Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 926087421.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: D Parker <deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Temperatures
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, makis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi, David,

I don't think that Antarctic is the principal source of differences. When
we compare only the common areas it doesn't really come into play. There
are areas in Mexico and Northern Africa that seem to contribute more to the
differences. Makiko will put the plots that you requested at
http://giss.nasa.gov/~cdmss/Parker

Regards, Jim


At 05:35 PM 5/5/99 +0100, D Parker wrote:
>To Jim Hansen jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> (& copies to Chris Folland, Ian Macadam, Phil Jones)
>Jim
>
>Thanks for the mailed illustrations comparing your surface temperature data
>set with Phil Jones's.
>
>We are trying to understand the cooling of your data relative to Phil Jones's
>in the Southern Hemisphere during the 1990s (Table 1 below) in the annual
>series you sent to Ian Macadam. Plots of these were shown at the IPCC meeting
>in Asheville in March and showed the same relative cooling, but Figure 2 of
>your mailed illustrations does not show it. I note that the comparison in
>Figure 2 was made over the common area. If you use all available grids, do
>you get the relative cooling in the GISS dataset? I expect you will, because
>I have been perusing your web site and have noted that most recent years are
>cold over Antarctica in your dataset. This could be the focus of the problem,
>as your stations (with 1200km influence) will have more weight than Phil's
>unless you use common grids.
>
>As an aside, recent cooling over Antarctica could be partly forced by ozone
>losses, though I note that the cooling is strongest in March-May, not in
>Sept-Nov when the ozone hole occurs. If Antarctica cools, there will be
>consequences for Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns,
>conceivably even contributing to the recent cooling of marine air temperature
>relative to sea surface temperature.
>
>To help further, can you provide annual maps, 1989 through 1998, of Jones
>(land), GISS (stations, 1200 km) and Jones minus GISS in the format of Figure
>3 of your mailed illustrations? Web or ftp access would be better than
paper,
>if possible.
>
>Thanks and regards
>
>David 5 May 1999
>
> *****************************************************
>
>Table 1. Annual Southern Hemisphere Anomalies (deg C) Relative to 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> GISS Jones
>
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.250 0.30
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.265 0.32
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.023 0.14
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.027 0.24
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.033 0.35
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.069 0.37
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.191 0.23
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.033 0.34
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.317 0.60
>
>
> *****************************************************
>
>
>
> David E Parker
> Room H001
> Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> Meteorological Office
> London Road
> BRACKNELL
> Berkshire
> RG12 2SY
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
>
> Tel xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> email deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>


James Hansen
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
e-mail jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxx xxxx xxxxfax (xxx xxxx xxxx)

Original Filename: 990718506.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Recent Paper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:35:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jto@u.arizona.edu>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike:

You are right: this is a disinformation campaign.
Some remarks

1) On the Christy et al grl paper, I sent the following to John following
the IPCC Shanghai mtg.:

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:39:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: your grl paper

John:

Just back from IPCC. One surprise was the strong Saudi delegation
distributed your recent grl paper and wanted it inserted into the SPM! In
spite of the fact that you are a lead author on Chapter 2 , the paper is
referenced, etc. In fact Simon Brown was there.

Chris Folland made a comment about his hypothesis for this: related to
changes/growth in ships. My hypothesis focusses on the buoy data.
See our recent paper submitted to jgr:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html also

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001a/jgr_interann.html

This shows that during and following El Nino there is an anomalous flux of
heat out of ocean into atmosphere in the east Pacific of order 50 W m-2 over
many months: so ocean T warms relative to air. During La Lina flux goes
other way. i.e. air warms relative to ocean.

So your results must be affected by 1xxx xxxx xxxxevent at end of series and that
may explain trend differential.

Hope this helps
Regards
Kevin

i.e. the result is not as advertized.

