Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things - don't pass on either.
1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won't
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't
even measure it properly now.
The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships are
US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these ships for a few years.
So the German group would be stupid to take your bet.  There is a likely
ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way
around this.
I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Ray,
Press release has been being written!
I can't seem to find a meeting to go to when the paper comes out!
Moorea was good - hope you'll be able to get to Athens!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:56 09/05/2008, you wrote:
Hi Phil:
I think you should issue your own carefully-worded press release, stating explicity what
your results DO NOT mean, as well as what they do...otherwise you will spend the next
few weeks trying to undo a lot of unwanted press coverage.
Hope all is well with you....we need to get together at some place...sorry I missed
Tahiti!
ray
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things - don't pass on either.
1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won't
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't
even measure it properly now.
The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships
are
US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these ships for a few years.
So the German group would be stupid to take your bet.  There is a likely
ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way
around this.
I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond S. Bradley
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01003-9297
Tel: 413-545-2120
Fax: 413-545-1200
*Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]
Publications (download .pdf files):
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Hi Tom,
I believe NCEP has found that, generally speaking, the AMDAR/MDCRS and
radiosonde temperatures are treated in a similar fashion in
assimilation. Like radiosonde which has varying performance from vendor
to vendor, there are differences in performance between aircraft/series
and temperature probes. Brad Ballish just had a paper approved for
publication (in BAMS?) that identifies the performance differences
between air carriers, aircraft type, and aircraft series. Unfortunately,
we only know how the data compare with the model guess, but not
necessarily absolute "truth". Hopefully Brad can share his paper with
this distribution. Bill Moninger and Ralph Petersen may also have
published recent papers on this issue they can share. Ralph has
published papers that compare near simultaneously launched of Vaisala
RS-92 sondes with ascending/descending B-757 aircraft, showing good data
agreement.
One should be mindful of the potential advantages of including AMDAR
data as a climate resource in addition to radiosonde.
1. Data has been available in quantity since 1992
2. Data does not have the radiation issue as the TAT probe is shielded
3. Data are available at all local times, nearly 24*7*365, at hundreds
of major airports internationally, thereby supporting the climate
diurnal temperature problem
4. All NMCs keep databases of individual aircraft bias, based on recent
performance of the each aircraft's data verses the model guess. These
information would be very useful in considering candidate aircraft for a
"climate quality" long term database for AMDAR temperature data
I suspect that the reason why AMDAR data have not been used to track
atmospheric change is because no-one in the climate community has ever
made an effort to use these data. Availability of radiosonde data in the
tropics (e.g. South America and Africa) is problematic. In response,
EUCOS/E-AMDAR has been adding data collection over Africa using Air
France, British Airways, and Lufthansa aircraft. I have proposed
expanding the U.S. data collection to include the Caribbean and South
America regions from United, Delta, Continental, etc, aircraft, but have
not received support for this expansion. WMO AMDAR Panel is moving to
add additional regional AMDAR Programs in the developing countries,
similar to the successful expansion in eastern Asia.
AMDAR data are not a replacement for radiosonde, but these data
certainly can add to the climate record if the data are properly
processed/QC'd.
Regards,
Dave Helms
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Regarding the last comment by Francis -- Commercial aircraft data have
> not been demonstrated to be very reliable w/r to tracking changes in
> temperatures in the US. A paper by Baker a few years ago focused on US
> data showed errors in the 1C range. Not sure about the tropics and how
> many flights you could get. I have copied Bruce Baker for a copy of
> that article.
>
> Recently David Helms has been leading and effort to improve this. He
> may have more info related to global aircraft data. I will ask Bruce
> to see what data we have, just for your info.
>
> Tom
>
> P.S. Nice review by Francis, especially like his idea w/r to stat tests.
>
>
>
> Ben Santer said the following on 5/12/2008 9:52 PM:
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> I just received the second review of our IJoC paper (see appended PDF
>> file). This was sent to me directly by the Reviewer (Francis Zwiers).
>> Francis's comments are very thorough and constructive. They are also
>> quite positive. I don't see any show stoppers. I'll work on a
>> response this week.
>>
>> The third review is still outstanding. I queried Glenn McGregor about
>> this, and was told that we can expect the final review within the
>> next 1-2 weeks.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel: (925) 422-2486
>> FAX: (925) 422-7675
>> email: santer1@llnl.gov
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.*
>
> */Director/*//
>
> NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>
> Veach-Baley Federal Building
>
> 151 Patton Avenue
>
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>
> Tel: (828) 271-4476
>
> Fax: (828) 271-4246
>
> Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov
>


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [Fwd: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision
making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01]
From:    f034@uea.ac.uk
Date:    Sat, May 17, 2008 12:04 pm
To:      p.jones@uea.ac.u
t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we meet on Monday to discuss this and hear from Phil what was decided
at the London meeting? I'll be in late Monday (waiting for someone to look
at my leaking roof) - so maybe early afternoon. I'm going down to London
early evening and will be at Chelsea on tuesday. Good to see Saffron is
getting some publicity!
Clare
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making
on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01
From:    "Darch, Geoff J"
Date:    Fri, May 16, 2008 9:06 am
To:      "Jim Hall"
"C G Kilsby"
"Mark New"
ana.lopez@ouce.ox.ac.uk
"Anthony Footitt"
"Suraje Dessai"
"Phil Jones"
"Clare Goodess"
t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Cc:      "McSweeney, Robert"
"Arkell, Brian"
"Sene, Kevin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Please find attached the final tender pack for the Environment Agency
bid.  The tasks have been re-jigged, with the main change being a
broadening of flood risk management to flood and coastal erosion risk
management (FCERM).  This means a wider audience to include all
operating authorities, and the best practice guidance required (new Task
11) is now substantial element, to include evaluation of FCERM climate
change adaptation, case studies and provision of evidence to help
upgrade the FCDPAG3 Supplementary Note.
We have just one week to finish this tender, as it must be posted on
Friday 23rd.  We are putting together the bid document, which we'll
circulate on Monday 19th, but in the meantime, and by the end of Tuesday
20th, I need everyone to send information (as indicated in brackets) to
support the following structure:
+ Understanding of the tender
+ Methodology and programme (methodology for tasks / sub-tasks - see
below - and timing)
+ Project team, including individual and corporate experience (who you
are putting forward, pen portraits, corporate case studies)
+ Financial and commercial (day rates and number of days; please also
highlight potential issues with the T&Cs e.g. IPR)
+ Health & Safety, Quality and Environmental Management
+ Appendices (full CVs, limited to 6 pages)
Please send to me and Rob McSweeney.  The information I have already
e.g. on day rates, core pen portraits etc will go straight into the
version we're working on, so no need to re-send.
