the National Climatic Data Center in
Asheville. Now he is focusing his attention on me. The common
denominator is that Mr. McIntyre's attention is directed towards studies
claiming to show evidence of large-scale surface warming, and/or a
prominent human "fingerprint" in that warming. These serial FOIA
requests interfere with our ability to do our job.
Mr. Smith's email mentions the Royal Meteorological Society's data
archiving policies (the Royal Meteorological Society are the publishers
of the International Journal of Climatology). Recently, Prof. Glenn
McGregor (the Chief Editor of the IJoC) provided Mr. McIntyre with the
following clarification:
"In response to your question about data policy my position as Chief
Editor is that the above paper has been subject to strict peer review,
supporting information has been provided by the authors in good faith
which is accessible online (attached FYI) and the original data from
which temperature trends were calculated are freely available. It is not
the policy of the International Journal of Climatology to require that
data sets used in analyses be made available as a condition of
publication."
As many of you may know, I have decided to publicly release the
synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre's FOIA
request (together with additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were
not requested by Mr. McIntyre). These datasets have been through
internal review and release procedures, and will be published shortly on
PCMDI's website, together with a technical document which describes how
synthetic MSU temperatures were calculated. I agreed to this publication
process primarily because I want to spend the next few years of my
career doing research. I have no desire to be "taken out" as scientist,
and to be involved in years of litigation.
The public release of the MSU data used in our IJoC paper may or may not
resolve these problems. If Mr. McIntyre's past performance is a guide to
the future, further FOIA requests will follow. I would like to know that
I have the full support of LLNL management and the U.S. Dept. of Energy
in dealing with these unwarranted and intrusive requests.
I do not intend to reply to Mr. Smith's email.
Sincerely,
Ben Santer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phil
Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones
Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!
The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!
Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more
>general studies show relationships between the population or size of
>cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there
>any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban
>warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
>
>Chris
>
>
>Prof. Chris Folland
>Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
>Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United
>Kingdom
>Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
>Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
>         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
>
Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
>of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones
>Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
>To: Folland, Chris
>Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
>   Chris,
>     Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
>   Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
>   in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't
>   see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought.
>
>     Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
>   and I tried to make it quite simple !  David did see it last month.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
>At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
> >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
> >
> >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here
> >as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been
> >better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >Prof. Chris Folland
> >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
> >
> >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> >Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
> >         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> >
Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
> >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Phil Jones
> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
> >
> >
> >   Tim, Chris,
> >     I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> >   till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> >   press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> >   half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> >     Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> >     I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> >   where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> >   scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
> >
> >     Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather
> > forecasts.
> >    Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the
> language used in the forecasts seems
> >    a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
> > days (in Norfolk)
> >    it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
> >
> >     I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
> > deg C for the LWC.
> >   It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
> >   the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
> > The paper
> >   shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
> >   and Rothamsted).
> >
> >   Cheers
> >   Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
> > >Dear Chris,  cc: Doug
> > >
> > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
> > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
> > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B
> > >scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment
> > >models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an
> > >issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running
> > >models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has
> > >large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated
> > >using the IMAGE
> > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated
> > >by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic
> > >secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in
> > >the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions
> > >from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a
> > >decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say
> > >for sure which is most likely to be "realistic".
> > >
> > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is
> > >quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the
> > >first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO
> > >simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus
> > >some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario
> > >runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are
> > >considerably warmer than
> > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
> > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
> > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated
> > >in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but
> > >please don't circulate this any further as these are results in
> > >progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone
> > >published). We think the different short term warming responses are
> > >largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
> > >
> > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
> > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are
> > >doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be
> > >analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5)
> > >prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation
> > >details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt
> > >scenarios and their
> > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment
> > >fine print to that extent).
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Tim
> > >
> > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> > > > Tim and Doug
> > > >
> > > > Please see McCrackens email.
> > > >
> > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4
> > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
> > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
> > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
> > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
> > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
> > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
> > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models.
> > > In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced
> > > net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other
> > > words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
> > > recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method
> > > nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the
> absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
> > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and
> > > DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
> > > >
> > > > Any guidance welcome
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Chris Folland
> > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
> > > > 2008)
> > > >
> > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
> > > Devon  EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> > > > Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
> > > >         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> > > >
Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
> > > > Professor of School of Environmental
> > > Sciences, University of East Anglia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike MacCracken
> > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009
> > > >
> > > > Dear Phil and Chris--
> > > >
> > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
> > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a
> > > lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis
> > > you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and
> > > that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising
> > > emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants
> > > are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an
> > > inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid
> > > 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the
> > > next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term,
> > > "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there
> > > are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from
> > > these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their
> > > efforts were going to also inventory
> > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they
> > > were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by
> > > not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
> > > repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical
> > > depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
> > > >
> > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling
> > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
> > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example,
> > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also
> > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and
> > > air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is
> > > to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
> > > seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with
> > > its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is
> > > evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a
> > > little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more
> > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
> > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive
> > > and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would
> > > be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to
> > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
> > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we
> > > manage
> > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
> > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
> > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
> > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
> > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
> > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
> > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for  10 days or so.