=====================

2) wrt Lindzen's paper

Here is the text from my recent Senate testimony

The determination of the climatic response to the changes in heating and
cooling is complicated by feedbacks. Some of these can amplify the original
warming (positive feedback) while others serve to reduce it (negative
feedback). If, for instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
were suddenly doubled, but with other things remaining the same, the outgoing
long-wave radiation would be reduced and instead trapped in the atmosphere.
To restore the radiative balance, the atmosphere must warm up and, in the
absence of other changes, the warming at the surface and throughout the
troposphere would be about 1.2dg C. In reality, many other factors will
change, and various feedbacks come into play, so that the best IPCC estimate
of the average global warming for doubled carbon dioxide is 2.5dg C. In
other words, the net effect of the feedbacks is positive and roughly doubles
the response otherwise expected. The main positive feedback comes from
increases in water vapor with warming.

In 2001, the IPCC gave special attention to this topic. The many issues with
water vapor and clouds were addressed at some length in Chapter 7 (of which I
was a lead author, along with Professor Richard Lindzen (M.I.T.), and
others). Recent possibilities that might nullify global warming (Lindzen
2001) were considered but not accepted because they run counter to the
prevailing evidence, and the IPCC (Stocker et al., 2001) concluded that ``the
balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of the
magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

===
Here is a more complete rebuttal, written March 23 to MacCracken.


Subject: Re: Recent Lindzen paper

Kevin Trenberth

1) The paper is based on very simple conceptual ideas that do not mesh with
reality. Fig. 2 is simply not correct. For a more correct view of the
overturning see:

Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak and J. M. Caron, 2000: The global monsoon
as seen through the divergent atmospheric circulation. {J. Climate},
13, 3xxx xxxx xxxx.

This paper also shows that the flow in the tropics is dominated by transients
(and thus mixing) of all kinds. The mean overturning is only about a third
of the daily mean variance for a month and much less if the intra diurnal
variations and interannual variations are included.

2) The "observations" analysis makes absolutely no sense to me at all. There
is a totally inadequate description of what is done and no way to decipher
what a dot in Fig 5 or Fig 6 is. Given 20 months, and daily values (how
was that done?) why are there only about 330 points? Why isn't Fig 6 part
of Fig. 5?

In any event the results are totally at odds with other evidence. Here I
refer to the Goes Precipitation Index which uses 3 hourly data on OLR, and
thus on high cloud, as an index of rainfall, and it is clear from many
studies that OLR generally decreases (convection and high cloud increase)
with SST, the reverse of the relationship in Fig. 5.

Moreover the whole conceptual basis for anything here is surely flawed. As
stated, on short time scales SST is not changing. But clouds are NOT caused
by local SST, rather they arise from either transients, like the MJO, or for
the ITCZ and SPCZ (which are major operators in this region), they come from
moisture convergence (P>>E) and so it is the patterns of SST (gradients) as
well as where the warmest water is that determines where the convergence and
clouds occur. Now in the warm pool, the convergence is focussed more on the
edges, as that is where the pressure gradients are greater, and so the
convergence is not where SST is necessarily highest.

In any case, moisture is not equal to cloudy air. Many analyses show that
moisture is much more extensive, see for example
Trenberth, K. E., and C. J. Guillemot, 1998: Evaluation of the atmospheric
moisture and hydrological cycle in the NCEP/NCAR reanalyses. {Climate
Dyn.}, {14}, xxx xxxx xxxx.


Even with such results, other factors need to be considered.
One process might be
High SST => convergence => rainfall and cloud
OR
Less cloud => more solar radiation => higher SST

Those give opposite relations and both operate. The latter is more important
in the Indian Ocean where subsidence (from the Pacific) dominates.
However, it also operates over the oceans in the region in question in
northern summer, because that is the monsoon season, and the main convection
is over land, meaning subsidence over the ocean.

None of this is sorted out in any way in this paper.
In fact it is so bad in this regard I do not know how it got published.

In Fig 5 etc, no correlations are given, nor are their significance levels.
My rough estimate is that the correlation is about 0.2 to 0.3 and that is
significant if the 330 or so points are independent. But why should I have
to guess at that.
Again I would question the editorial and review process.

3) Finally, I refer you to chapter 7 of IPCC which is a more balanced
assessment. Lindzen was a coauthor of that with me and others. Lindzen
wrote 7.2.1 and the same figure 1 in the BAMS article was included as 7.1 in
chapter 7 along with similar ones from models, showing that these things are
fully simulated in good models, although better with higher resolution.
Anyway, his arguments were fully considered in chapter 7 and you can read it
to see the result. The whole of 7.2.1, including 7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2 and
7.2.1.3 was put together originally by Lindzen, Pierrehumbert and Le Treut,
but basically the final version was rewritten by me to provide better
balance. Pierrehumbert is an agnostic of sorts: disbelieves everything
including models but seems to have faith in simple theories. Le Treut was
sound on the modeling. I did not change the substance of what they prepared,
I did reshape it and polish and it ended up in a form they accepted.