In terms of tasks (new nos.), the following organisation is suggested
based on what has been noted to date:
Task 1 (Inception meeting and reporting) Atkins, supported by lead
representatives of partners
Task 2 (Project board meetings) Atkins, supported by lead
representatives of partners
Task 3 (Analysis of user needs) Atkins with Tyn@UEA and OUCE, plus
Futerra depending on style
Task 4 (Phase 2 programme) Atkins, supported by all
Task 5 (Interpret messages from UKCIP08 projections) CRU, OUCE and
Newcastle, with Atkins advice on sectors
Task 6 (Development of business specific projections) Newcastle and CRU,
with Atkins advice on policy and ops
Task 7 (Putting UKCIP08 in context) CRU, Newcastle and OUCE
Task 8 (User guidance) Atkins, Tyn@UEA, Futerra
Task 9 (Pilot studies) Atkins, Newcastle, OUCE, Tyn@UEA
Task 10 (Phase 3 programme) Atkins, supported by all
Task 11 (Best Practice Guidance for FCERM) Newcastle and Atkins, with
CRU
Task 12 (Awareness raising events) Atkins, key experts, Futerra (perhaps
as an option as EA are quite specific here)
Task 13 (Training events) Atkins and Futerra
Note that Futerra is a communications consultancy, specialising in
sustainability, who will input on workshops and on the guidance
documents.
I'll be in touch again early next week.
Best wishes,
Geoff
Geoff Darch
Senior Consultant
Water and Environment
ATKINS
Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough,
PE2 6YS, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969
Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999
Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590
E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com
Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright
protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in
writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc.
Registered in England No. 1885586.  Registered Office Woodcote Grove,
Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group
companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.


OK
Phil
At 11:59 19/05/2008, Clare Goodess wrote:
OK . 2 pm - my office?
Clare
At 08:59 19/05/2008, Phil Jones wrote:
OK for me too.
At 08:27 19/05/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi,
yes this PM is fine with me,
Tim
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [Fwd: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision
making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01]
From:    f034@uea.ac.uk
Date:    Sat, May 17, 2008 12:04 pm
To:      p.jones@uea.ac.u
t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we meet on Monday to discuss this and hear from Phil what was decided
at the London meeting? I'll be in late Monday (waiting for someone to look
at my leaking roof) - so maybe early afternoon. I'm going down to London
early evening and will be at Chelsea on tuesday. Good to see Saffron is
getting some publicity!
Clare
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making
on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01
From:    "Darch, Geoff J"
Date:    Fri, May 16, 2008 9:06 am
To:      "Jim Hall"
"C G Kilsby"
"Mark New"
ana.lopez@ouce.ox.ac.uk
"Anthony Footitt"
"Suraje Dessai"
"Phil Jones"
"Clare Goodess"
t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Cc:      "McSweeney, Robert"
"Arkell, Brian"
"Sene, Kevin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Please find attached the final tender pack for the Environment Agency
bid.  The tasks have been re-jigged, with the main change being a
broadening of flood risk management to flood and coastal erosion risk
management (FCERM).  This means a wider audience to include all
operating authorities, and the best practice guidance required (new Task
11) is now substantial element, to include evaluation of FCERM climate
change adaptation, case studies and provision of evidence to help
upgrade the FCDPAG3 Supplementary Note.
We have just one week to finish this tender, as it must be posted on
Friday 23rd.  We are putting together the bid document, which we'll
circulate on Monday 19th, but in the meantime, and by the end of Tuesday
20th, I need everyone to send information (as indicated in brackets) to
support the following structure:
+ Understanding of the tender
+ Methodology and programme (methodology for tasks / sub-tasks - see
below - and timing)
+ Project team, including individual and corporate experience (who you
are putting forward, pen portraits, corporate case studies)
+ Financial and commercial (day rates and number of days; please also
highlight potential issues with the T&Cs e.g. IPR)
+ Health & Safety, Quality and Environmental Management
+ Appendices (full CVs, limited to 6 pages)
Please send to me and Rob McSweeney.  The information I have already
e.g. on day rates, core pen portraits etc will go straight into the
version we're working on, so no need to re-send.
In terms of tasks (new nos.), the following organisation is suggested
based on what has been noted to date:
Task 1 (Inception meeting and reporting) Atkins, supported by lead
representatives of partners
Task 2 (Project board meetings) Atkins, supported by lead
representatives of partners
Task 3 (Analysis of user needs) Atkins with Tyn@UEA and OUCE, plus
Futerra depending on style
Task 4 (Phase 2 programme) Atkins, supported by all
Task 5 (Interpret messages from UKCIP08 projections) CRU, OUCE and
Newcastle, with Atkins advice on sectors
Task 6 (Development of business specific projections) Newcastle and CRU,
with Atkins advice on policy and ops
Task 7 (Putting UKCIP08 in context) CRU, Newcastle and OUCE
Task 8 (User guidance) Atkins, Tyn@UEA, Futerra
Task 9 (Pilot studies) Atkins, Newcastle, OUCE, Tyn@UEA
Task 10 (Phase 3 programme) Atkins, supported by all
Task 11 (Best Practice Guidance for FCERM) Newcastle and Atkins, with
CRU
Task 12 (Awareness raising events) Atkins, key experts, Futerra (perhaps
as an option as EA are quite specific here)
Task 13 (Training events) Atkins and Futerra
Note that Futerra is a communications consultancy, specialising in
sustainability, who will input on workshops and on the guidance
documents.
I'll be in touch again early next week.
Best wishes,
Geoff
Geoff Darch
Senior Consultant
Water and Environment
ATKINS
Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough,
PE2 6YS, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969
Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999
Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590
E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com
Web: [1]www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright
protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in
writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc.
Registered in England No. 1885586.  Registered Office Woodcote Grove,
Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group
companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at
[2]
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [3]~timo/
sunclock: [4]~timo/sunclock.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Tel: +44 -1603 592875
Fax: +44 -1603 507784
Web: [5]
[6]~clareg/clare.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3. ~timo/
4. ~timo/sunclock.htm
5.
