Hi,
just a quick reply. I am in on this, and will respond to a draft letter, in the hope that
you will make the first, Richard? I agree that it can be short. It is strange to see this,
knowing that the delegations I spoke to in/after Paris clearly said that the CLAs got it
their way, and that I believe this is the strong common perception we also had as CLAs
about the outcome.
Best wishes,
Eystein
Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 03.11 skrev Richard Somerville:
Dear Fellow CLAs,
The British magazine *New Scientist* is apparently about to publish several items critical
of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process by which it was written.  There is an editorial, a
column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell which is on the internet and referenced by
Pearce.
I think that this attack on us deserves a response from the CLAs.  Our competence and
integrity has been called into question.  Susan Solomon is mentioned by name in
unflattering terms.  We ought not to get caught up in responding in detail to the many
scientific errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I would like to see us refute
the main allegations against us and against the IPCC.
We need to make the case that this is shoddy and prejudiced journalism.  Wasdell is not a
climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly
ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process.  His account of what went on is
factually incorrect in many important respects.
New Scientist inexplicably violates basic journalistic standards by publicizing and
editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an uncredentialed source without checking
facts or hearing from the people attacked.  The editorial and Pearce column, which I regard
as packed with distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted below, and the Wasdell piece
is attached.
My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as
possible, would be an appropriate response.  I think we ought to say that the science was
absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
any kind or by the Paris plenary.  I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism; that process would never
converge.
Please send us all your opinions and suggestions for what we should do, using the email
list [1]wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
I am traveling and checking email occasionally, so if enough of us agree that we should
respond, I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer to coordinate the effort and
submit the result to New Scientist.
Best regards to all,
Richard
Richard C. J. Somerville
Distinguished Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224
La Jolla, CA 92093-0224, USA
--
Here's the editorial that will appear in New Scientist on March 10.
Editorial: Carbon omissions
IT IS a case of the dog that didn't bark. The dog in this instance was the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For several years, climate scientists have grown increasingly anxious about "positive
feedbacks" that could accelerate climate change, such as methane bubbling up as
permafrost melts. That concern found focus at an international conference organised by
the British government two years ago, and many people expected it to emerge strongly in
the latest IPCC report, whose summary for policy-makers was published in Paris last
month.
It didn't happen. The IPCC summary was notably guarded. We put that down to scientific
caution and the desire to convey as much certainty as possible (New Scientist, 9
February, p 3), but this week we hear that an earlier version of the summary contained a
number of explicit references to positive feedbacks and the dangers of accelerating
climate change. A critique of the report now argues that the references were removed in
a systematic fashion (see "Climate report 'was watered down'").
This is worrying. The version containing the warnings was the last for which scientists
alone were responsible. After that it went out to review by governments. The IPCC is a
governmental body as well as a scientific one. Both sides have to sign off on the
report.
The scientists involved adamantly deny that there was undue pressure, or that the
scientific integrity of their report was compromised. We do know there were political
agendas, and that the scientists had to fight them. As one of the report's 33 authors
put it: "A lot of us devoted a lot of time to ensuring that the changes requested by
national delegates did not affect the scientific content." Yet small changes in language
which individually may not amount to much can, cumulatively, change the tone and message
of a report. Deliberately or not, this is what seems to have happened.
Senior IPCC scientists are not willing to discuss the changes, beyond denying that there
was political interference. They regard the drafting process as private. This is an
understandable reservation, but the case raises serious doubts about the IPCC process. A
little more transparency would go a long way to removing those qualms.
--
Here's the Pearce column:
Climate report 'was watered down'
* 10 March 2007
* From New Scientist Print Edition. [2]Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Fred Pearce
BRITISH researchers who have seen drafts of last month's report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became
involved in writing it.
David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited
reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April
2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than
expected because of "positive feedbacks" in the climate system. Most of these references
were absent from the final version.
His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists' report and the
final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of
more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: "I was astounded at the
alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The
evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific
material is overwhelming."
He has prepared a critique, "Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?", which claims:
"Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material." He
plans to publish the document online this week at [3]www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.
Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading
UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the
University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per
cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New
Scientist: "The public needs to know that the policy-makers' summary, presented as the
united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by
governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it."
"The public needs to know that the summary has been watered down in subtle but vital
ways by governmental agents"
Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former
ambassador to the UN, says: "I think David Wasdell's analysis is very useful, and unique
of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail."
Wasdell's central charge is that "reference to possible acceleration of climate change
[was] consistently removed" from the final report. This happened both in its treatment
of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion
of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.
For instance, the scientists' draft report warned that natural systems such as
rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas
emissions. It said: "This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 °C of added
warming by 2100." The final version does not include this figure. It acknowledges that
the feedback could exist but says: "The magnitude of this feedback is uncertain."
Similarly, the draft warned that warming will increase atmospheric levels of water
vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas. "Water vapour increases lead to a strong
positive feedback," it said. "New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per cent amplification
of global mean warming." This was absent from the published version, replaced elsewhere
with the much milder observation "Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback."
The final edit also removed references to growing fears that global warming is
accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets such as the Greenland sheet.
This would dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and may already be doing so. The
2006 draft said: "Recent observations show rapid changes in ice sheet flows," and
referred to an "accelerating trend" in sea-level rise. Neither detail made the final
version, which observed that "ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica... could increase
or decrease in future". Wasdell points out recent findings which show that the rate of
loss from ice sheets is doubling every six years, making the suggestion of a future
decrease "highly unlikely".
Some of the changes were made at the meeting of government invigilators that finalised
the report last month in Paris. But others were made earlier, after the draft report was
first distributed to governments in mid-2006.
Senior IPCC scientists contacted by New Scientist have not been willing to discuss how
any changes took place but they deny any political interference. However, "if it is
true, it's disappointing", says Mike Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center
at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and a past lead author for the IPCC.
"Allowing governmental delegations to ride into town at the last minute and water down
conclusions after they were painstakingly arrived at in an objective scientific
assessment does not serve society well."
From issue 2594 of New Scientist magazine, 10 March 2007, page 10
--
--
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
[4]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
[5]
_________________________________
Eystein Jansen, prof., Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 55
N5007 Bergen
phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330
[6]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
www.bjerknes.uib.no
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
References
1. mailto:wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox32286.html
3.
4. mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
5.
6. mailto:eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no


Hi all,
it is in the middle of the night here, and I cannot provide much input to writing. Just
wished to say that I would be willing to sign on the draft as it is, but hope those writing
would consider the input from Susan and Kevin before submitting the final letter.
Eystein
Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 22.56 skrev Ken Denman:
Hi Piers et al,
I have taken the liberty to suggest a few changes (with change tracker turned on) - while
you Europeans (oops, and Brits) at least are sleeping.  And Piers and Richard, thanks a lot
for getting this moving quickly.