Note at the end it clearly states:
"the balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of
the magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

The 4 subsections together are quite long and throughly air the issue, much
moreso than any previous IPCC report. For those of you who do not have it:
7.2.1 "Physics of the water vapour and cloud feedbacks" (draft written by
Lindzen) is 1.3 pages, 7.2.1.1 (I think Pierrehumbert) "Water vapour
feedback", is 1 page, 7.2.1.2 "Representation of watre vapour in models" is
1.5 pages (Le Treut) and 7.2.1.3 "Summary on water vapour feedbacks" is half
a page or so.

---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, ML www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, [1850 Table Mesa Drive] (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80307 [80305] (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
*******************************






On Thu, 24 May 2001, Michael E. Mann wrote:

> FYI. I received this from a colleague. This gives you some idea of who is
> behind this latest disinformation push.
>
> A note to all regarding the Broecker piece, which has been heavily referred
> to in this and other similar recent pieces (though it is an opinion piece,
> and not peer-reviewed).
> A response by Bradley, Briffa, Crowley, Hughes, Jones, and Mann appears in
> tomorrows issue of "Science". This response simply points out that old
> fallacies that are simply reiterated in Broecker's piece...
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
> >
> >
> > Advancing the principles of free enterprise and
> > limited government
> >
> >
> > 5/16/01
> >
> > Latest Global Warming Report Already Obsolete
> >
> > By Paul J. Georgia
> >
> >
> >
> > The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> >(IPCC) is
> > conducting a campaign of fear to convince us that energy
> >suppression is
> > our only salvation. The "Summary for Policymakers" of the
> >group's latest
> > report ? the report itself has not been officially released ?
> >paints a horrific
> > picture of a climate system gone mad.
> >
> > The new report, known as the "Third Assessment Report" (TAR),
> >is
> > expected to be the focal point for policymakers for the next
> >five years as
> > they decide what to do about global warming, just as the 1995
> >Second
> > Assessment Report has guided policymakers for the last five
> >years.
> > Indeed, the bureaucrats driving the global warming process
> >are using the
> > IPCC to justify their anti-energy policies. Klaus Toepfer,
> >executive
> > director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said,
> >"The
> > scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report
> >about
> > human induced climate change should sound alarm bells in
> >every
> > national capital and in every local community."[1]
> >
> > In the midst of this campaign, however, the science continues
> >to move
> > apace, leaving many of the IPCC's underlying assumptions and
> > subsequent conclusions in shambles. A sampling of scientific
> >studies
> > published after the completion of the final drafts of the TAR
> >is presented
> > here to give the reader a taste of the constant flux of
> >scientific inquiry and
> > our rapidly changing understanding of the climate system.
> >Indeed, if
> > recent studies are correct there would be little
> >justification for Kyoto-style
> > policies that would ultimately impede humanity's ability to
> >provide itself
> > with the wealth- and health-enhancing benefits of modern
> >civilization.
> >
> > Water Vapor Feedback. The biggest uncertainty in climate
> >science
> > remains "feedback" effects on the climate. The conventional
> >explanation
> > by proponents of global warming theory always assumes that
> > human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of
> >greenhouse
> > gases, primarily carbon dioxide, could lead to catastrophic
> >warming of
> > the planet. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions, however, are
> >only an
> > indirect cause of the forecasted warming. A doubling of
> >carbon dioxide
> > concentrations alone would lead to slight warming of about
> >one degree
> > Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years.
> >This small
> > amount of warming, according to standard global warming
> >theory, speeds
> > up evaporation, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor
> >(a major
> > greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This "positive water
> >vapor feedback"
> > effect is where most of the predicted warming comes from.
> >This
> > assumption has never been tested.
> >
> > A recent study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society
> > suggests that the reverse is true.[2] The authors find a
> >negative water
> > vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all
> >other positive
> > feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover
> >from
> > satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface
> >temperatures,
> > the researchers found that there is an "iris effect" in which
> >higher
> > temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds.
> >
> > According to a NASA statement about the study, "Clouds play a
> >critical
> > and complicated role in regulating the temperature of the
> >Earth. Thick,
> > bright, watery clouds like cumulus shield the atmosphere from