6. ~clareg/clare.htm


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


Mike, Gavin,
OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature
will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle
of next week.
Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also
attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last
paragraph
which we're still working on.  There will also be a News and Views item from
Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either
of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John.
It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper.  I hope to get these later
two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have
a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from
the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when.
Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the probable
underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate
by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler
than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick
will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use
to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots
of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships
kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott
Woodruff
more about this.
A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will
be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well
as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket corrections.
My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for the
SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the
South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books.
[1]    and click on SST to see some
comparisons.
The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also been
digitized.  There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of
those
not already done.
If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S.
Atlantic/indian
oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in
1939/40.
Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so
this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle
and then back into the fray.
ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books.
Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this!
If you want me to look through anything then email me.
I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps
and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when
I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper
and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in
a few weeks if you hear nothing.
Cheers
Phil
PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show -
the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening.
Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped
for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the environment
minister.
She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas)
seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract
CO2 from the atmosphere!  He'd also not heard of the UHI!  Still lots of education
needed.
PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that
Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never
said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just
shows how up to date he is.
[2]
At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something
on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are
going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo
(i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to
in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure
that the right message is emphasized.
thanks in advance for any help!
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[4]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4.


Geoff,
Hopefully this will do. No narrative.
Off home now. I'll look through anything you send tomorrow.
Exam scripts to mark tonight.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:00 22/05/2008, you wrote:
Phil,
The only CV we have for you is a few years old.  Can you send a more up to date one (6
pages max).
Thanks,
Geoff
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 May 2008 13:07
To: Darch, Geoff J
Cc: Clare Goodess; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; McSweeney, Robert
Subject: RE: Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making - Draft Bid
Geoff, Rob,
Will you be sending another version around at some time?
I can't recall where the idea of two sets of costings came from.
Here are some more thoughts
Related EA work
Drought work
Jones, P.D., Leadbetter, A., Osborn, T.J. and Bloomfield, J.P., 2006: The impact of
climate change on severe droughts: River-flow reconstructions and implied groundwater
levels. Science Report: SC040068/SR2, Environment Agency, 58pp.
Wade, S., Jones, P.D. and Osborn, T.J., 2006: The impact of climate change on severe
droughts: Implications for decision making. Science Report: SC040068/SR3, Environment
Agency, 86pp.
These two bits of work related to historic records of drought on the Eden and the Ouse
(Anglian).
Flows were reconstructed on a monthly basis back to 1800, and the disaggregated to
daily
using months with similar monthly flows in the modern record from the 1960s to the near
present. The 200 years of daily flows were then put through water resource system
models
in the two areas to see how often drought restrictions occurred. The historic record
was then
perturbed for the future time slices using three different GCMs. The important aspect
of this
work is that for both regions the perturbed futures were no worse than the historic
droughts.
On the Eden some recent droughts were the most severe and on the Ouse they were earlier
in the 20th and in the 19th century. So, for all work, it is important to get a better
handle on
the scale of natural variability within each region.
Task 6 should not just consider the instrumental observations that UKCIP08 has looked
at (i.e. since 1961).
This period will very likely cover all temperature extremes (if we forget the very cold
ones), but
it will be inadequate for rainfall (changes in daily, monthly and seasonal extremes).
The EA
work (above) showed a framework for dealing with the issue with respect to drought. The
longer
daily precipitation record has been looked at by Tim Osborn and Douglas Maraun (see
attached
pdf). Task emphasizes floods exclusively - maybe this is their responsibility and they
leave
droughts up to the companies.
One aspect that we could develop within Task 6 is a simple soil moisture accounting
model
using rainfall and PET and a measure of soil amount. The results from this could then
be
linked with the heavy rainfall to determine different impacts depending on antecedent
conditions and time of year.
CRU's work on Task 7
We will be able to use the 11 RCMs on which the whole of UKCIP08 are based - available
through LINK. MOHC have used emulation of these to build up distributions. An important
aspect
is to see for seasons and variables how the 11 span the probability domain of all
the emulations (where do they sit in the pdfs).
Other GCMs - this should really be RCMs. In the ENSEMBLES project we are comparing
trends in reality with trends from ERA-40-forced runs of 15 different RCMs across
Europe.
This will be able to show that HadRM3 is within the range of the other RCMs for
measures
of extremes in temperatures and daily and 5-day precipitation amounts. The measures
here
are trends (seasonal and annual) over the period from 1961-2000.
This will also show their ability to represent current climate (61-00) not just for the
means
and trends, but some extreme measures and their trends. This is also past variability
as well, but I suspect they are meaning further back. We will be able to use a HadCM3
simulation with historic forcing since 1500.
Back to other work. CRANIUM is the one to refer to. BETWIXT led to CRANIUM. The
other thing to add in somewhere is that the UKCIP08 WG came from EARWIG, so
attaching that paper as well. There is nothing else yet.
Jones, PD, Harpham, C and Kilsby, CK, 2008: Perturbing a weather generator using
factors
developed from RCM simulations. Int J. Climatol (not yet submitted).
This will get submitted. It shows that the way we are perturbing the WG for UKCIP08
works.
We do this by fitting the WG to the model present. We then perturb by using differences
between model future (2080s) and model control. These perturbations are monthly. We
then
run the WG and look at the daily variability in the simulations compared to the model
future at the daily timescale. It works in the sense that the RCM future run is within
the
range the WG simulations.
Whether the RCM future is right is another matter but the WG does what the RCM does.
Hope this helps.
Phil
At 16:56 21/05/2008, Darch, Geoff J wrote:
Phil,
Great.  From CRU we need in particular project experience (case studies).  At the moment
we have CRANIUM, but other relevant ones would be good e.g. BETWIXT, SKCC, EA Drought
work.  Key is those related to probabilistic scenarios, weather generators, working with
users and those with EA or Defra (or CCW) as the client.
Any further thoughts or elaboration of your input would be useful, particularly for Task
7, where it may be best to spell out what you will do.
Do you have any preference for the allocation of days between you, Clare and Tim?  Also,
do you want to revise your rates (for reference Jim Hall is in at £950, Chris Kilsby at
£750)?  They should apply until the end of the contract i.e. December 2009 and we are
asked whether any discounts are available e.g. over and above a certain number of days,
which could be worked in if you increased your rates.  However, this is entirely up to
you!