Regards, Ken
ps. Piers - my salary is paid by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They are VERY uneasy when I
speak or write letters to the press, but they get really upset when I don't credit them
appropriately. C'est la vie.
[1]piers@env.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
Hi all
This is the latest draft with Jerry's and Ken's edits. However, in addition I've
deleted the para on the Paris meeting - as it was essentially repeated within
the last paragraph, and slightly reordered the other paragraphs
Again please make further
edits. Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such a
letter. Non highlighted names are people who appear to have already given
approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted name I think
you are likely (or very likely) to sign!
If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the
process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end
collecting approvals
Cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
[2]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
[3]
--
Ken Denman, FRSC
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis
University of Victoria
PO Box 1700 STN CSC
Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2
Phone: (250) 363 8230     FAX: (250) 363 8247
email: [4]ken.denman@ec.gc.ca        Room 263
Courier:  CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic
Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road       Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3
Also:   Institute of Ocean Sciences
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
tel. 250 363 6335
web page:  [5]~kdenman
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
[6]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
[7]
_________________________________
Eystein Jansen, prof., Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 55
N5007 Bergen
phone: +47-55583491, fax. +47-55584330
[8]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
www.bjerknes.uib.no
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
References
1. mailto:piers@env.leeds.ac.uk
2. mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
3.
4. mailto:ken.denman@ec.gc.ca
5. ~kdenman
6. mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
7.
8. mailto:eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no


Hi Stefan - Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I'll cc
her. I agree that your approach is the smart one - it's easy to show
proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest
greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment
was that there wasn't a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to
present. We used the term likely, however, since there still is a
good deal of work to do on this topic - we need a better global
network of sites.
Keith can comment on the last 1300 years, but again, I think there is
no published evidence to refute what we assessed in the chapter.
Again, one or two records does not hemispheric or global make.
I think Keith or Valerie could comment further if they're not
Eastering. Eystein, likewise might have something, but I think it is
his national responsibility to hit the glaciers over Easter.
Best, Peck
>Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors,
>
>- I know it's Easter, but I'm having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a
>German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC
>paleo chapter "wrong", claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene
>than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations
>than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer?
>
>One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy
>reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites - so
>please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will  be the local
>vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local
>examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global
>averages.
>
>But how about local variations - do stalagmites show much larger
>ones than tree rings? Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I
>could write? Do we have a stalagmite expert on the author team,
>other than contributing
>author Dominik Fleitmann, whom I've already identified?
>I have to submit my response to the newspaper tomorrow.
>
>Thanks, Stefan
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
>
>
>
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Phil
Thanks for your reply.   I have removed the
'since 1950' from the TS.   That was taken from
your ES but in view of this discussion I think
the reader needs to go to the chapter.
Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never
was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all
between the issues being discussed in this series
of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or
prior to Paris.
It was, of course, for you to decide what you
wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the
main text of your chapter.  It is entirely a
'within chapter' issue.
best regards,
Susan
At 4:30 PM +0100 4/10/07, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Susan, Kevin,
>    See attachment, I realise this is an important issue,
>as this wil be one of the areas the skeptics will go over
>  with a fine toothcomb. I'm happy either way - either
>  with the since 1950 or without. I've explained why it is
>  there.
>
>   I'm back in CRU tomorrow am. I'm also
>  away on Sunday for the next 2 weeks, so if there is more
>  to resolve, we need to do this by Friday.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>>  Kevin,
>>  Thanks for thinking about this.   Based on the chapter referencing
>>  Brohan and explicitly saying 1900 regarding the 0.006/decade figure
>>  which is what is used as the bottom line, I wonder if this is a typo
>>  and since 1950 should perhaps be since 1900 in your ES.
>>
>>  The same thing occurs in the TS, and I am checking page proofs for
>>  that which is why I got to wondering and checked back in chapter 3,
>>  where I found this conundrum.    If it is correct as 1950, fine, but
>>  it doesn't look like that to me.
>>
>>  I'll wait to hear from Phil, hopefully tomorrow.
>>  bests,
>>  Susan
>>
>>
>>  At 5:28 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>Susan
>>>This is Phil's territory so I'll leave to him to follow up further. Are
>>>you suggesting that something should change?  Seems to me that maybe
>>>removing the "(since 1950)" from ES might help?   I am on travel rest of
>>>the week.
>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>>   Kevin
>>>>   Thanks for your reply.
>>>>
>>>>   I am referring to the final distributed draft chapter, which was
>>>>  before
>>>>   Paris.
>>>>
>>>>   Your ES pre-Paris (and post-Paris) says 1950 but this seems
>>>>   inconsistent with the text of your pre-Paris chapter, where the
>>>>   hemispheric and global values are given, and post-1900 is stated at
>>>>   that point.  The value of 0.006 is clearly associated with post-1900
>>>>   in the text.
>>>>
>>>>   I don't think that this has anything to do with the clarifications to
>>>>   what was meant regarding UHI that were made in the SPM at Paris.  The
>>>>   question is a lack of consistency in the pre-Paris chapter's ES and
>>>>   main text.
>>>>
>>>>   Please consult your final draft chapter and let me know.
>>>>
>>>>   bests
>>>>   Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   At 3:18 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>Susan
>>>>>Phil is best to answer this.  You may recall this was fiddled with
>>>>>after Paris and the values cited from 1900 were inserted at that
>>>>>stage based on one study.  Earlier in the text you will see that
>>>>>most studies are from 1950 on: including those of Parker 2004, 2006,
>>>>>Li et al 2004, etc, and the DTR, Tmax and Tmin are given in Fig 3.2
>>>>>only after 1950; those are indicators also.   So in the ES we refer
>>>>>to the several studies since 1950 but the value cited does indeed
>>>>>refer to the period since 1900.    Phil would have to say whether
>>>>>this could be changed: certainly, with current wording it explicitly
>>>>>calls out the studies of the post 1950 period and would not be
>>>>>appropriate to change to 1900.
>>>>>
>>>>>My sense is that the awkwardness comes from the late edit.
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan Solomon wrote:
>>>>>>Kevin and Phil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In checking over some text, I noted a statement in your ES that UHI
>>>>>>effects are negligible, where since 1950 is indicated as the
>>>>>>temporal period of application.  In the text of the chapter, it
>>>>>>looks more like 1900 to me.   Should this be 1950, or 1900?  or
>  >>>>>something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>****************
>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,           www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>NCAR
>>>>>P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
>>>>>Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>>>>
>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>___________________
>>>Kevin Trenberth
>>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>PO Box 3000
>>>Boulder CO 80307
>>>ph 303 497 1318
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Attachment converted: Junior:urbanizationESTS.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00167B2F)


Phil
seems like we should do the same if we can in our galley proof.
Kevin
> Phil
> Thanks for your reply.   I have removed the
> 'since 1950' from the TS.   That was taken from
> your ES but in view of this discussion I think
> the reader needs to go to the chapter.
>
> Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never
> was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all
> between the issues being discussed in this series
> of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or
> prior to Paris.