> >incoming
> > solar radiation by reflecting much of it back into space.
> >Thin, icy cirrus
> > clouds are poor sunshields but very efficient insulators that
> >trap energy
> > rising from the Earth's warmed surface. A decrease in cirrus
> >cloud area
> > would have a cooling effect by allowing more heat energy, or
> >infrared
> > radiation, to leave the planet."[3]
> >
> > The researchers found that a one degree Celsius rise in ocean
> >surface
> > temperature decreased the ratio of cirrus cloud area to
> >cumulus cloud
> > area by 17 to 27 percent, allowing more heat to escape.
> >
> > In an interview, lead author Dr. Richard S. Lindzen said the
> >climate
> > models used in the IPCC have the cloud physics wrong. "We
> >found that
> > there were terrible errors about clouds in all the models,
> >and that that will
> > make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because
> >the
> > sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor
> >and clouds.
> > Moreover, if clouds are wrong, there's no way you can get
> >water vapor
> > right. They're both intimately tied to each other." Lindzen
> >argues that
> > due to this new finding he doesn't expect "much more than a
> >degree
> > warming and probably a lot less by 2100."[4]
> >
> > The study is the best empirical confirmation to date of the
> >negative
> > feedback hypothesis proposed by Lindzen early on in the
> >global warming
> > debate. It builds on earlier empirical work by Drs. Roy
> >Spencer of NASA
> > and William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation. Their
> >1997 study
> > also cast doubt on the assumption of a positive water vapor
> >feedback
> > effect.[5] They found that the tropical troposphere, the
> >layer of air
> > between 25,000 and 50,000 feet, is much dryer than climate
> >modelers
> > previously thought. Further empirical work will no doubt
> >confirm whether
> > this phenomenon is common throughout the tropics, which act
> >as the
> > Earth's exhaust vents for escaping heat.
> >
> >
> > Black Carbon. In 1995, the IPCC had to explain in its Second
> > Assessment Report why its previous predictions of global
> >temperature
> > change were nearly three times larger than observed in the
> >actual
> > temperature record. The SAR concluded that emissions of
> >sulfate
> > aerosols from burning coal were offsetting the warming that
> >should be
> > caused by carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Sulfate
> >aerosols,
> > according to this explanation, reflect incoming solar
> >radiation back to
> > space, thereby cooling the planet.
> >
> >
> > The TAR takes the sulfate aerosol idea even further. The SAR
> >had
> > predicted a temperature rise of 1 to 3.5 degrees C (1.8 to
> >6.3 degrees F)
> > over the next 100 years. The TAR goes even further,
> >anticipating a 1.4 to
> > 5.8 degrees C (2.52 to 10.44 degrees F) rise in temperature.
> >The
> > extreme case scenario of a 5.8 degrees C of warming, for
> >instance, is
> > based partly on assumptions that the whole world will raise
> >its level of
> > economic activity to that of the U.S., will equal U.S. per
> >capita energy
> > use, and energy use will be carbon intensive. The primary
> >assumption
> > behind the new scenario, however, is that sulfate aerosol
> >emissions will
> > be eliminated by government regulation, giving carbon dioxide
> >free
> > reign.[6]
> >
> > Sulfate aerosols, then, are a key component of catastrophic
> >global
> > warming scenarios. Without them, the IPCC cannot explain why
> >the
> > earth is not warming according to their forecasts, nor can
> >they
> > reasonably claim that global warming will lead to
> >catastrophes of biblical
> > proportions.
> >
> > A new study in Nature eliminates sulfate aerosols as a
> >corrective for the
> > models. [7] The author, Mark Jacobson, a professor with the
> >Department
> > of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Stanford University,
> >examines
> > how black carbon aerosols affect the Earth's climate. Unlike
> >other
> > aerosols that reflect solar radiation back into space, black
> >carbon (soot)
> > absorbs solar radiation, thereby raising atmospheric
> >temperatures.
> >
> > Until now the warming influence of black carbon was thought
> >to be minor,
> > leading researchers to ignore it. James Hansen, with the
> >Goddard
> > Institute for Space Studies, in a paper published in August
> >2000, first
> > suggested that black carbon plays an important role in global
> > warming.[8] Jacobson found "a higher positive forcing from
> >black carbon
> > than previously thought, suggesting that the warming effect
> >from black
> > carbon may nearly balance the net cooling effect of other
> >anthropogenic
> > aerosol constituents."
> >
> > There you have it. Soot offsets the cooling effect of other
> >aerosols,
> > meaning we are back at square one. Scientists still do not
> >have a
> > plausible explanation for why the Earth has failed to warm in
> >line with
> > climate model results. Indeed, all the prognostications of
> >the IPCC are
> > wrong if the Nature study is right.
> >
> >
> > Natural Cycles. The main propaganda device of the TAR is the
> >"hockey
> > stick graph." The graph is a temperature record derived from
> >tree rings
> > dating back to 1000 AD and running through 1900, with the
> >20th century