We are still waiting on input from Oxford, Newcastle and Futerra - all promised
imminently.  It will be a busy day tomorrow!
Many thanks,
Geoff
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 21 May 2008 16:16
To: McSweeney, Robert
Cc: Clare Goodess; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; Darch, Geoff J
Subject: Re: Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making - Draft Bid
Geoff, Rob,
I can do some work tomorrow. Can you be a little more specific?
It looks as though you need a lot. Have you got anything from anyone else?
I assume this still has to be all off by the end of Friday.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:15 20/05/2008, McSweeney, Robert wrote:
All,
Attached is an outline draft of the bid. It sets out the information we need to include,
some of which is already in place.
Please could you take a look at it and forward any of the outstanding information to
Geoff and me, such as
- CVs and pen portraits if you haven't already sent them (NB, CVs are in the Appendix
and aren't in the attached document)
- Any relevant (corporate) project experience, case studies, etc
- Thoughts and input to the methodology section (NB, each task has been given a lead
group or groups)
- General comments and suggestions
Please send comments and information as soon as you have the opportunity, the deadline
is rapidly approaching!
Many thanks,
Rob
>
__________________________________________________
Rob McSweeney
Assistant Scientist
MEng (Hons) MSc
Water and Environment (Water Resources Management)
ATKINS
Atkins Limited, Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough.
PE2 6YS.
Tel:          +44 (0)1733 366900
Direct:     +44 (0)1733 366981
Fax:        +44 (0)1733 366999
Email:      rob.mcsweeney@atkinsglobal.com
Website:  [3]www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
[4]Click Here to read our new Solutions Magazine sharing industry knowledge and
addressing your challenges.
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not
the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be
legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No.
1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of
wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at:
[5]
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses by [6]MailControl
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not
the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be
legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No.
1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of
wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at:
[7]
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses by [8]MailControl
This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not
the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless
otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be
legally binding.
The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No.
1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of
wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at:
[9]
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3. file://www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.


Hi Geoff
Like Phil, I've just given this a quick read through and there are only a
very few minor comments on the attached.
My main concern is the cost - which I have to say is much higher than I
was anticipating. But we are proposing a substantial amount of analysis
and work....
Thanks for all your work on this and good luck getting it off tomorrow.
Best wishes, Clare
>
>  Geoff,
>     After a relatively quick read through of the meat of the
>  proposal, I'm sending it back with a few minor changes.
>  You've done a good job of getting a lot of information
>  across. I did spend a little more time on the CRU tasks,
>  and there is enough detail there for review purposes.
>
>    ON costs do whatever you want to CRU costs to ensure
>  apparent consistency. I just hope this hasn't been pitched
>  too high - but if they want the job doing well, they should be
>  paying the right price.
>
>    I can't think of any IPR aspects, in addition to that which Chris
>  has alluded to. Chris and I will likely need to be be careful as
>  to what is and what is not part of the UKCIP08 WG, but we
>  can address that later. At some stage - way after launch, it is
>  possible that the WG within UKCIP08 could be upgraded, a bit like
>  we upgrade software, but nowhwere near as frequently as Bill Gates
>  makes us do.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please find the draft final bid and costs attached.  We are working on a
>> programme and a couple of summary tables.
>>
>> Method
>> *	Please read this through to check you are ok with what is being
>> offered
>> (we'll go through to improve style etc), particularly those tasks you
>> are
>> (co-)leading.
>>
>> Costs
>> *	Having initially put these in as desired, the project totalled
>> >>£350k,
>> so I have adjusted a few elements to get it to a perhaps more acceptable
>> £330k.  Please check this meets your needs while at the same time please
>> ensure that we're not duplicating time effort on shared tasks.  Note I
>> have applied the 10% discount for those days beyond 10 days of an
>> individual's time for Newcastle and Atkins in line with our cost models.
>> *	I have guessed at rates for Anthony and Claire Walsh.
>> *	Note that we may need to increase CRU and OUCE rates to improve
>> consistency (whilst maintaining overall costs).
>>
>> Contract
>> *	The only prior right I have identified is the batch running model that
>> Newcastle have developed.  Is this one, and are there others?
>>
>> Any comments (succinct and specific please!) must be back to me by 8am
>> on
>> Tuesday morning in order to make the print run and delivery by noon.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> Geoff Darch
>>
>> Senior Consultant
>> Water and Environment
>> ATKINS
>>
>> Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough,
>> PE2 6YS, UK
>> Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969
>> Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590
>> E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com
>> Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>> This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright
>> protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
>> communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed
>> in
>> writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
>>
>> The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc.
>> Registered in England No. 1885586.  Registered Office Woodcote Grove,
>> Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group
>> companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at
>>
>>
>> Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
>> really
>> need to.
>>
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EA Tender_FinalDraft2.doc"


Dr. Douglass:
I assume that you are referring to the Santer et al. paper which has
been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology (IJoc).
Despite your claims to the contrary, the Santer et al. IJoC paper is not
essential reading material in order to understand the arguments advanced
by Peter Thorne (in his "News and View" piece on the Allen and Sherwood
"Nature Geosciences" article).
I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me
with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was
basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my
colleagues. Neither I nor any of the authors of those
previously-published works (the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper and the
2006 Karl et al. CCSP Report) had the opportunity to review your 2007
IJoC paper prior to its publication - presumably because you
specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as
possible reviewers.
I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of
my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer
David Douglass wrote:
> Dear Dr Santer
>
> In a recent paper by Peter Thorne in Nature Geoscience  he references a
> paper that you and he (and others) have written.
> I can not understand some parts of the Thorne paper  without reading the
> Santer/Thorne reference.
> Would you please send me a copy?
>
> Sincerely;
> David Douglass
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through
emails. I don't recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job and
the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced
way.
So long,
Caspar
On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Caspar,
I hope everything's fine with you.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information
law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that
you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC
assessment process.
We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even
checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter.  In
particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you
sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim (cc Keith & Phil)
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [1]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
References
1. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu


Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA,
Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn't get any additional
comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith
should say that he didn't get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn't get any. What we did get
were papers sent to us directly - so not through IPCC, asking us to
refer to them in the IPCC chapters.  If only Holland knew how the
process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and
most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but
Keith should say that he didn't get anything extra that wasn't in the IPCC
comments.