>
> It was, of course, for you to decide what you
> wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the
> main text of your chapter.  It is entirely a
> 'within chapter' issue.
>
> best regards,
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> At 4:30 PM +0100 4/10/07, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>>  Susan, Kevin,
>>    See attachment, I realise this is an important issue,
>>as this wil be one of the areas the skeptics will go over
>>  with a fine toothcomb. I'm happy either way - either
>>  with the since 1950 or without. I've explained why it is
>>  there.
>>
>>   I'm back in CRU tomorrow am. I'm also
>>  away on Sunday for the next 2 weeks, so if there is more
>>  to resolve, we need to do this by Friday.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>>>  Kevin,
>>>  Thanks for thinking about this.   Based on the chapter referencing
>>>  Brohan and explicitly saying 1900 regarding the 0.006/decade figure
>>>  which is what is used as the bottom line, I wonder if this is a typo
>>>  and since 1950 should perhaps be since 1900 in your ES.
>>>
>>>  The same thing occurs in the TS, and I am checking page proofs for
>>>  that which is why I got to wondering and checked back in chapter 3,
>>>  where I found this conundrum.    If it is correct as 1950, fine, but
>>>  it doesn't look like that to me.
>>>
>>>  I'll wait to hear from Phil, hopefully tomorrow.
>>>  bests,
>>>  Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>  At 5:28 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>Susan
>>>>This is Phil's territory so I'll leave to him to follow up further. Are
>>>>you suggesting that something should change?  Seems to me that maybe
>>>>removing the "(since 1950)" from ES might help?   I am on travel rest
>>>> of
>>>>the week.
>>>>Kevin
>>>>
>>>>>   Kevin
>>>>>   Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I am referring to the final distributed draft chapter, which was
>>>>>  before
>>>>>   Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Your ES pre-Paris (and post-Paris) says 1950 but this seems
>>>>>   inconsistent with the text of your pre-Paris chapter, where the
>>>>>   hemispheric and global values are given, and post-1900 is stated at
>>>>>   that point.  The value of 0.006 is clearly associated with
>>>>> post-1900
>>>>>   in the text.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I don't think that this has anything to do with the clarifications
>>>>> to
>>>>>   what was meant regarding UHI that were made in the SPM at Paris.
>>>>> The
>>>>>   question is a lack of consistency in the pre-Paris chapter's ES and
>>>>>   main text.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Please consult your final draft chapter and let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>   bests
>>>>>   Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   At 3:18 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>Phil is best to answer this.  You may recall this was fiddled with
>>>>>>after Paris and the values cited from 1900 were inserted at that
>>>>>>stage based on one study.  Earlier in the text you will see that
>>>>>>most studies are from 1950 on: including those of Parker 2004, 2006,
>>>>>>Li et al 2004, etc, and the DTR, Tmax and Tmin are given in Fig 3.2
>>>>>>only after 1950; those are indicators also.   So in the ES we refer
>>>>>>to the several studies since 1950 but the value cited does indeed
>>>>>>refer to the period since 1900.    Phil would have to say whether
>>>>>>this could be changed: certainly, with current wording it explicitly
>>>>>>calls out the studies of the post 1950 period and would not be
>>>>>>appropriate to change to 1900.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My sense is that the awkwardness comes from the late edit.
>>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Susan Solomon wrote:
>>>>>>>Kevin and Phil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In checking over some text, I noted a statement in your ES that UHI
>>>>>>>effects are negligible, where since 1950 is indicated as the
>>>>>>>temporal period of application.  In the text of the chapter, it
>>>>>>>looks more like 1900 to me.   Should this be 1950, or 1900?  or
>>  >>>>>something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>****************
>>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
>>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>>NCAR
>>>>>>P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
>>>>>>Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>___________________
>>>>Kevin Trenberth
>>>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>>PO Box 3000
>>>>Boulder CO 80307
>>>>ph 303 497 1318
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Attachment converted: Junior:urbanizationESTS.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00167B2F)
>
>
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318


Chris et al,
I'll sedn some more thoughts on Thursday when back from
the EGU. It is too hot in Vienna to sit through too many
talks !
I suspect we need a subset of indices. The program will
calculate all those recommended in various programs. One
possibility is to keep them all and let users decide.
We do need to make a series of checks though at some
stage to make sure they are OK.
I think you'll have some fruitful discussions on
some of these on April 24. I hope you can come to
closure on a few things.
Cheers
Phil
>  All:
>
> Indices
>
> I had a session with UKCIP last week, and we did get on to dicsussing
> what outputs might come out of WG (as well as DDP etc.) and the issue of
> indices derived from  daily data (i.e. requiring time series) came up,
> with the distinct possibility of confusion/inconsistency as David
> mentions!
>
> I would be happy to produce indices only from WG, as long as we can
> check they are sensible first of course!
> E.g. heatwave duration (various thresholds), drought duration, various
> accumulations of rainfall ?
> Less clear cut might be gale days (definition?), snow days, proportion
> of days above temp threshold etc.
>
> I think we will need to consider the list in detail, as far as what is
> included (STARDEX list?), how they are calculated/validated and also
> whether they can be calcualted from some other source and found to be
> inconsistent.
> E.g. is it planned to take the (17?) RCM runs and analyse/release these
> indices as well ?
>
>
> Rainfall stats - pdfs
>
> I think (hope?) lag1-ac and skewness will actually be quite well behaved
> (if not realistic) even when you convert/downscale. The more
> validation/analysis we do of these fields the better anyway.
>
>
> Separate topic: measures of reliability
>
> May be a can of worms, but I think we need to address it sooner rather
> than later: UKCIP02 had subjective measures of reliability attached to
> different variables/predicted changes.  We must do better, and a case in
> point is the WG where we sidestep the bias issue by using change
> factors. We therefore need to provide some measure (per grid square, per
> varaible?) of reliability.
>
> For example: if control annual rainfall is more than (say) 10% biased,
> reduce reliability measure and inform the user when generating.
> Problem 1: which model runs to use for this check?
> Problem 2: how to assess more complex measures e.g. annual cycle in
> rainfall/temperature?
> Problem 3: need a common, easily understood scale of reliability
> Furthermore - WG procedure introduces more uncertinty, e.g. for wind
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk
>>
>>Sent: 16 April 2007 08:07
>>To: Phil Jones
>>Cc: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk; C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham
>>Subject: RE: Outputs from WG
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>we will try for lag-1 correlation and skewness but an issue
>>for us is whether something doesn't work when we convert the
>>equilibrium pdfs to time-dependent ones or we downscale to 25km.
>>
>>As Phil has said that you can do all the derived indices
>>except gale days, if we could get a decision from the project
>>management team to cut those variables from MOHC list of
>>outputs without making any extra work for you, then that would
>>free up some time for us to investigate this further.
>>
>>Looking forward to seeing Colin's results on 24th.