> > > > Would be an interesting issue to do
> research on--see what could be done.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
> > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
> > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
> > > past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin.
> > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you
> > > also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have
> > > a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
> > > Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really
> > > cooling, the models are no good, etc.
> > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
> > > >
> > > > Best, Mike MacCracken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
> > > >
> > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the
> > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009
> > > will be one of the top five warmest years on record.  Average
> > > global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the
> > > 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met
> > > Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global
> > > temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing
> > > probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that
> > > 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . .
> > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil
> > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East
> > > Anglia.  The presence of La Nina during the
> last year partially masked this underlying rate.
> > > ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant
> > > influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland
> > > of the Met Office Hadley Center.
> > > > ³Further warming to record levels is likely
> > > once a moderate El Nino develops.²  The transition from a La Nina
> > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
> > > >
> > > > For additional information see:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > et
> > > -t
> > > o-be-c
> > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ht
> > > > ml
> > > >
> > > >
> > >--
> > >  Tim Johns   Manager Global Coupled Modelling
> > >  Met Office   Hadley Centre
> > >  FitzRoy Rd   Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB   United Kingdom
> > >  Tel:  +44 (0)1392 886901   Fax:  +44 (0)1392 885681
> > >  E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk
> > >
> > >  Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday
> > > Thursday-Friday
> > >
> > >  Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
> > > Earth
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >--
> >-----
> >
> >
> >
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris,
Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them)
you should appeal.
In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication.
If you do go to GRL I wouldn't raise the issue with  them. Happy to
be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Chris,
Worth pursuing - even if only GRL.
Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate
to say what Nature have used as a refusal!
Cheers
Phil
At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote:
Phil
Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate
Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed
the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I
have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water
bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th
century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!
The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the
skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!
Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more
>general studies show relationships between the population or size of
>cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there
>any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban
>warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
>
>Chris
>
>
>Prof. Chris Folland
>Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
>Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United
>Kingdom
>Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
>Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
>         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
>
Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
>of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
>To: Folland, Chris
>Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
>   Chris,
>     Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
>   Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
>   in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't
>   see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought.
>
>     Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
>   and I tried to make it quite simple !  David did see it last month.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
>At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
> >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
> >
> >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here
> >as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been
> >better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >Prof. Chris Folland
> >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
> >
> >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon  EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> >Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
> >         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> >
Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
> >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
> >
> >
> >   Tim, Chris,
> >     I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> >   till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> >   press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> >   half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> >     Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> >     I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> >   where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> >   scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
> >
> >     Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather
> > forecasts.
> >    Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the
> language used in the forecasts seems
> >    a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
> > days (in Norfolk)
> >    it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
> >
> >     I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
> > deg C for the LWC.
> >   It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
> >   the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
> > The paper
> >   shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
> >   and Rothamsted).
> >
> >   Cheers
> >   Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
> > >Dear Chris,  cc: Doug
> > >
> > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
> > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
> > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B
> > >scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment
> > >models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an
> > >issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running
> > >models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has
> > >large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated
> > >using the IMAGE
> > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated
> > >by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic
> > >secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in
> > >the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions
> > >from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a
> > >decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say
> > >for sure which is most likely to be "realistic".
> > >
> > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is
> > >quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the
> > >first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO
> > >simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus
> > >some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario
> > >runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are
> > >considerably warmer than
> > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
> > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
> > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated
> > >in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but
> > >please don't circulate this any further as these are results in
> > >progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone
> > >published). We think the different short term warming responses are
> > >largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
> > >
> > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
> > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are
> > >doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be
> > >analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5)
> > >prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation
> > >details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt
> > >scenarios and their
> > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment
> > >fine print to that extent).
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Tim
> > >
> > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> > > > Tim and Doug
> > > >
> > > > Please see McCrackens email.
> > > >
> > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4
> > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
> > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
> > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
> > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
> > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
> > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
> > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models.
> > > In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced
> > > net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other
> > > words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
> > > recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method
> > > nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the
> absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
> > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and
> > > DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
> > > >
> > > > Any guidance welcome
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Chris Folland
> > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
> > > > 2008)
> > > >
> > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
> > > Devon  EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> > > > Fax: (in UK)  0870 900 5050
> > > >         (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> > > >
Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
> > > > Professor of School of Environmental
> > > Sciences, University of East Anglia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike MacCracken [[8]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
> > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009
> > > >
> > > > Dear Phil and Chris--
> > > >
> > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
> > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a
> > > lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis
> > > you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and
> > > that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising
> > > emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants
> > > are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an
> > > inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid
> > > 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the
> > > next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term,
> > > "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there
> > > are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from
> > > these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their
> > > efforts were going to also inventory
> > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they
> > > were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by
> > > not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
> > > repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical
> > > depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
> > > >
> > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling
> > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
> > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example,
> > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also
> > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and
> > > air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is
> > > to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
> > > seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with
> > > its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is
> > > evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a
> > > little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more
> > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
> > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive
> > > and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would
> > > be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to
> > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
> > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we
> > > manage
> > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
> > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
> > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
> > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
> > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
> > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
> > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for  10 days or so.