> > thermometer-based temperature data attached at the end.[9]
> >It claims to
> > show that global temperatures have remained steady or even
> >decreased
> > during the last millennium until the industrial age, when
> >there was an
> > anomalous warming represented by the blade of the hockey
> >stick. The
> > hockey stick is largely bogus, however. The margin of error
> >is so large
> > that nearly any temperature trend could be drawn to fit
> >within it.
> >
> >
> >
> > The hockey stick features prominently in all of IPCC Chairman
> >Robert
> > Watson's speeches, and to the uninitiated it is very
> >persuasive. Senator
> > John McCain (R-AZ), for example, expressed alarm when he saw
> >the
> > graph at Commerce Committee hearings last May.
> >
> >
> > Watson uses the hockey stick to claim that current warming is
> >greater
> > than at any other time in the last 1,000 years. The Medieval
> >Warm
> > Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were two naturally
> >occurring
> > events during the last millennium where the range of global
> >temperature
> > change exceeded that of the 20th century. During the MWP,
> >global
> > temperatures were higher than they are today. The MWP,
> >however, does
> > not show up in the hockey stick graph.
> >
> > The hockey stick has effectively been dismantled in a recent
> >study in
> > Science, however.[10] Wallace Broecker, of the
> >Lamont-Doherty Earth
> > Observatory, argues that the MWP and the LIA were indeed
> >global
> > phenomena. Referring to the hockey stick, Broecker notes, "A
> >recent,
> > widely cited reconstruction leaves the impression that the
> >20th century
> > warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no
> >hint of the
> > Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during
> >which the
> > Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event
> >was
> > regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just
> >at the dawn
> > of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of
> >substantial
> > amounts of anthropogenic [manmade] greenhouse gases, Earth's
> > temperature began to rise steeply."
> >
> >
> > Broecker reviewed several scientific studies which
> >reconstruct the Earth's
> > temperature history into the distant past using various
> >proxies. He
> > concludes, "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent
> >in a
> > series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year
> >intervals
> > throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."[11] In
> >other words,
> > the current warm period may just be attributable to natural
> >cycles.
> >
> >
> > Flawed Temperature Data. The National Oceanic and
> >Atmospheric
> > Administration (NOAA) claimed that the year 2000 was the
> >sixth
> > warmest since 1880. Other temperature records find less
> >warming.[12]
> > Last year was only the 14th warmest, or 9th coolest, year
> >since 1979
> > according to the satellite temperature record,[13] and only
> >the 9th
> > warmest, according to records that include only measurements
> >from
> > meteorological stations.[14]
> >
> > The NOAA data, which is cited by government officials and the
> >news
> > media, may be the least accurate, according to a study that
> >recently
> > appeared in Geophysical Research Letters.[15] The NOAA
> >datasets "are
> > a mixture of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea
> >water
> > temperatures over oceans," according to lead author Dr. John
> >Christy,
> > professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
> >System
> > Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
> >
> > Since actual air temperature data over many large ocean areas
> >are
> > nonexistent, the NOAA uses sea surface temperatures as a
> >"proxy,"
> > assuming that sea surface temperatures and air temperatures
> >move in
> > lock step. This is not the case, according to the data
> >compiled by
> > Christy and his colleagues at the Hadley Centre of the United
> >Kingdom's
> > Meteorological Office, who worked on the study. The
> >researchers used
> > buoy data in the tropical Pacific Ocean to compare "long-term
> >xxx xxxx xxxxyear)
> > trends for temperatures recorded one meter below the sea
> >surface and
> > three meters above it."
> >
> > What they found was a significant discrepancy. "For each
> >buoy in the
> > Eastern Pacific, the air temperatures measured at the three
> >meter height
> > showed less of a warming trend than did the same buoy's water
> > temperatures at one meter depth," the study said. The
> >difference is a
> > near-surface seawater warming trend of 0.37 degrees C per
> >decade and
> > an air temperature trend of only 0.25 degrees C per decade
> >during the
> > 20-year period tested. Replacing the sea surface
> >temperatures with the
> > air temperature data reduces the Earth's global warming trend
> >by a third,
> > from 0.19 to 0.13 degree C per decade.
> >
> > This is significant due to difficulties with reconciling the
> >various global
> > temperature data sets, particularly the discrepancy between
> >tropospheric
> > temperatures measured by satellites that show little to no
> >warming, and
> > the surface-based temperature data that show slightly more
> >warming.
> > Last year, the National Research Council stated that both
> >temperature
> > records are correct and speculated about an explanation.[16]
> >