As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to
emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC.
I think this will be quite easy to respond to once Keith is back.
From looking at these questions and the Climate Audit web site, this
all relates to two papers in the journal Climatic Change.  I know how
Keith and Tim got access to these papers and it was nothing to do
with IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:47 27/05/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Dave,
re. David Holland's follow-up requests...
These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me.
But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I'll
attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn't get a chance to.
Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical
Support Unit (hosted by UCAR in the USA) and any responses would have been
sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address
specified in the quote included in item (2).  These requests are,
therefore, irrelevant to UEA.
Item (3): we'll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other
colleagues, and let you know his response.
Item (3) also asks for emails from "the journal Climatic Change that
discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process".  I can
confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents.  I
expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine
that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC
process.
Best wishes
Tim
On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
> Gents,
> Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland.  Could you
> provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with
> Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence
> with us to be confidential?
>
> Although I fear/anticipate the response,  I believe that I should inform
> the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and
> ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states:
>
> 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed
> the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the
> applicant refocusing the request?
>
> In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request
> and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must
> state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints
> procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice
> and assistance relating to the
>
> refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the
> information that would be available within the cost limit (as required
> by the Access Code).
>
> This should not preclude other 'verbal' contact with the applicant,
> whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant,
> and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually
> adopts.
>
>
> And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5)
>
> 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested
> because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e.
> cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the
> additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of
> what information could be provided within the cost ceiling.
>
> This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a
> virtually identical provision....
>
> In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a
> way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester
> disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow
> them to proceed as they wish....
>
> I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in
> this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with
> the statutory potential to end up with the ICO.
>
> Cheers, Dave
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: David Holland [[1] mailto:d.holland@theiet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM
> To: David Palmer
> Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment
> Process
>
>
> Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008
>
> David Holland
>
>
>
>
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:d.holland@theiet.org


Ben et al,
Definitely the right response - so agree with Tom.
I have been known to disagree with him, and he's not
always right.
Submit asap !!
Cheers
Phil
At 23:48 27/05/2008, Tom Wigley wrote:
Steve et al.,
Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving
anything to Douglass until the paper appears in print.
I guess the reason John likes 1.2 is because it agrees best
with UAH MSU -- which, as we all know, has been inspired by
and blessed by God, and so MUST be right.
Tom.
+++++++++++++
Steven Sherwood wrote:
Hi Ben,
I for one am happy with submission pronto, leaving to your discretion the comments I
sent earlier.
I wouldn't feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass.  This paper will likely be
accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not just send him a copy too
once it is ready and final.
On a related note I've heard from John Christy who stated his opposition to the new
Allen+Sherwood article/method (who would've thought).  He argues that Leo's v1.2 dataset
is the "best" version because the later ones are contaminated by artifacts in ERA-40 due
to Pinatubo.  This argument made no sense to me on several levels (one of which:
Pinatubo erupted almost exactly in the middle of the time period of interest, thus
should have no impact on any linear trend).  But there it is.
SS
On May 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you
probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in
"Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece
on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly
referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed
this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our
IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and
gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper.
At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript
would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News
and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David
Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in
advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has
been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC
paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him
(Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the
journal "Nature".
As you can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give
him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised
manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision
on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause
problems. With your permission, therefore, I'd like to resubmit our revised manuscript
by no later than close of business tomorrow. I've incorporated most of the suggested
changes I've received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we've
now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that's it's more important to get the
manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about relatively minor
details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper and the response to the
reviewers later this evening.
Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you.
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Steven Sherwood
Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu
Yale University                                               ph: 203 432-3167
P. O. Box 208109                                             fax: 203 432-3134
New Haven, CT 06520-8109
[3]~sherwood
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:santer1@llnl.gov
2. mailto:Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu
3. ~sherwood


Dear all,
Just to add a bit to Ben's notes. The conceptual problem is how to
account for two different types of uncertainty in comparing a single
observed trend (with temporal uncertainty) with the average of a
bunch of model trends (where the uncertainty is from inter-model
differences). The "old" d3 tried to do this, but failed the synthetic
data test. The new d3 does this a different way (in the way that the
inter-model uncertainty term is quantified). This passes the synthetic
data test very well.
The new d3 test differs from DCSP07 only in that it includes in the
denominator of the test statistic an observed noise term. This is by
far the bigger of the two denominator terms. Ignoring it is very
wrong, and this is why the DCSP07 method fails the synthetic data
test.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> Just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC.
> After some discussions that I've had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne, I
> applied our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests to synthetic data, in much the same
> way that we applied the DCPS07 d* test and our original "paired trends"
> test (d) to synthetic data. The results are shown in the appended Figure.
>
> Relative to the DCPS07 d* test, our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests of
> hypothesis H2 yield rejection rates that are substantially
> closer to theoretical expectations (compare the appended Figure with
> Figure 5 in our manuscript). As expected, all three tests show a
> dependence on N (the number of synthetic time series), with rejection
> rates decreasing to near-asymptotic values as N increases. This is
> because the estimate of the model-average signal (which appears in the
> numerator of d1*, d2*, and d3*) has a dependence on N, as does the
> estimate of s{
}, the inter-model standard deviation of trends
> (which appears in the denominator of d2* and d3*).
>
> The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of d3*.
> This is the test which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating. As
> you can see, d3* produces rejection rates that are consistently LOWER
> (by a factor of two or more) than theoretical expectations. We do not
> wish to be accused by Douglass et al. of devising a test that makes it
> very difficult to reject hypothesis H2, even when there is a significant
> difference between the trends in the model average signal and the
> 'observational signal'.
>
> So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers?
> Were they indeed advocating a d3* test of the form which we used? I will
> try to clarify this point tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer 2).
>
> Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows:
>
> d3* = ( b{o} -
> ) / sqrt[ (s{
} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ]
>
> where
>
> b{o}      = Observed trend
>
>  = Model average trend
> s{
} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends
> s{b{o}}   = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for
>                autocorrelation effects)
>
> In Francis's comments on our paper, the first term under the square root
> sign is referred to as "an estimate of the variance of that average"
> (i.e., of
> ). It's possible that Francis was referring to
> sigma{SE}, which IS an estimate of the variance of
>. If one
> replaces s{
} with sigma{SE} in the equation for d3*, the
> performance of the d3* test with synthetic data is (at least for large
> values of N) very close to theoretical expectations. It's actually even
> closer to theoretical expectations than the d2* test shown in the
> appended Figure (which is already pretty close). I'll produce the
> "revised d3*" plot tomorrow...