> > > > Would be an interesting issue to do
> research on--see what could be done.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
> > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
> > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
> > > past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin.
> > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you
> > > also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have
> > > a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
> > > Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really
> > > cooling, the models are no good, etc.
> > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
> > > >
> > > > Best, Mike MacCracken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
> > > >
> > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the
> > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009
> > > will be one of the top five warmest years on record.  Average
> > > global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the
> > > 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met
> > > Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global
> > > temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing
> > > probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that
> > > 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone
away . . .
> > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil
> > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East
> > > Anglia.  The presence of La Nina during the
> last year partially masked this underlying rate.
> > > ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant
> > > influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland
> > > of the Met Office Hadley Center.
> > > > ³Further warming to record levels is likely
> > > once a moderate El Nino develops.²  The transition from a La Nina
> > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
> > > >
> > > > For additional information see:
> > > > [9]
> > > >
> > > [10]
> > > et
> > > -t
> > > o-be-c
> > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html
> > > > [11]
> > > > [12]
> > > > ht
> > > > ml
> > > >
> > > >
> > >--
> > >  Tim Johns   Manager Global Coupled Modelling
> > >  Met Office   Hadley Centre
> > >  FitzRoy Rd   Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB   United Kingdom
> > >  Tel:  +44 (0)1392 886901   Fax:  +44 (0)1392 885681
> > >  E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk   [13]
> > >
> > >  Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday
> > > Thursday-Friday
> > >
> > >  Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
> > > Earth  [14]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >--
> >-----
> >
> >
> >
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3.
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5.
6. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
7.
8. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.


Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology
paper (and other interested parties),
I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower
tropospheric temperatures that were the subject of Mr. Stephen
McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have also
released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested
by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's
publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is:

Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a
document entitled:
"Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
temperatures calculated from CMIP-3 archive"
The link to the technical document is:

I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific
research, and will be employed for such purposes only.
I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be
able to return to full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA
requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests
are for the purpose of harassing Government scientists, and not for the
purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and causes of
climate change.
I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping
me complete the process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the
synthetic MSU datasets and the technical document. And thanks to all of
you for your support and encouragement over the past two months. It is
deeply appreciated.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
doesn't realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever - they
are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.
It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre's paper for review.
Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!
I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn't be the same without
him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.
Have fun in Switzerland!
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>    I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too
>  old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier
>  at some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than
>  200m at the moment.
>
>    It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on
>  Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
>  telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think
>  Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has.
>
>    With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have
>  submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
>  years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
>  laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
>  statements saying you've done this following Obama's
>  statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely
>  get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
>  Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll
>  suggest this.
>
>    Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's
>  work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment
>  piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
>  they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it
>  hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
>  reading them unless interested.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That's great news. I'm really
delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc "I'm not entirely there in the head" isn't
there to spoil the occasion...
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>    Meant to add - hope you're better! You were missed at
>  IDAG. Meeting went well though.
>
>    I heard during IDAG that I've been made an AGU Fellow.
>  Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it.
>  I hope I don't see a certain person there!
>  Have to get out of a keynote talk I'm due to give in
>  Finland the same day!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
> Ben,
>    I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too
>  old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at
> some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at
> the moment.
>
>    It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on
>  Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
>  telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think
>  Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has.
>
>    With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have
>  submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
>  years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
>  laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
>  statements saying you've done this following Obama's
>  statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely
>  get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
>  Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll
>  suggest this.
>
>    Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's
>  work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment
>  piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
>  they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it
>  hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
>  reading them unless interested.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mr. Smith,
Please do not lecture me on "good science and replicability". Mr.
McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results
would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
unwilling to do that.
Our results were published in a peer-reviewed publication (the
International Journal of Climatology). These results were fully
available for "independent testing and replication by others". Indeed, I
note that David Douglass et al. performed such independent testing and
replication in their 2007 International Journal of Climatology paper.
Douglass et al. used the same primary climate model data that we
employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do - they
independently calculated estimates of "synthetic" Microwave Sounding
Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data. The Douglass et al.
"synthetic" MSU temperatures are very similar to our own. The scientific
differences between the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. results are
primarily related to the different statistical tests that the two groups
employed in their comparisons of models and observations. Demonstrably,
the Douglass et al. statistical test contains several serious flaws,
which led them to reach incorrect inferences regarding the level of
agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends.
Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
Douglass et al. statistical test and our statistical test with
randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
to do that. He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil
Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.
Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to LLNL and DOE
management to complain about my "unresponsiveness" and my failure to
provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
the information available on Mr. McIntyre's blog. You did not understand
- and still do not understand - that the primary model data used in our
paper have always been freely available to any scientific researcher,
and are currently being used by many hundreds of scientists around the
world. Any competent climate scientist could perform full replication of
our calculation of "synthetic" MSU temperatures - as Douglass et al.
have already done.
Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my
behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and
damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or
post it on Mr. McIntyre's blog.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer
Smithg wrote:
> Dear Dr. Santer,
>
> I'm pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line.
> Thank you for your efforts to make these materials available.
>
> My "dog in this fight" is good science and replicability. I note the
> following references:
>
> The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
>
> "The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness
> of scientists to:
>
>    1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and
>       replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data,
>       procedures and materials.
>    2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted
>       with more complete or reliable experimental or observational
>       evidence.”
>
> Also I note the NAS booklet “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct
> in Research” (2^nd edition) states “After publication, scientists expect
> that data and other research materials will be shared with qualified
> colleagues upon request. Indeed, a number of federal agencies, journals,
> and professional societies have established policies requiring the
> sharing of research materials. Sometimes these materials are too
> voluminous, unwieldy, or costly to share freely and quickly. But in
> those fields in which sharing is possible, a scientist who is unwilling
> to share research materials with qualified colleagues runs the risk of
> not being trusted or respected. In a profession where so much depends on
> interpersonal interactions, the professional isolation that can follow a
> loss of trust can damage a scientist's work”. I know that the 3rd
> edition is expected soon, but I cannot imagine this position will be
> weakened. Indeed, with electronic storage of data increasing
> dramatically, I expect that most of the exceptions are likely to be
> dropped.
>
> I understand that science is considered by some to be a "blood sport"
> and that there are serious rivalries and disputes. Nevertheless, the
> principles above are vital to the continuation of good science, wherever
> the results may lead.
>
> Again, I thank you for making the data available, and I wish you success
> in your future research.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Smithg
>     *To:* santer1@llnl.gov
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:23 PM
>     *Subject:* data request
>
>     Dear Dr. Santer
>
>     ref: Santer, et. al.
>     Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the
>     tropical troposphere
>     International Journal of Climatology
>     Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1703-1722
>
>     As a courtesy, I would like to advise you that I have requested data
>     to support the above paper (monthly model data (49 series) used for
>     statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with a
>     file of the data as used in the paper) be made available to me via a
>     request to Dr. Anna Palmisano of the DOE, Office of Science, the
>     funding agency. This request is for "recorded factual material
>     commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
>     validate research findings".
>
>     This data is already the subject of an FOIA request, but I have
>     asked Dr. Palisano to obtain and send me the data independently of
>     the outcome of any FOIA review. My reasons are:
>
>     1) further analysis of the data is important for public policy
>     2) there is no valid intellectual property justification for
>     withholding this data
>     3) the data is readily available as obviously you (Dr. Santer) used
>     the information in preparing the recently published paper
>
>     My request has been copied to Dr. George Miller.
>
>     Since I have not asked you directly for the data, I now request this
>     data directly from you (monthly model data (49 series) used for
>     statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with a
>     file of the data as used in the paper).
>
>     Your reported replies to requests of other individuals that the
>     datasets are publicly available is non-responsive to the request.
>
>     You may be aware that the head of the Royal Meteorological Society
>     (who are the publishers of the above referenced journal) has
>     announced that their data archiving policies will be reviewed at
>     their next general editors meeting. That may change things for the
>     future, but a future change does not have retrospective force.
>     Nevertheless, there is a high probability that requests for this
>     data will continue until provided.
>
>     In the absence of the requested data, it is very likely this
>     publication will be judged "non-replicable" and therefore of no
>     evidentiary value in public policy.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Geoff Smith
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
Yes, this is the same Geoff Smith who wrote to me. Do you know who he
is? From his comments about the RMS, he seems to be a Brit.
In his email to you, Mr. Smith notes that: "there is a strong case to be
made that intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the
relevant code should be made available in studies such as this one,
since there is an important possibility of errors in trying to replicate
such a collation".
This is a key point. Douglass et al. already audited our "collation" of
the primary temperature data (i.e., our calculation of synthetic MSU
temperatures). As I've already told Mr. Smith, Douglass et al. obtained
synthetic MSU temperatures very similar to the ones published in our
IJoC paper. Mr. Smith does not understand this. Nor does he understand
that the algorithms used to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from
raw model temperature data have already been published and documented in
the peer-reviewed literature.
I think it would be useful to raise these issues with Paul Hardaker.