>>
>>Cheers, David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 17:16 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>>>   Some more thoughts - keep in on the loop in case i get a chance
>>>   to respond from Vienna or next Thursday.
>>>
>>>   Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 16:32 13/04/2007, david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk wrote:
>>> >Hi,
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 16:00 +0100, C G Kilsby wrote:
>>> > >  Phil, David
>>> > >
>>> > > Briefly, and can respond fully next week when I have
>>some more time!
>>> > >
>>> > > Some crucial points here,
>>> > > 1. the one re 90%ile of one variable not same as for
>>other variables.
>>> > > Some simple restrictions need considering before diving off into
>>> > > full joint pdfs etc.
>>> > > Also, another dimension emerges with seasons, e.g. 90%ile winter
>>> > > rainfall, or 90%ile summer rainfall?
>>> >
>>> >Joint pdfs are just an issue for me in that I am giving you several
>>> >inputs to WG and they have to be consistent. For example, we are
>>> >finding we only get wetter summers for lower end of temperature
>>> >increases. Plus we already intend to provide sets of sampled values
>>> >for lots of variables that are consistent for any given point in
>>> >model parameter space.
>>>
>>>   The joint pdfs are an issue for the WG as well. Not so much for
>>>   Chris, but for us we have to reproduce the statistics for
>>>   the other variables. Colin
>>>   has solved the double counting issue for the means (for T etc),
>>>   but we've yet to look at the variance.
>>>
>>>   Colin should be able to show some of the results on the 24th
>>>   as to how well the WG works. This fits the WG (with our rainfall
>>>   component) to HadRM3 and then applies our modification
>>>   technique to an A2 future (for comparison with the true RCM
>>>   future for the 2070s).  Sunshine is the only real problem.
>>>
>>>   I don't think we need to repeat this with the NS rainfall,
>>>   but discuss that once you've seen some preliminary results
>>>   on the 24tjh.
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > 2. Bit concerned to hear David talking of some precip
>>stats being
>>> > > secondary or optional - I would say mean, var and pdry days are
>>> > > all
>>> > > essential: from our experience autocorrelation and skewness are
>>> > > also pretty well behaved and we would rather have them
>>if at all possible!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Good. This discussion is throwing up a few discrepancies which need
>>> >clarifying. That some precip stats are of secondary
>>importance, is an
>>> >impression I was getting from Phil's earlier emails last month.
>>>
>>>
>>>   I think there is some misunderstanding here. What I said earlier
>>>   confirms what Chris has said - if they are available then Chris
>>>   would like them. Chris will need to consider is they may be
>>>   fully relevant due to the scale issue (25km squares vs points).
>>>   Could be an issue for skew and r1.
>>>
>>>    Checking this out  a la fitting directly to HadRCM3 control
>>>   data might be useful here. See Colin's plots though before
>>>   deciding.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I look forward to the fuller response next week. I will be mainly
>>> >away then which is why I raise these issues now. It would
>>be good to
>>> >have a good chat about them on the 24th.
>>> >
>>> >Cheers, David
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > > Chris
>>> > >
>>> > > >-----Original Message-----
>>> > > >From: Phil Jones
>>> > > >Sent: 13 April 2007 15:46
>>> > > >To: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk
>>> > > >Cc: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk; C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham
>>> > > >Subject: Re: Outputs from WG
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  David,
>>> > > >    More thoughts embedded.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Phil
>>> > > >
>>> > > >At 15:12 13/04/2007, david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk wrote:
>>> > > >>Hi,
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>I think we have clarified or converged on most of my points. I
>>> > > >>have some comments on points 2 and 4.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Cheers, David
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 14:42 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>>> > > >> > >2. WG will produce 100 versions of 30-yr sequences for
>>> > > >all (or just
>>> > > >> > >one?) WG variables for all months for a given combination
>>> > > >of 30-yr
>>> > > >> > >period, emissions scenario and location.
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >I am still not clear how to generate the 100.
>>Percentiles of
>>> > > >> > >PDFs is confusing me. I think Ag needs a clear procedure
>>> > > >outlined by us
>>> > > >> > >for 24th. I think the easiest way to make WG
>>consistent with
>>> > > >> > >MOHC pdfs is the following (assuming I am correct so far):
>>> > > >> > >
>>> > > >> > >   a. User selects WG, 30-yr period, emissions
>>scenario and
>>> > > >> > > location
>>> > > >> > (up
>>> > > >> > >to 1000km^2).
>>> > > >> > >   b. Work out which 25km x 25km box over UK is closest to
>>> > > >> > >this
>>> > > >> > multi-
>>> > > >> > >site location.
>>> > > >> > >   c. For the 30-yr period, emissions scenario and
>>location
>>> > > >> > >in b),
>>> > > >> > DDP
>>> > > >> > >internally produces a table of changes in mean T, %
>>> > > >changes in mean
>>> > > >> > P,
>>> > > >> > >and changes in variance of P for each month for
>>100 randomly
>>> > > >> > >sampled different model variants. DDP ALREADY needs this
>>> > > >capability.
>>> > > >> > >   d. So we have an internal matrix with 3*12=36
>>columns and
>>> > > >> > > 100
>>> > > >> > rows. WG
>>> > > >> > >loops through 100 rows, using each set of 36
>>numbers to drive WG.
>>> > > >> > User
>>> > > >> > >gets 100 WG's. Does what they like with it.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >     Sort of. The 100 versions of the WG I was talking
>>> > > >about will all
>>> > > >> > have
>>> > > >> >   the same statistics.  I thought these 100 would be from
>>> > > >one point
>>> > > >> > within
>>> > > >> >   the pdf (or the joint pdf) - say the 10, 50 or 90th
>>> > > >percentile. We
>>> > > >> > could make
>>> > > >> >   this percentile selectable.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >     The 100 (or 1 or whatever) are representative of some
>>> > > >> > future 30-year period.
>>> > > >> >   Your a) and b) are fine.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >     Another option is like yours. There is a pdf
>>(or joint pdf).
>>> > > >> > The 100 could be
>>> > > >> >   from each of the 100 percentiles? Does this make sense?
>>> > > >Or the 100
>>> > > >> > could
>>> > > >> >   come from sampling the percentile space assuming a normal
>>> > > >> > distribution?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >     Your 2) is an important aspect to sort out on the 24th.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>I agree that we need to discuss this but it would be good to
>>> > > >thrash it
>>> > > >>out a bit more before 24th. UKCIP08 needs the WG pdf to be
>>> > > >>consistent with the MOHC pdf. Your solution tries to
>>do this but
>>> > > >>a problem with selecting a percentile is that a model variant
>>> > > >>that is the 90th percentile for temperature is not
>>90th percentile for other variables.
>>> > > >>There is also a related issue about how you chose a model
>>> > > >variant near
>>> > > >>a given percentile. The solution I propose means these are
>>> > > >not issues.