> > This brings up another problem, however. The standard
> >explanation of
> > the greenhouse effect suggests warming occurs first five
> >kilometers
> > above the earth's surface in the atmospheric layer known as
> >the
> > troposphere. How events at the surface are connected to what
> >happens
> > high in the atmosphere is not clear, but it is believed that
> >surface
> > warming would follow tropospheric warming through climatic
> >processes
> > such as air circulation.[17] If both temperature records are
> >correct, then
> > this explanation of the greenhouse effect is wrong. Christy
> >et al. brings
> > the surface temperature data into closer agreement with the
> >satellite
> > data, suggesting that a better explanation for the
> >discrepancy is flawed
> > surface data.
> >
> > Progressive Science. At a press conference at the National
> >Press
> > Club on April 18, Mr. Jan Pronk, chairman of the Sixth
> >Conference of the
> > Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
> >Change
> > said most issues were still on the table in the ongoing Kyoto
> >negotiations
> > but the scientific basis of catastrophic global warming could
> >not be
> > questioned. That would be like going back ten years, he
> >said. This is a
> > myopic and erroneous view of science. Science is not static
> >but
> > dynamic. It reaches tentative conclusions at best, and those
> > conclusions constantly give way to new data. The IPCC is a
> >static
> > process, however. The Third Assessment Report is already
> >obsolete and
> > it has not even been released yet. With these four recent
> >studies, it may
> > be time to bid catastrophic global warming theory a warm
> >farewell.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] "Evidence of Rapid Global Warming Accepted by 99 Nations,"
> >Environment News Service, January 22,
> > 2001.
> > [2] Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, "Does the
> >Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?,
> > Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82:417-32, March
> >2001.
> > [3] ftp://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/PAO/Releases/2001/01-18.htm
> > [4] "Is Globe Warming? Sure, But Far Less than Alarmists Say,"
> >Tech Central Station
> > (http://www.techcentralstation.com/BigShotFriday.asp), March 5,
> >2001.
> > [5] Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell, "How Dry is the
> >Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for
> > Global Warming Theory," Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society, 78:1xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [6] In correspondence with Nature magazine, one of the IPCC's
> >coordinating lead authors, Thomas Stocker of
> > the Physics Institute at the University of Bern in Switzerland,
> >wrote, "First, although climate modeling has
> > advanced during the past five years, this is not the main reason
> >for the revised range of temperature
> > projections. The higher estimates of maximum warming by the year
> >2100 stem from a more realistic view of
> > sulphate aerosol emissions. The new scenarios assume emissions
> >will be reduced substantially in the coming
> > decades, as this becomes technically and economically feasible, to
> >avoid acid rain. Sulphate emissions have
> > a cooling effect, so reducing them leads to higher estimates of
> >warming." See "Climate panel looked at all
> > the evidence," Nature, 410: 299, March 15, 2001.
> > [7] Mark Z. Jacobson, "Strong radiative heating due to the mixing
> >state of black carbon in atmospheric
> > aerosols," Nature, 409: 695-72, February 8, 2001.
> > [8] James D. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and
> >Valdir Oinas, "Global Warming in the
> > twenty-first century: An alternative scenario," Proceedings of the
> >National Academy of Sciences,
> > 97:9xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [9] The tree ring data originated with Michael E. Mann, Raymond S.
> >Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes,
> > "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium:
> >Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations,"
> > Geophysical Research Letters, 26: 759, March 15, 1999.
> > [10] Wallace S. Broecker, "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?"
> >Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23,
> > 2001.
> > [11] Also see H.H. Lamb, Climate History and the Modern World, (New
> >York: Routledge, 1985), and Brian
> > Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1xxx xxxx xxxx,
> >(New York: Basic Books, 2000).
> > [12] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/2000/ann/ann.html
> > [13] http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
> > [14] http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01.htm#Phil
> > [15] John R. Christy, David E. Parker, Simon J. Brown, Ian Macadam,
> >Martin Stendal, and William B. Norris,
> > "Differential Trends in Tropical Sea Surface and Atmospheric
> >Temperatures since 1979," Geophysical
> > Research Letters, 28:183.
> > [16] Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change,
> >National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.,
> > 2000.
> > [17] Richard S. Lindzen, "Climate Forecasting: When Models are
> >Qualitatively Wrong," George C. Marshall
> > Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
> >
> >
> >
> >