Cheers,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>    Is this the Smith who has emailed? Why does he think
>  you've not informed your co-authors that you've made the
>  data available? Most odd - though he does accept that the
>  raw data was already there. Pity that loads of people on
>  CA including McIntyre didn't seem to accept or realise this.
>    I'm not on an RMS committee at the moment, but I could
>  try and contact Paul Hardaker if you think it might be useful.
>  Possibly need to explain what is raw and what is intermediate.
>
>    I wasn't going to give this guy Smith the satisfaction of a reply!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: data availability
> From:    "Smithg"
> Date:    Sun, February 1, 2009 2:09 pm
> To:      p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1703-1722
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49 series)
> used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with
> a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested from the
> first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line, but in the
> meantime the data is now available at
> http:// www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported response
> to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no monthly time
> series from climate models used in the paper referred to, and no
> correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at the
> request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary action.
> You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the  International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies.  A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to time
> I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no reply is
> necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1703-1722
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49
> series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to
> a URL with a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested
> from the first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line,
> but in the meantime the data is now available at
>  .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported
> response to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no
> monthly time series from climate models used in the paper referred to,
> and no correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at
> the request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary
> action. You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the  International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies.  A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to
> time I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no
> reply is necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phil, David,
as David says I'll be away in Oklahoma first week in March. Antarctic
data first piqued my interest with the Science paper on raobs trends
which was clearly non-physical but hard to nail down how wrong it was. I
did some minor digging into READER and found that in the UA domain it
was qc'ed but not homogenised. I've made a rather rash assumption that
this would also be the case for the surface data but am happy to be
corrected.
Its clear to me that Antarctica is a uniquely difficult environment to
collect long-term homogeneous data in. So I have substantial doubts that
all the manned station pegs in Steig et al. are adequate. Does this
really matter? I'm not sure.
What Steig et al., satellites, and potentially reanalyses does do is
allow us, in principle, at least to get around the no-neighbours issue
in assessing homogeneity away from the peninsula.
For example we could use a bootstrapping of the Steig et al approach by
creating say 50 realisations of each station series using randomly
seeded combinations of manned station pegs as the S et al. RegEM
constraint (excluding the candidate station) to make a neighbour
composite ensemble. We could then add in the available reanalysis field
estimates and satellite estimates and make a reasonable punt about the
existence and magnitude of any breaks based upon multiple lines of
evidence (of course, we lose some of these before 1979 ...). We could
use this information to assess in a more rigorous way than has been done
to date the homogeneity of these sparse stations. Then cleaned up data
could be fed back through Steig et al. afterwards to see how it impacts
that analysis making for a nice clean self-contained study.
My understanding from the blog discussion of Steig et al. is that the
analysis step is fairly trivial so such an ensemble realisation approach
should be plausible with a humble PC so long as it has the coding
platform available.
Of course, this doesn't resolve any fundamental methodological concerns
about the S et al. approach that may exist but it does give us a
reasonable chance of creating a much more homogeneous READER manned
station dataset for next IPCC AR and our future products.
My suspicion is that actually changing the manned station data in this
way may make S et al. more different to the straight average of the
READER data as used (effectively) in AR5 and point to the importance of
the long-term homogeneity of the data pegs in RegEM ... this may, of
course, be felt to be a can of worms too far ...
Peter
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
>   David,
>      I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought
>   you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a
>   possible project.
>      I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an
>   archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure).
>   With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula
>   (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is
>   an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since
>   1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular.
>      I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and
>   RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes
>   with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one
>   at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is
>   getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly
>   data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is
> that some sites
>   get buried, but still seem to transmit.
>      What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the
> full field
>   from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the
>   data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure
> remains the same.
>
>      I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all
> that relevant.
>
>    Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming
>   mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to
>   spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night!
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
> At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there.
> >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your
> >visit whenever that may be convenient for you,
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> > >  David,
> > >    The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing.
> > >  As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered
> > >  trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails.
> > >   Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops,
> > >  the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting
> > >  next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6.
> > >    I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked
> > >  at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past.
> > >  Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway,
> > >  I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others
> > >  like Kevin T next week as well about the paper.
> > >    Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea
> > >  to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more!
> > >    Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't
> > >  rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can
> > >  be here now and Geneva next week.
> > >
> > >    Have a good weekend - if a little cold!
> > >
> > >  Cheers
> > >  Phil
> > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near
> > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader"
> > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in
> > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last
> > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may
> > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our
> > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on
> > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be
> > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could,
> > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well-
> > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate
> > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a
> > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily
> > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this
> > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar.
> > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had
> > > > more time to think them through.
> > > >
> > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting
> > > > at Imperial on 12-13 Feb when you aren't available.
> > > >
> > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> > > > E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > > Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:www.metoffice.gov.uk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >--
> >David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> >E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
> >Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:www.metoffice.gov.uk
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Peter Thorne   Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs


David, Peter, Ian,
Let's go for the week with Feb 25/26 in it. I could come down
for late on the 25th then spend most of the 26th discussing
Ian's work and also the Antarctic ideas. Presumably John Prior
and others will be available at some point on the 26th.