>>> > > >>So we could sample M model variants and run N WGs for
>>each model
>>> > > >>variant. M has to be a good size to make sample
>>> > > >representative of MOHC
>>> > > >>pdf but N does not have to be large as internal variability
>>> > > >is already
>>> > > >>generated by using a different set of parameters and a
>>> > > >different seed for each WG.
>>> > > >>I think this solution is simpler than the percentile-based
>>> > > >solution. Do
>>> > > >>you agree?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Sounds OK. Let's see what Chris thinks.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> > >4. Phil has mentioned in the past that EARWIG produces some
>>> > > >> > diagnostics
>>> > > >> > >e.g. consecutive dry days, frost days etc. from WG. Will
>>> > > >> > >this be done for UKCIP08?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >   The plan is yes for this. Colin has the software
>>for this.
>>> > > >> > It just needs to be set
>>> > > >> >   up carefully, as the base for all the diagnostics
>>(for the
>>> > > >> > future
>>> > > >> > runs) has to be
>>> > > >> >   based on median run of the WG for the present (61-90).
>>> > > >We shouldn't
>>> > > >> >   allow users to change the 61-90 base period (or the
>>> > > >choice of the
>>> > > >> > median).
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Good. I would like your opinion on a problem I am having with
>>> > > >>some of the variables we are providing pdfs for. Some
>>quantities
>>> > > >>are indices derived from daily model data e.g frost days but I
>>> > > >>think
>>> > > >there are two
>>> > > >>problems with this:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>1. Model bias e.g. a model that is too warm may have very few
>>> > > >>frost days and therefore the change looks small.
>>Effect will be
>>> > > >>a nonlinear function of bias based on shape of
>>distribution of daily data.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>2. WG and pdfs could provide two alternative routes to same
>>> > > >answer and
>>> > > >>they will obviously conflict for reasons we understand e.g.
>>> > > >model bias
>>> > > >>but the users won't understand.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>To avoid confusing user and potentially reducing their
>>> > > >>confidence in UKCIP products, I think it makes sense
>>for WGs to
>>> > > >>be the sole route towards a prediction of derived
>>indices. BTW,
>>> > > >>I have a handful of derived indices to do (hot days, wet days,
>>> > > >>gale days, heating and cooling degree days and frost
>>days) and I
>>> > > >>think you cover
>>> > > >some of these
>>> > > >>already. What do you think?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>Geoff wants to discuss issues connected to the three strands
>>> > > >of output
>>> > > >>(pdfs, WG, RCM) on the 24th.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Model biases will only be a problem with their data
>>used directly.
>>> > > >  So this could be a problem with the larger regions
>>where the WG
>>> > > > won't work well. The WG won't have biases as it is based on
>>> > > > 61-90 as the base period. We will be perturbing these
>>with  the
>>> > > > RCM-based pdfs.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Maybe we need to show that the following will/should/must be
>>> > > > the same
>>> > > >
>>> > > >   Model-based scenario for 2070s minus model present
>>(61-90) equals
>>> > > >    WG scenarios for the 2070s minus WG present (61-90).
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  Geoff will need to get this across as this is how the three
>>> > > >strands will
>>> > > >  produce the same answers.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >  The WG and the extremes software will do all the temp/precip
>>> > > > indices  but won't do gale days.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >>Cheers, David
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>--
>>> > > >>______________________________________________________
>>> > > >>David Sexton PhD  Climate Research Scientist Met Office
>>> > > >Hadley Centre
>>> > > >>for Climate Prediction and Research  FitzRoy
>>> > > >>Road   Exeter   EX1 3PB   United Kingdom
>>> > > >>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
>>> > > >>E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk
>>
>>> > > >
>>> > > >Prof. Phil Jones
>>> > > >Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>> > > >School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>> > > >University of East Anglia
>>> > > >Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>> > > >NR4 7TJ
>>> > > >UK
>>> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > >-------------
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >--
>>> >______________________________________________________
>>> >David Sexton PhD  Climate Research Scientist Met Office  Hadley
>>> >Centre for Climate Prediction and Research  FitzRoy
>>> >Road   Exeter   EX1 3PB   United Kingdom
>>> >Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
>>> >E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------
>>
>>--
>>______________________________________________________
>>David Sexton PhD  Climate Research Scientist Met Office
>>Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research  FitzRoy
>>Road   Exeter   EX1 3PB   United Kingdom
>>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
>>E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk
>>
>


Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science.  It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way.  In that regard I don't think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database.  Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved.  So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric.  Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.
How about "I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn't have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!"
There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist.  It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be
used.  Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.
Kevin
> Hi Phil,
>
> This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
> for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
> facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy.  They
> can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
> thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
> entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
> landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
> they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
> possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The
>
> So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
> legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
> feeding the fire.  Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
> longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
> become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
> in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
> place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
> contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
> development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
> bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
> easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
> tougher in the states),
>
> mike
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>   Kevin,
>>     Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
>>  The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
>>  from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>
>>  #comments
>>
>>  and
>>
>>  #more-1479
>>
>>  One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>>
>>  Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
>>  one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
>>  China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
>>  Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
>>  all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
>>  any thoughts from their experiences.
>>
>>  If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
>>  to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>  with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>>
>>  On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
>>  the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
>>  the language is about me not being able to send them the
>>  station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
>>  have this information, as we have much more data now
>>  (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
>>  more stations in western USSR are as well.
>>
>>  As for the other request, I don't have the information on
>>  the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
>>  We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
>>  Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
>>  for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
>>  only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
>>  by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>
>>  GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
>>  all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
>>  scientists.
>>
>>   A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
>>  read these. Also certainly no use talking  to them.
>>
>>  In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
>>  be there.  I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>  letter knocked me back a bit.
>>
>>  I seem to be the marked man now !
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  From: "D.J. Keenan"
>> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang"
>> Cc: "Phil Jones"
>> Subject: retraction request
>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr. Wang,
>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
>> there are severe problems.  In particular,  the data was obtained from
>> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>>    49 have no histories    08 have inconsistent histories    18 have
>> substantial relocations    02 have single-year relocations    07 have
>> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
>> distant--over 20 km.
>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
>> #comment-102970
>>
>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
>> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
>> histories.  Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>>
>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th.  I also phoned you on April
>> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me.  I
>> have received no response.
>>
>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
>> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data.  If you do not do so, I
>> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
>> university at Albany.
>>
>>
>> Douglas J. Keenan
>>
>> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318


Hi Phil,
This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy.  They
can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The
So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire.  Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the states),
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>   Kevin,
>     Have a look at this web site. I see you're away.
>  The websites can wait, but scroll down to the letter below
>  from Keenan - the last sentence.
>
>  #comments
>
>  and
>
>  #more-1479
>
>  One is about data from a paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)
>
>  Also there is this email (below) sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was
>  one of the co-authors on the 1990 paper. Wei-Chyung is in
>  China, and may not yet have seen this. When he's back in
>  Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is
>  all malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get
>  any thoughts from their experiences.