>
> The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact
> form of the test he was requesting. The "new" d3* (with sigma{SE} as the
> first term under the square root sign) would lead to a simpler
> interpretation of the problems with the DCPS07 test. It would show that
> the primary error in DCPS07 was in the neglect of the observational
> uncertainty term. It would also simplify interpretation of the results
> from Section 6.
>
> I'm sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is
> an important point, and I'd like to understand it fully. I'm still
> hopeful that we'll be able to submit the paper in the next few days.
> Many thanks to Tom and Peter for persuading me to pay attention to this
> issue. It often took a lot of persuasion...
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel:   (925) 422-2486
> FAX:   (925) 422-7675
> email: santer1@llnl.gov
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@yahoo.com
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>>      Mike,
>            Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
>  Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
>      Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?  I don't
>  have his new email address.
>
>      We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
>  I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013


One more addendum:
We still need to be aware that this ignores two sources of uncertainty
that will exist in the real world that are not included in Section 6
which is effectively 1 perfect obs and finite number of runs of a
perfect model:
1. Imperfect models
2. Observational uncertainty related to dataset construction choices
(parametric and structural)
Of course, with the test construct given #1 becomes moot as this is the
thing we are testing for with H2. This is definitely not the case for #2
which will be important and is poorly constrained.
For Amplification factors we are either blessed or cursed by the wealth
of independent estimates of the observational record. One approach, that
I would advocate here because I'm lazy / because its more intuitive*
(*=delete as appropriate) is that we can take the obs error term outside
the explicit uncertainty calculation by making comparisons to each
dataset in turn. However, the alternative approach would be to take the
range of dataset estimates, make the necessary poor-mans assumption that
this is the 1 sigma or 2 sigma range depending upon how far you think
they span the range of possible answers and then incorporate this as an
extra term in the denominator to d3. As with the other two it would be
orthogonal error so still SQRT of sum of squares. Such an approach would
have advantages in terms of universal applicability to other problems
where we may have less independent observational estimates, but a
drawback in terms of what we should then be using as our observational
yardstick in testing H2 (the mean of all estimates, the median,
something else?).
Anyway, just a methodological quirk that logically follows if we are
worried about ensuring universal applicability of approach which with
the increasingly frequent use of CMIP3 archive for these types of
applications is something we maybe should be considering. I don't expect
us to spend very much time, if any, on this issue as I agree that key is
submitting ASAP.
Peter
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 21:58 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Just to add a bit to Ben's notes. The conceptual problem is how to
> account for two different types of uncertainty in comparing a single
> observed trend (with temporal uncertainty) with the average of a
> bunch of model trends (where the uncertainty is from inter-model
> differences). The "old" d3 tried to do this, but failed the synthetic
> data test. The new d3 does this a different way (in the way that the
> inter-model uncertainty term is quantified). This passes the synthetic
> data test very well.
>
> The new d3 test differs from DCSP07 only in that it includes in the
> denominator of the test statistic an observed noise term. This is by
> far the bigger of the two denominator terms. Ignoring it is very
> wrong, and this is why the DCSP07 method fails the synthetic data
> test.
>
> Tom.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ben Santer wrote:
> > Dear folks,
> >
> > Just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC.
> > After some discussions that I've had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne, I
> > applied our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests to synthetic data, in much the same
> > way that we applied the DCPS07 d* test and our original "paired trends"
> > test (d) to synthetic data. The results are shown in the appended Figure.
> >
> > Relative to the DCPS07 d* test, our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests of
> > hypothesis H2 yield rejection rates that are substantially
> > closer to theoretical expectations (compare the appended Figure with
> > Figure 5 in our manuscript). As expected, all three tests show a
> > dependence on N (the number of synthetic time series), with rejection
> > rates decreasing to near-asymptotic values as N increases. This is
> > because the estimate of the model-average signal (which appears in the
> > numerator of d1*, d2*, and d3*) has a dependence on N, as does the
> > estimate of s{
}, the inter-model standard deviation of trends
> > (which appears in the denominator of d2* and d3*).
> >
> > The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of d3*.
> > This is the test which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating. As
> > you can see, d3* produces rejection rates that are consistently LOWER
> > (by a factor of two or more) than theoretical expectations. We do not
> > wish to be accused by Douglass et al. of devising a test that makes it
> > very difficult to reject hypothesis H2, even when there is a significant
> > difference between the trends in the model average signal and the
> > 'observational signal'.
> >
> > So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers?
> > Were they indeed advocating a d3* test of the form which we used? I will
> > try to clarify this point tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer 2).
> >
> > Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows:
> >
> > d3* = ( b{o} -
> ) / sqrt[ (s{
} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ]
> >
> > where
> >
> > b{o}      = Observed trend
> >
>  = Model average trend
> > s{
} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends
> > s{b{o}}   = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for
> >                autocorrelation effects)
> >
> > In Francis's comments on our paper, the first term under the square root
> > sign is referred to as "an estimate of the variance of that average"
> > (i.e., of
> ). It's possible that Francis was referring to
> > sigma{SE}, which IS an estimate of the variance of
>. If one
> > replaces s{
} with sigma{SE} in the equation for d3*, the
> > performance of the d3* test with synthetic data is (at least for large
> > values of N) very close to theoretical expectations. It's actually even
> > closer to theoretical expectations than the d2* test shown in the
> > appended Figure (which is already pretty close). I'll produce the
> > "revised d3*" plot tomorrow...
> >
> > The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact
> > form of the test he was requesting. The "new" d3* (with sigma{SE} as the
> > first term under the square root sign) would lead to a simpler
> > interpretation of the problems with the DCPS07 test. It would show that
> > the primary error in DCPS07 was in the neglect of the observational
> > uncertainty term. It would also simplify interpretation of the results
> > from Section 6.
> >
> > I'm sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is
> > an important point, and I'd like to understand it fully. I'm still
> > hopeful that we'll be able to submit the paper in the next few days.
> > Many thanks to Tom and Peter for persuading me to pay attention to this
> > issue. It often took a lot of persuasion...