The Antarctic surface T data that are in CRUTEM3 have come
from my searches over the years and also from READER. Much of the
early stuff in READER has come from the archives here, except
where BAS have got the original digitized data from the Antarctic
Institutes in all the countries.
I also have some files of when some of the manned stations on the
ice have moved. These are forced moves, as the station moves, but they
have never been accounted for. Halley and Casey are affected.
There are issues to discuss about the AWSs and also, as David knows
from AOPC, work that Wisconsin are doing in putting together all
the historic US series. I've talked to them about this - mainly to try and
stop them calculating mean T a different way. If they do this it will
screw their series up. It all relates to them saying that the mean of
min and max is not a great way in the Antarctic to calculate mean T.
They say they can now do the mean of every 3 hours, but it needs the
historic series and the routine updating to change at the same
time - which is unlikely to happen.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:13 09/02/2009, David Parker wrote:
Phil
Thanks. I think Feb 25-26 is better as Peter, who suggested the Reader-
data project, will be away in the first week of March. Ian will be here
except, I think, on Feb 27th when he is going to a chess tournament. The
hotel next to the Met Office should be OK but I haven't checked
availability - that can be done when the date is chosen.
David
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:53 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
>   David,
>      I think I misinterpreted your email when in Switzerland. I think I thought
>   you wanted a talk and a possible project. Now I read it and it is just a
>   possible project.
>      I've done a lot with the Antarctic temperature data - I also have an
>   archive of MSLP data for most sites (for some it is station level pressure).
>   With regards homogeneity it is difficult to do much beyond the Peninsula
>   (and be confident about anything) as the stations are too far apart. There is
>   an issue I could ask Adrian - whether ERA-INTERIM is good enough since
>   1988? This could also assess the AVHRR, but this may be circular.
>      I've read Steig et al now, and I can see all the comments on the CA and
>   RC sites about some of the data. It seems that BAS have made some mistakes
>   with some of the AWS sites. The only AWS site used in CRUTEM3 is the one
>   at Byrd, as this is at one of the manned sites. The issue with the AWS's is
>   getting reasonable data in real time. Whilst I was away the checked monthly
>   data arrived for 2002! I will add Byrd's data in. The problem is
> that some sites
>   get buried, but still seem to transmit.
>      What Steig et al have done is a paleo-type reconstruction of the
> full field
>   from the AVHRR for a recent period and extended it back to 1957. If the
>   data are OK, all you're assuming is that covariance structure
> remains the same.
>
>      I did this paper (attached) ages ago, but it doesn't seem all
> that relevant.
>
>    Anyway - I do need to come down to see Ian. Possibilities would be coming
>   mid week, say Feb 25/26 or March 4/5. How do these dates suit? I'd need to
>   spend the night - maybe that Travel-lodge near you, it is only one night!
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
> At 16:04 30/01/2009, David Parker wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Thanks. I hope the GCOS meeting goes well: Roger Saunders will be there.
> >We look forward to your thoughts on the Antarctic data, and to your
> >visit whenever that may be convenient for you,
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:56 +0000, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> > >  David,
> > >    The Swiss extremes workshop has afternoons off for skiing.
> > >  As I don't, I've been on 60 or 90 mins walks along snow covered
> > >  trails. Snow is 1m deep off the trails.
> > >   Anyway back now. So looking at emails. As the sun drops,
> > >  the temperature plummets. I'm at the GCOS Imp Plan meeting
> > >  next week in Geneva. Back in CRU on Feb 6.
> > >    I've been reading the Steig et al paper. I've looked
> > >  at homogeneity issues with the Antarctic data in the past.
> > >  Difficult to do much except in the Peninsula. Anyway,
> > >  I'll give your proposal some thought. Will talk to others
> > >  like Kevin T next week as well about the paper.
> > >    Glad to hear Ian is settling. It would be a good idea
> > >  to do two things on the visit. I'm sure we can think of more!
> > >    Glad also you're helping out Brian. I just couldn't
> > >  rearrange my UEA teaching again - already done this so I can
> > >  be here now and Geneva next week.
> > >
> > >    Have a good weekend - if a little cold!
> > >
> > >  Cheers
> > >  Phil
> > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > Peter Thorne and others have suggested that you visit us in the near
> > > > future to set up a project in which CRU would homogenise the "Reader"
> > > > surface temperature data for Antarctica. This subject arose in
> > > > connection with Steig et al.'s paper on Antarctic temperatures in last
> > > > week's NATURE, and is also relevant to the possibility that we may
> > > > include interpolations over the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica in our
> > > > analyses for IPCC AR5. Peter challenges the results of Steig et al. on
> > > > the grounds that the in situ surface temperatures may not be
> > > > homogeneous. Maybe you could even give a seminar on e.g. Antarctic
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know when a visit would be convenient for you. You could,
> > > > of course, combine it with a review of Ian's progress. Ian is now well-
> > > > settled into using our computing systems, and has started to calculate
> > > > r-bar from the daily precipitation fields for the UK regions, with a
> > > > view to estimating uncertainties in the regionally-averaged daily
> > > > values. As a cross-check, and to gain a deeper appreciation of this
> > > > myself, I have independently written some software to calculate r-bar.