>
>  If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I'm talking
>  to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>  with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.
>
>  On the 1990 paper, I have put the locations and the data for
>  the rural stations used in the paper on the CRU website. All
>  the language is about me not being able to send them the
>  station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't
>  have this information, as we have much more data now
>  (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
>  more stations in western USSR are as well.
>
>  As for the other request, I don't have the information on
>  the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.
>  We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from
>  Jim Renwick recently) , but we don't keep a source code
>  for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and
>  only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly
>  by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>
>  GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
>  all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
>  scientists.
>
>   A lot of the issues are in various papers, but they never
>  read these. Also certainly no use talking  to them.
>
>  In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson will
>  be there.  I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>  letter knocked me back a bit.
>
>  I seem to be the marked man now !
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
>
>  From: "D.J. Keenan"
> To: "Wei-Chyung Wang"
> Cc: "Phil Jones"
> Subject: retraction request
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15 +0100
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>
> Dear Dr. Wang,
> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
> there are severe problems.  In particular,  the data was obtained from
> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>    49 have no histories    08 have inconsistent histories    18 have
> substantial relocations    02 have single-year relocations    07 have
> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
> distant--over 20 km.
> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
> #comment-102970
>
> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
> histories.  Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>
> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th.  I also phoned you on April
> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me.  I
> have received no response.
>
> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data.  If you do not do so, I
> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
> university at Albany.
>
>
> Douglas J. Keenan
>
> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
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


Dear Phil,
Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
office for a few days.
This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
scientists I know.
Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
- in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
this basic message.
Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
Science Review Group meeting in May?
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  All,
>   Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
>  away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
>  till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
>  no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
>  hears.
>   I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
>  responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
>  for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
>  be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
>  The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
>  in any response.
>   The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
>  resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
>  3 months.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the attacks
>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>> K
>>
>>
>>>         I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>> you to respond to that.  but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>
>>>  mike
>>>
>>>  Kevin Trenberth wrote:    Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>> about the science.  It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>> way.
>>>  In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as
>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and
>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>> to
>>> construct such a database.  Indeed technology and data handling
>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved.  So my feeble
>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>> some counter rhetoric.  Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>> seems like a good thing to do.  How about "I tried to get some data from
>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!"  There is
>>> no
>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have to
>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental data
>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>> do
>>> not exist.  It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>> manner will undermine his case.  Kevin             Hi Phil,  This is all
>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>> thing
>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might be
>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy.  They can't take on
>>> the
>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is
>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised. Of
>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they want
>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>> (let
>>> alone even the trends for China). The  So they are simply hoping to blow
>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The last
>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire.  Best thing is to
>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here
>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>> rants
>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would advise
>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the states),
>>> mike  Phil Jones wrote:                   Kevin,     Have a look at this
>>> web site. I see you're away.  The websites can wait, but scroll down to
>>> the letter below  from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>> #comments   and
>>> #more-1479   One is about data from a
>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)   Also there is this email
>>> (below)
>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was  one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in  China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>> he's
>>> back in  Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is  all
>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get  any thoughts
>>> from their experiences.   If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>> well,
>>> but I'm talking  to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.   On the 1990 paper, I have put the
>>> locations and the data for  the rural stations used in the paper on the
>>> CRU website. All  the language is about me not being able to send them
>>> the  station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't  have
>>> this information, as we have much more data now  (much more in Australia
>>> and China than then) and probably  more stations in western USSR are as
>>> well.   As for the other request, I don't have the information on  the
>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.  We are adding in
>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from  Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>> don't keep a source code  for each station. Almost all sites have
>>> multiple sources and  only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>> things
>>> roughly  by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
>>>  GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does  all come from
>>> the
>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from  scientists.    A lot of the issues
>>> are
>>> in various papers, but they never  read these. Also certainly no use
>>> talking  to them.   In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>> will  be there.  I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>> letter knocked me back a bit.   I seem to be the marked man now !
>>> Cheers  Phil      From: "D.J. Keenan"  To: "Wei-Chyung Wang"  Cc: "Phil
>>> Jones"  Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>> +0100
>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO  Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>> Jones
>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>> problems.
>>>  In particular,  the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>> that can be classified as follows.    49 have no histories    08 have
>>> inconsistent histories    18 have substantial relocations    02 have
>>> single-year relocations    07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>> #comment-102970  The above
>>> contradicts
>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories.  Yet the claim is
>>> crucial for the research conclusions.  I e-mailed you about this on
>>> April
>>> 11th.  I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>> meeting and would get back to me.  I have received no response.  I ask
>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>> in
>>> Nature about the Chinese data.  If you do not do so, I intend to
>>> publicly
>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>> Albany.
>>>   Douglas J. Keenan  phone + 44 20 7537 4122 The
>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK     Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research
>>> Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental
>>> Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich
>>>                      Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>                   -- 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
>>>
>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>> Box
>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318
>>>
>>>
>>>  --  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
>>
>> ___________________
>> Kevin Trenberth
>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>> PO Box 3000
>> Boulder CO 80307
>> ph 303 497 1318
>>
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil,
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really
like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. They seem to
have no understanding of how science is actually done - no appreciation
of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once
again, just let me know how I can help....
It will be good to see you in Exeter. I'm looking forward to that. I'll
have two nights in London after the meeting, and am hoping to spend some
time wandering around the British Museum.
I met a very nice lady (Stephanie) while I was giving a series of
climate change lectures in Puerto Rico back in January. She's a
Professor at the University of San Francisco, and (fortuitously),
specializes in the policy implications of climate change, risk
assessment, etc. She also likes hiking and climbing. It's fun to "have a
life" again (as they say over here).
Best wishes to you and Ruth,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>  Ben,
>   Thanks for the thoughts. I'm in Geneva at the moment,
>  so have a bit of time to think. Possibly I'll
>  get the raw data from GHCN and do some work to replace
>  our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw
>  (i.e. as transmitted by the NMSs). This will annoy them
>  more, so may inflame the situation.
>
>   Got some ideas/thoughts from Mike, Kevin and Gavin Schmidt.
>
>  Some of the stuff on the Climat Audit web site is awful.
>
>  Will also be talking to someone at UEA, is they have
>  anything useful to say.
>
>   Also talking to Wei-Chyung about how he'll respond.
>
>   I will be in Exeter. Get back from Tarragona on the
>  Weds am, so should be there for dinner on the first day.
>
>   Lots of odd things going on at the HC by the way.
>
>   See you in Exeter.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
>> office for a few days.
>>
>> This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
>> irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
>> scientists I know.
>>
>> Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
>> completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
>> that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
>> real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
>> else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
>> records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
>> tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
>> scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
>> ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
>> inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
>> mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
>> quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
>> etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
>>
>> The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
>> They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
>> This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
>> - in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
>> radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
>> profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
>> accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
>> changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
>> towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
>> in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
>> in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
>> now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
>> past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
>> this basic message.