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Benjamin D. Santer
> > Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> > P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> > Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> > Tel:   (925) 422-2486
> > FAX:   (925) 422-7675
> > email: santer1@llnl.gov
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
--
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


Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?  I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ben,
Hopefully the email to Francis will help to resolve this quickly. It would seem
from Tom's email that the new d3 approaches the expected result for largish N.
A test ought to do this as Tom says.
You'll need to change the response a little as although you may have misinterpreted
Francis, you may not have Rev 1.
Hope this is out of your hair as soon as feasible.
Climate Audit are an odd crowd. McIntyre is claiming that he spotted the problem
in 1945 in the marine data - and refers to a blog page from late last year! We were
already on to it by then and he didn't really know what he was talking about anyway.
Maybe this paper and the various press coverage (especially Dick Reynold's N&V as he
spelt it out) will allow them to realize that what is really robust in all this is the
land record. I suspect it won't though.  One day they may finally realize the concept
of effective spatial degrees of freedom. John Christy doesn't understand this!
Cheers
Phil
At 04:46 29/05/2008, you wrote:
Dear folks,
Just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC. After some
discussions that I've had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne, I applied our d1*, d2*, and
d3* tests to synthetic data, in much the same way that we applied the DCPS07 d* test and
our original "paired trends" test (d) to synthetic data. The results are shown in the
appended Figure.
Relative to the DCPS07 d* test, our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests of
hypothesis H2 yield rejection rates that are substantially
closer to theoretical expectations (compare the appended Figure with Figure 5 in our
manuscript). As expected, all three tests show a dependence on N (the number of
synthetic time series), with rejection rates decreasing to near-asymptotic values as N
increases. This is because the estimate of the model-average signal (which appears in
the numerator of d1*, d2*, and d3*) has a dependence on N, as does the estimate of
s{
}, the inter-model standard deviation of trends (which appears in the
denominator of d2* and d3*).
The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of d3*. This is the test
which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating. As you can see, d3* produces
rejection rates that are consistently LOWER (by a factor of two or more) than
theoretical expectations. We do not wish to be accused by Douglass et al. of devising a
test that makes it very difficult to reject hypothesis H2, even when there is a
significant difference between the trends in the model average signal and the
'observational signal'.
So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers? Were they
indeed advocating a d3* test of the form which we used? I will try to clarify this point
tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer 2).
Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows:
d3* = ( b{o} -
> ) / sqrt[ (s{
} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ]
where
b{o}      = Observed trend
>  = Model average trend
s{
} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends
s{b{o}}   = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for
autocorrelation effects)
In Francis's comments on our paper, the first term under the square root sign is
referred to as "an estimate of the variance of that average" (i.e., of
> ). It's
possible that Francis was referring to sigma{SE}, which IS an estimate of the variance
of
>. If one replaces s{
} with sigma{SE} in the equation for d3*, the
performance of the d3* test with synthetic data is (at least for large values of N) very
close to theoretical expectations. It's actually even closer to theoretical expectations
than the d2* test shown in the appended Figure (which is already pretty close). I'll
produce the "revised d3*" plot tomorrow...
The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact form of the test
he was requesting. The "new" d3* (with sigma{SE} as the first term under the square root
sign) would lead to a simpler interpretation of the problems with the DCPS07 test. It
would show that the primary error in DCPS07 was in the neglect of the observational
uncertainty term. It would also simplify interpretation of the results from Section 6.
I'm sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is an important
point, and I'd like to understand it fully. I'm still hopeful that we'll be able to
submit the paper in the next few days. Many thanks to Tom and Peter for persuading me to
pay attention to this issue. It often took a lot of persuasion...
With best regards,
Ben
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Tim,
in response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of my email communications
with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that the intent of these emails is to reply or
communicate with the individuals on the distribution list, and they are not intended for
general 'publication'. If I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination
then I would probably have written them in a different style. Having said that, as far as I
can remember (and I haven't checked in the records, if they even still exist) I have never
written an explicit statement on these messages that would label them strictly
confidential.
Not sure if this is of any help, but it seems to me that it reflects our standard way of
interaction in the scientific community.
Caspar
On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Caspar,
I hope everything's fine with you.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information
law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that
you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC
assessment process.
We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even
checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter.  In
particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you
sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim (cc Keith & Phil)
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [1]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
References
1. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu


Hi again Caspar,
I don't think it is necessary for you to dig through any emails you may have sent us to
determine your answer.
Our question is a more general one, which is whether you generally consider emails that you
sent us to have been sent in confidence.  If you do, then we will use this as a reason to
decline the request.
Cheers
Tim
At 00:36 28/05/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging
through emails. I don't recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job
and the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and
balanced way.
So long,
Caspar
On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Caspar,
I hope everything's fine with you.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information
law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that
you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC
assessment process.
We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even
checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter.  In
particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you
sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim (cc Keith & Phil)
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [1]ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
References
1. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu


Phil - here's the text minus figures and links... It's subject to a little
revision, but let me know if there are any factual or emphasis issues that
are perhaps misplaced.
Thanks
Gavin
========
Of buckets and blogs
This last week has been an interesting one for observers of how climate
change is covered in the media and online. On Wednesday an interesting
paper (Thompson et al) was published in Nature, pointing to a clear
artifact in the sea surface temperatures in 1945 and associating it with
the changing mix of fleets and measurement techniques at the end of World
War II. The mainstream media by and large got the story right - puzzling
anomaly tracked down, corrections in progress after a little scientific
detective work, consequences minor - even though a few headline writers
got a little carried away in equating a specific dip in 1945 ocean
temperatures with the more gentle 1940s-1970s cooling that is seen in the
land measurements. However, some blog commentaries have gone completely
overboard on the implications of this study in ways that are very
revealing of their underlying biases.
The best commentary came from John Nielsen-Gammon's new blog where he
described very clearly how the uncertainties in data - both the known
unknowns and unknown unknowns - get handled in practice (read this and
then come back). Stoat, quite sensibly, suggested that it's a bit early to
be expressing an opinion on what it all means. But patience is not one of
the blogosphere's virtues and so there was no shortage of people
extrapolating wildly to support their pet hobbyhorses. This in itself is
not so unusual; despite much advice to the contrary, people (the media and
bloggers) tend to weight individual papers that make the news far more
highly than the balance of evidence that really underlies assessments like
the IPCC. But in this case, the addition of a little knowledge made the
usual extravagances a little more scientific-looking and has given it some
extra steam.