> > > > This is leading to some ideas which I will send to you when I have had
> > > > more time to think them through.
> > > >
> > > > I understand you're busy as I am expecting to attend the Malaria meeting
> > > > at Imperial on 12-13 Feb when you aren't available.
> > > >
> > > > Hope you've had good meetings in Geneva
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> > > > E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > > Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:[1]www.metoffice.gov.uk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >--
> >David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> >E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
> >Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:www.metoffice.gov.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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David Parker   Met Office Hadley Centre   FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
E-mail: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44-1392-886649  Fax: +44-1392-885681  http:www.metoffice.gov.uk
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,
It would be good to get some fresh blood.
Caspar and Pascal would be good choices.  Discuss
with Jean in Hawaii.
The meeting in Il Ciocco was a very good one - but so was the one in Wengen.
It is just a matter of getting the right people and the right venue. The EGU and
AGU meetings don't really work.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:41 15/02/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Jean,
yes, I've heard much about the legendary Il Ciocco meeting, sadly it was before I got
into this field. I understand how you might want to discontinue being a co-convener of
this  session, since its somewhat disconnected from the recent directions of your
research. In fact, perhaps we should consider recruiting entirely new, more junior
scientist conveners to take this over. Perhaps e.g. Caspar and Pascal.
Phil--interested in your thoughts on this.
Jean--looking forward to seeing you in Hawaii!
mike
On Feb 15, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Jean Jouzel wrote:
Dear mike and Phil,
This looks quite good (including poster presentations).
I confirm that I will be unable to attend this year (IPCC plenary in Turkey this same
week). I hope that it will be better next year.
As you can see, I'am less and less involved in studies dealing with the last millenium.
Obviously, I have still a lot of interest since the NATO meeting we organized at Il
Ciocco with Ray Bradley and Phil about the climate of the 2000 years (and a great
pleasure to interact with both of you). But, as far as our session, it may be wise to
think of someone more directly invoved for the coming years.
You certainly have names in mind and this would be very welcome (one of my suggestion
could be Pascal Yiou).
I'am sorry not to be with you in Vienna but I will be in Hawaii (Mike I feel that you
will be there too).
Cheers  Jean
At 9:07 +0000 13/02/09, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Jean,
I won't be in Hawaii. I did register, but I've just been travelling too much
and have more meetings coming up in late March and April. I've decided not
to go to the AGU in Toronto, partly as I couldn't find a replacement for a keynote
talk I've been down to give at a meeting in Finland on the same day. Apparently
about 5 of the 30 AGU Fellows listed can't make it either.
As for the EGU, the session looks good. Pity you have got Friday - numbers
will be quite low for the poster session in the late afternoon. The one thing to
add in would be Chairpersons for the two oral sessions. I managed to get them
in last year, but can't recall how.  If I recall correctly Jean said he had an IPCC
meeting,
so maybe put Gene down as chairing the first morning slot. Nick would be another
option. Assume you'll do the second morning slot.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:09 13/02/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil, Jean,
I've attached the final version of our session program. They allowed
us a half day or oral sessions (12 15 minute talks, 4 were solicited),
and the rest are in poster.
Please let me know if you see any problems. I think its still possible
to make changes if absolutely necessary.
thanks,
mike
p.s. will I see either of you at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii in March?
On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jean,
I think he is as well.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:07 09/02/2009, Jean Jouzel wrote:
Dear Michael
I think that you rae taking care        Cheers  Jean
MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1234782259.34667@KQFMks6eL6kkqBwrCA/5pQ
X-Ids: 166
To: [1]jean.jouzel@cea.fr
Subject: EGU2009 - Presentation Selection
Reply-to: [2]egu2009@copernicus.org
From: [3]egu2009@copernicus.org
X-Co-Tag: aa43ed727bfee453a8c3def9b6ff53b8
Date: Mon,  9 Feb 2009 12:04:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed
by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Mon,
09 Feb 2009 12:04:16 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 49900DAF.00D by Joe's j- chkmail (http : //
j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 49900DAF.00D/132.166.172.107/sainfoin-
out.extra.cea.fr/sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr/
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 49900DAF.00D on jchkmail.jussieu.fr : j- chkmail score : . :
R=. U=. O=# B=0.086 -> S=0.108
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
X-IPSL-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-IPSL-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.149,
required 5, BAYES_05 -1.11, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96)
X-IPSL-From: [5]egu2009@copernicus.org
Dear Mr Jouzel,
The Programme Group Chairs of the EGU2009 scheduled your following
Session:
CL10
Climate of the last millennium: reconstructions, analyses and
explanation of regional and seasonal changes
Now you are kindly asked to finalize the actual programme of your
Session from 10 Feb 2009 to 14 Feb 2009. Please enter the tool
SOIII - Presentation Selection at
[6] by using your
Copernicus Office User ID 100391.