>>
>> Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
>> there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
>> Science Review Group meeting in May?
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>>>  All,
>>>   Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
>>>  away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
>>>  till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
>>>  no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
>>>  hears.
>>>   I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
>>>  responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
>>>  for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
>>>  be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
>>>  The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
>>>  in any response.
>>>   The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
>>>  resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
>>>  3 months.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Phil
>>>
>>>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the
>>>> attacks
>>>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>>>> you to respond to that.  but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>>>
>>>>>  mike
>>>>>
>>>>>  Kevin Trenberth wrote:    Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>>>> about the science.  It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>>>> way.
>>>>>  In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests
>>>>> as
>>>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys
>>>>> and
>>>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>>>> to
>>>>> construct such a database.  Indeed technology and data handling
>>>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved.  So my feeble
>>>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>>>> some counter rhetoric.  Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>>>> seems like a good thing to do.  How about "I tried to get some data
>>>>> from
>>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!"  There is
>>>>> no
>>>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have
>>>>> to
>>>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
>>>>> data
>>>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>>>> do
>>>>> not exist.  It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>>>> manner will undermine his case.  Kevin             Hi Phil,  This is
>>>>> all
>>>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>>>> thing
>>>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might
>>>>> be
>>>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy.  They can't take on
>>>>> the
>>>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say
>>>>> is
>>>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they
>>>>> want
>>>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>>>> (let
>>>>> alone even the trends for China). The  So they are simply hoping to
>>>>> blow
>>>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The
>>>>> last
>>>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire.  Best thing is
>>>>> to
>>>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power
>>>>> here
>>>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>>>> rants
>>>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would
>>>>> advise
>>>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the
>>>>> states),
>>>>> mike  Phil Jones wrote:                   Kevin,     Have a look at
>>>>> this
>>>>> web site. I see you're away.  The websites can wait, but scroll down
>>>>> to
>>>>> the letter below  from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>>>> #comments   and
>>>>> #more-1479   One is about data from
>>>>> a
>>>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990)   Also there is this email
>>>>> (below)
>>>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was  one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in  China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>>>> he's
>>>>> back in  Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is  all
>>>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get  any
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>> from their experiences.   If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>>>> well,
>>>>> but I'm talking  to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out.   On the 1990 paper, I have put
>>>>> the
>>>>> locations and the data for  the rural stations used in the paper on
>>>>> the
>>>>> CRU website. All  the language is about me not being able to send them
>>>>> the  station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't  have
>>>>> this information, as we have much more data now  (much more in
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> and China than then) and probably  more stations in western USSR are
>>>>> as
>>>>> well.   As for the other request, I don't have the information on  the
>>>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database.  We are adding
>>>>> in
>>>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from  Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>>>> don't keep a source code  for each station. Almost all sites have
>>>>> multiple sources and  only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>>>> things
>>>>> roughly  by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a
>>>>> while.
>>>>>  GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does  all come from
>>>>> the
>>>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from  scientists.    A lot of the issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> in various papers, but they never  read these. Also certainly no use
>>>>> talking  to them.   In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>>>> will  be there.  I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>>>> letter knocked me back a bit.   I seem to be the marked man now !
>>>>> Cheers  Phil      From: "D.J. Keenan"  To: "Wei-Chyung Wang"  Cc:
>>>>> "Phil
>>>>> Jones"  Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score:
>>>>> 0.0
>>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO  Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>>>> problems.
>>>>>  In particular,  the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>>>> that can be classified as follows.    49 have no histories    08 have
>>>>> inconsistent histories    18 have substantial relocations    02 have
>>>>> single-year relocations    07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>>>> #comment-102970  The above
>>>>> contradicts
>>>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories.  Yet the claim
>>>>> is
>>>>> crucial for the research conclusions.  I e-mailed you about this on
>>>>> April
>>>>> 11th.  I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>>>> meeting and would get back to me.  I have received no response.  I ask
>>>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>>>> in
>>>>> Nature about the Chinese data.  If you do not do so, I intend to
>>>>> publicly
>>>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>>>> Albany.
>>>>>   Douglas J. Keenan  phone + 44 20 7537 4122
>>>>> The
>>>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK     Prof. Phil Jones Climatic
>>>>> Research
>>>>> Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental
>>>>> Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich
>>>>>                      Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>                   -- 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
>>>>>
>>>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>>>> Box
>>>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --  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
>>>> ___________________
>>>> Kevin Trenberth
>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>> PO Box 3000
>>>> Boulder CO 80307
>>>> ph 303 497 1318
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole
process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often
wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these
kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not
always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you
well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed
and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding
the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we
were basically railroaded by Susan. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next
time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this
whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the
forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful
research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you
very best wishes
Keith
Keith
At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote:
Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on
last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job.
obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire
report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a
way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of
the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo!
I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer
next time we have an opportunity :)
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[1]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.


Dear Phil,
Thanks very much for the quick reply. It would be nice to get hold of
CRU TS 3.0, even at the 0.5 x 0.5 degree resolution.
For the SST detection and attribution analysis that I described
yesterday, I reduced the spatial dimensionality (to get better estimates
of covariance matrices, EOFs, etc.) by regridding all model and
observational SST data to a common 10 x 10 lat/long grid. I think it
would make sense to do the detection and attribution analysis involving
the land 2m temperature changes at the same 10 x 10 resolution. So it
isn't essential for me to get the CRU TS 3.0 data at 5 x 5 resolution -
we might as well have just one regridding step (from 0.5 x 0.5 to 10 x
10) rather than two. As in the SST case, the primary focus would be on
land 2m temperature changes over 1950 to 2006. I'm hopeful that the
changing coverage/variance issues won't be that severe over this period.
Let me back up a little and outline why I want to look at CRU TS 3.0.
I've always thought that it would be fun to contrast the S/N behavior of
SST and land 2m temperature. Based purely on the amplitude of unforced
variability, one might expect S/N ratios to be more more favorable for
SST changes than for land 2m temperature changes. But it's not that
simple! Due to land/ocean differences in specific and total heat
capacity, we expect the GHG-induced surface temperature signal to be
larger over land than over oceans. And then there's the issue of the
spatial heterogeneity of the forcings. Arguably, anthropogenic forcings
over land are more spatially heterogeneous than over oceans (e.g., no
changes in land surface properties over oceans!). Such land/ocean
forcing differences must also influence the S/N behavior of temperature
changes over land and oceans.
So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it's better to search for an
anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the
land. Actually showing this might be useful.
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>  Ben,
>     CRU doesn't have an infilled land database at the 5 by 5 degree
> resolution.
>  We do at the 0.5 by 0.5 degree resolution though. It would take a
>  bit of work to average these together to the coarser resolution, but it
>  ought to be possible.