Like almost all historical climate data, ship-board sea surface
temperatures (SST) were not collected with long term climate trends in
mind. Thus practices varied enormously among ships and fleets and over
time. In the 19th Century, simple wooden buckets would be thrown over the
side to collect the water (a non-trivial exercise when a ship is moving,
as many novice ocean-going researchers will painfully recall). Later on,
special canvas buckets were used, and after WWII, insulated 'buckets'
became more standard - though these aren't really buckets in the
colloquial sense of the word as the photo shows (pay attention to this
because it comes up later).
The thermodynamic properties of each of these buckets are different and so
when blending data sources together to get an estimate of the true
anomaly, corrections for these biases are needed. For instance, the canvas
buckets give a temperature up to 1C cooler in some circumstances (that
depend on season and location) than the modern insulated buckets.
Insulated buckets have a slight cool bias compared to temperature
measurements that are taken at the inlet for water in the engine room
which is the most used method at present. Automated buoys which became
more common in recent decades tend to be cooler than the engine intake
measures as well. The recent IPCC report had a thorough description of
these issues (section 3.B.3) fully acknowledging that these corrections
were a work in progress.
And that is indeed the case. The collection and digitisation of the ship
logbooks is a huge undertaking and continues to add significant amounts of
20th Century and earlier data to the records. This dataset (ICOADS) is
continually growing, and the impacts of the bias adjustments are
continually being assessed. The biggest transitions in measurements
occurred at the beginning of WWII between 1939 and 1941 when the sources
of data switched from European fleets to almost exclusively US fleets (and
who tended to use engine inlet temperatures rather than canvas buckets).
This offset was large and dramatic and was identified more than ten years
ago from comparisons of simultaneous measurements of night-time marine air
temperatures (NMAT) which did not show such a shift. The experimentally
based adjustment to account for the canvas bucket cooling brought the sea
surface temperatures much more into line with the NMAT series (Folland and
Parker, 1995). (Note that this reduced the 20th Century trends in SST).
More recent work (for instance, at this workshop in 2005), has focussed on
refining the estimates and incorporating new sources of data. For
instance, the 1941 shift in the original corrections, was reduced and
pushed back to 1939 with the addition of substantial and dominant amounts
of US Merchant Marine data (which mostly used engine inlets temperatures).
The version of the data that is currently used in most temperature
reconstructions is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues (reported in
2006). In their discussion of remaining issues they state:
Using metadata in the ICOADS it is possible to compare the
contributions made by different countries to the marine component of the
global temperature curve. Different countries give different advice to
their observing fleets concerning how best to measure SST. Breaking the
data up into separate countries' contributions shows that the assumption
made in deriving the original bucket correctionsthat is, that the use of
uninsulated buckets ended in January 1942is incorrect. In particular, data
gathered by ships recruited by Japan and the Netherlands (not shown) are
biased in a way that suggests that these nations were still using
uninsulated buckets to obtain SST measurements as late as the 1960s. By
contrast, it appears that the United States started the switch to using
engine room intake measurements as early as 1920.
They go on to mention the modern buoy problems and the continued need to
work out bias corrections for changing engine inlet data as well as minor
issues related to the modern insulated buckets. For example, the
differences in co-located modern bucket and inlet temperatures are around
0.1 deg C:
(from John Kennedy).
However it is one thing to suspect that biases might remain in a dataset
(a sentiment shared by everyone), it is quite another to show that they
are really there. The Thompson et al paper does the latter quite
effectively by removing variability associated with some known climate
modes (including ENSO) and seeing the 1945 anomaly pop out clearly. In
doing this in fact, they show that the previous adjustments in the pre-war
period were probably ok (though there is substantial additional evidence
of that in any case - see the references in Rayner et al, 2006). The
Thompson anomaly seems to coincide strongly with the post-war shift back
to a mix of US, UK and Dutch ships, implying that post-war bias
corrections are indeed required and significant. This conclusion is not
much of a surprise to any of the people working on this since they have
been saying it in publications and meetings for years. The issue is of
course quantifying and validating the corrections, for which the Thompson
analysis might prove useful. The use of canvas buckets by the Dutch,
Japanese and some UK ships is most likely to blame, and given the mix of
national fleets shown above, this will make a noticeable difference in
1945 up to the early 1960s maybe - the details will depend on the seasonal
and areal coverage of those sources compared to the dominant US
information. The schematic in the Independent is probably a good first
guess at what the change will look like (remember that the ocean changes
are constrained by the NMAT record shown above).
So far, so good. The fun for the blog-watchers is what happened next. What
could one do to get the story all wrong? First, you could incorrectly
assume that scientists working on this must somehow be unaware of the
problems (that is belied by the frequent mention of post WWII issues in
workshops and papers since at least 2005, but never mind). Next, you could
conflate the 'buckets' used in recent decades (as seen in the graphs in
Kent et al 2007's discussion of the ICOADS meta-data) with the buckets in
the pre-war period (see photo above). If you do make that mistake however,
you can extrapolate to get some rather dramatic (if erroneous)
conclusions. For instance, that the effect of the 'corrections' would be
to halve the SST trend from the 1970s. Gosh! (The mismatch this would
create with the independent NMAT data series should not be mentioned). But
there is more! You could take the (incorrect) prescription based on the
bucket confusion, apply it to the full global temperatures (land included,
hmm) and think that this merits a discussion on whether the whole IPCC
edifice had been completely undermined (Answer: no). And it goes on - the
bucket confusion was pointed out but the complaint switches to the scandal
that it wasn't properly explained.
All this shows is wishful thinking overcoming logic. However many times
there is a similar rush to judgment that is subsequently showed to be
based on nothing, it still adds to the vast array of similar 'evidence'
that keeps getting trotted out by by the ill-informed. The excuse that
these are just exploratory exercises in what-if thinking wears a little
thin when the 'what if' always leads to the same (desired) conclusion.
This week's play-by-play was quite revealing on that score.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Gavin Schmidt             NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
|                           2880 Broadway                            |
| Tel: (212) 678 5627       New York, NY 10025                       |
|                                                                    |
| gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov    ~gavin          |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*