The following tasks should be taken into account:
1) subdivide your Abstracts into Oral and Poster presentations;
2) define the sequence and the length of the different Oral
presentations;
3) define the sequence of the Poster presentations;
4) define chairpersons.
In addition, you are able to include subtitles. These may
structure your programme, or define events without a corresponding
contribution, e.g. 5 min. "Introduction" or "Discussion".
Your entries generate the draft programme which will be finally
approved by the Programme Group Chairs and published online
afterwards. The authors will then receive the Letter of Schedule,
informing them about the details of their presentation.
We thank you very much in advance for your cooperation, and please
do not hesitate to contact us in case that any questions may arise!
With kind regards,
Katja Gänger
Copernicus Meetings
[7]egu2009@copernicus.org
on behalf of the Programme Committee Chair
--
IPSL/ Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (UMR
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ)
CE Saclay, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur
Yvette, tél :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13,
Portable : 33 (0)6 84 75 96 82, fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e- mail :
[8]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
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    [9]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:  [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website:  [11]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]
Hi Phil, Jean,
I've attached the final version of our session program. They allowed us a half day or
oral sessions (12 15 minute talks, 4 were solicited), and the rest are in poster.
Please let me know if you see any problems. I think its still possible to make changes
if absolutely necessary.
thanks,
mike
p.s. will I see either of you at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii in March?
On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jean,
I think he is as well.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:07 09/02/2009, Jean Jouzel wrote:
Dear Michael
I think that you rae taking care        Cheers  Jean
MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1234782259.34667@KQFMks6eL6kkqBwrCA/5pQ
X-Ids: 166
To: [13]jean.jouzel@cea.fr
Subject: EGU2009 - Presentation Selection
Reply-to: [14]egu2009@copernicus.org
From: [15]egu2009@copernicus.org
X-Co-Tag: aa43ed727bfee453a8c3def9b6ff53b8
Date: Mon,  9 Feb 2009 12:04:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by
milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:04:16
+0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 49900DAF.00D by Joe's j-chkmail (http : //
j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe:
49900DAF.00D/132.166.172.107/sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr/sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr/
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 49900DAF.00D on jchkmail.jussieu.fr : j-chkmail score : . :
R=. U=. O=# B=0.086 -> S=0.108
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
X-IPSL-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-IPSL-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.149,
required 5, BAYES_05 -1.11, NO_REAL_NAME 0.96)
X-IPSL-From: [17]egu2009@copernicus.org
Dear Mr Jouzel,
The Programme Group Chairs of the EGU2009 scheduled your following Session:
CL10
Climate of the last millennium: reconstructions, analyses and explanation of regional
and seasonal changes
Now you are kindly asked to finalize the actual programme of your Session from 10 Feb
2009 to 14 Feb 2009. Please enter the tool SOIII - Presentation Selection
at[18] by using
your Copernicus Office User ID 100391.
The following tasks should be taken into account:
1) subdivide your Abstracts into Oral and Poster presentations;
2) define the sequence and the length of the different Oral presentations;
3) define the sequence of the Poster presentations;
4) define chairpersons.
In addition, you are able to include subtitles. These may structure your programme, or
define events without a corresponding contribution, e.g. 5 min. "Introduction" or
"Discussion".
Your entries generate the draft programme which will be finally approved by the
Programme Group Chairs and published online afterwards. The authors will then receive
the Letter of Schedule, informing them about the details of their presentation.
We thank you very much in advance for your cooperation, and please do not hesitate to
contact us in case that any questions may arise!
With kind regards,
Katja Gänger
Copernicus Meetings
[19]egu2009@copernicus.org
on behalf of the Programme Committee Chair
--
IPSL/ Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ)
CE Saclay, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél :  33 (0) 1
69 08 77 13,
Portable : 33 (0)6 84 75 96 82, fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e-mail :
[20]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [23]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[24]
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    [25]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
IPSL/ Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (UMR
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ)
CE Saclay, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél :  33 (0) 1
69 08 77 13,
Portable : 33 (0)6 84 75 96 82, fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e-mail :
[26]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:  [27]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [28]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[29]
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@cea.fr
2. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
3. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
4. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
5. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
6.
7. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
8. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
9. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12.
13. mailto:jean.jouzel@cea.fr
14. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
15. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
16. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
17. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
18.
19. mailto:egu2009@copernicus.org
20. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23. ~mann/Mann/index.html
24.
25. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
26. mailto:jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr
27. mailto:mann@psu.edu
28. ~mann/Mann/index.html
29.