>     We have a new version of this (CRU TS 3.0) that Ian Harris (Harry)
>  is finishing off. It runs from 1900 to 2006. It doesn't take care of
>  variance issues, so will have problems when in regions with poor data
>  earlier in the 20th century. Should be OK though from 1950, if you
>  want to start then.
>      Harry is i.harris@uea.ac.uk. I think the temperature is finished, but
>  Nathan could check. I'm away now till the HC meeting in Sweden
>  and Spain.
>      Another option is to use the infilled 5 by 5 dataset that Tom Smith
>  has put together at NCDC. All infilling has the problem that when there
>  is little data it tends to revert to the 1961-90 average of zero. All
>  infilling techniques do this - alluded to countless times by Kevin
>  Trenberth and this is in Ch 3 of AR4.  This infilling is in the current
>  monitoring version of NCDC's product. The infilling is partly the reason
>  they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the
>  coastal stations. I think NCDC and the HC regard the permanent
>  sea ice as 'land', as it effectively is.
>     As a side issue , the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic is going
>  to cause loads of problems monitoring temps there as when SST data
>  have come in from the areas that have been mostly sea ice, it is always
>  warm as the 61-90 means are close to -1.8C. Been talking to Nick
>  Rayner about this. It isn't serious yet, but it's getting to be a problem.
>  In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot
>  as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average
>  for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value.
>
>   See you in Exeter in a week's time.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
> At 01:40 02/05/2007, Ben Santer wrote:
>> Dear Nathan,
>>
>> I'm now in the process of transferring SST data from the AR4
>> pre-industrial control runs. I'm hoping that the data transfer will be
>> finished by tomorrow. As described in the Supporting Text of our PNAS
>> water vapor paper, I've changed the time model of all control runs.
>> The time model is the same as in the 20c3m runs - i.e., "months since
>> 1800". This slightly complicates life if you want to subtract a
>> model's instantaneous control run drift from its 20c3m run. You then
>> have to figure out the time (in the new "months since 1800" time
>> model) at which the 20c3m run was spawned from the pre-industrial
>> control. I find, however, that the advantages of using a uniform time
>> model far outweigh the disadvantages.
>>
>> With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary
>> results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed
>> SST data. To my knowledge, most formal pattern-based D&A work that has
>> dealt with temperature changes close to Earth's surface has used
>> combined SSTs and land 2m temperatures. I'm not aware of any
>> pattern-based work (other than your work with SST changes in the
>> Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions) that has focused
>> on SST changes alone. I'm assuming that the dearth of "SST only"
>> fingerprint work arises in part from pesky masking and regridding
>> problems (the same problems we had to address in the PNAS water vapor
>> paper).
>>
>> As I mentioned several days ago, I essentially replicated all of the
>> data "pre-processing" we had done for the water vapor paper: i.e., the
>> same procedures were used for masking and regridding SST data to a
>> uniform 10 x 10 lat/long grid, calculation of the V and No-V SST
>> fingerprints, and concatenation of SST data from the V and No-V
>> control runs. I also employed the same spatial domain that we used for
>> the PW analysis (all oceans, 50N-50S).
>>
>> One of the choices I have to make in estimating detection time is the
>> selection of a "start date" for calculation of trends in the signal
>> time series Z(t) and Z*(t) (the projections of the observed data onto
>> the raw and optimized fingerprints, respectively). For the water vapor
>> paper, the start date was dictated by the start date of the SSM/I PW
>> data (1988). Here, however, we are using NOAA ERSST data, which are
>> available from 1880 onwards. I chose a start date in 1950. I think
>> this is a defensible choice, partly because the spatial coverage of
>> SST data is more stable over time in the second half of the 20th
>> century than in the first. Furthermore, a 1950 start date is a
>> somewhat conservative choice in view of the "flattening" of the
>> observed global-scale SST increase in the 1960s and 1970s. A start
>> date in the mid-1970s would probably yield shorter detection times.
>>
>> The detection time results are encouraging. In the "spatial mean
>> included" case, we invariably obtain robust detection of the V and
>> No-V model fingerprints in the NOAA ERSST data. As you pointed out
>> previously, Nathan, the fingerprint estimated from the No-V 20c3m runs
>> is basically an "ANTHRO-ONLY" fingerprint. For a 1950 start date, the
>> detection times are all with +/- 5 years of 1980, irrespective of
>> whether the V or No-V models are used to estimate fingerprints,
>> optimize fingerprints, or assess statistical significance. This means
>> that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we
>> would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly
>> 30 years later. I should point out that (as in the vapor paper), we've
>> tried to be conservative in our significance testing procedure, and
>> have intentionally retained residual control run drift.
>>
>> Results are more ambiguous in the "spatial mean removed" case. In that
>> setting, whether we can or cannot detect an anthropogenic fingerprint
>> is much more sensitive to V/No-V dataset choices. Why might that be? A
>> preliminary hypothesis is that in the "mean removed" case, greater
>> attention is focused on differential SST changes in the western and
>> eastern Pacific. The recent GRL paper by Soden and Vecchia provides
>> some model-based evidence that such differential SST changes may be
>> forced, and are accompanied by changes in the Walker circulation. I
>> suspect that these differential west/east SST changes may evolve in a
>> complex way over time, and that in the "mean removed" case, we might
>> have more luck detecting an "ANTHRO" fingerprint if go to full
>> space-time optimal detection. But that's only a guess on my part, and
>> my intuition has often been wrong!
>>
>> In the next few days, I'll fool around with several different "start
>> dates", and will also start looking at the spatial patterns of the raw
>> and optimized fingerprints, the dominant noise modes, etc. As I
>> mentioned previously, it would be nice to contrast the "SST-only" D&A
>> results with "land-only" D&A results. Does CRU have "land-only"
>> temperature data in which missing land 2m temperatures have been
>> statistically infilled? In other words, is there a land 2m temperature
>> counterpart to the HadISST product? (I've copied this email to Phil,
>> who I'm sure will be able to answer my last question.)
>>
>> Anyway, looks like this work is worth pursuing. It will be very
>> interesting to compare your space-time results with the results we've
>> obtained thus far.
>>
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


yep, I'm watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!
Heard anything back from IUGG yet?  I thought Mike's email was helpful,
if that doesn't do the trick I don't know what will,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>  Mike,
>
>    Apparently there is a lot in New Scientist this week. As usual
>  our copy has gone walkabout!
>
>    Blair is out on June 27 - Gordon Brown then !
>
>  Phil
>
>
> At 16:33 17/05/2007, you wrote:
>> as I was looking at this, I had CNN on in the background. Live
>> conference, with Bush and Blair both agreeing about the importance of
>> significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
>>
>> jokes like Carter have become completely irrelevant. they are a sad
>> anachronism...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Just in case you've not seen it. Another piece of bad science.
>>>
>>>   It is the same old stuff, so not worth doing anything at Real
>>> Climate,
>>>  but might be worth doing something on Figure 5.
>>>
>>>  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
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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