Original Filename: 1051156418.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'

to which I add ....

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

____________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
than a direct
and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
in the above example -- then this is an advantage.

_____________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
this?

_______________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
(vol. 23, pp. 1

Original Filename: 1051202354.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: My turn
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive
these correspondances...

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as
he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments
from other individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is
in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any
case, I'd be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and
I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would
tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed
peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review
articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz
(Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at
least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and
co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well...

cheers,

mike

p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original
distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, Mark Eakin wrote:
>At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
>paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and
>appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be
>best to direct such a response. Some options are:
>
>1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
>2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
>3) A letter to OSTP
>
>The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the
>current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
>Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is
>not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would
>probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention
>to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a
>widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for
>Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the
>best published approach.
>
>A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has
>shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured,
>critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with
>Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as
>Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a
>letter. Many others of us could sign on in support.
>This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
>the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss
>this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be
>developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
>
>I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am
>rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark
>
>
>
>Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>Dear Tom et al,
>>
>>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list
>>here!
>>
>>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
>>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
>>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
>>in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and
>>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
>>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
>>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
>>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
>>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
>>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
>>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
>>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
>>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period".
>>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
>>scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For
>>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
>>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular
>>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD xxx xxxx xxxx
>>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th
>>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like
>>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
>>"MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from
>>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
>>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
>>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
>>don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
>>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
>>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
>>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
>>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
>>
>>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
>>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
>>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
>>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
>>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
>>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
>>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
>>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
>>the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
>>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
>>Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a
>>server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer
>>viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly
>>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?)
>>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g.
>>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of
>>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
>>
>>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
>>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
>>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
>>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
>>nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
>>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
>>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
>>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
>>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the
>>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
>>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done
>>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
>>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>
>>>Dear friends,
>>>
>>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
>>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>>>
>>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
>>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>>>
>>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
>>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>>>
>>>to which I add ....
>>>
>>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>>>
>>>____________________
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
>>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
>>>than a direct
>>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
>>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
>>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
>>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
>>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
>>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
>>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
>>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
>>>in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
>>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
>>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
>>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
>>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
>>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
>>>this?
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
>>>involved in writing a response.
>>>
>>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
>>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
>>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
>>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
>>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
>>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
>>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
>>>
>>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
>>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
>>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying .....
>>>
>>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
>>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
>>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
>>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>>>
>>>On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who
>>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
>>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>>>
>>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper --
>>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
>>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
>>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
>>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
>>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
>>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
>>>Soon, and so on).
>>>
>>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
>>>difficult.
>>>
>>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
>>>does get through.
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
>>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>>>
>>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
>>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>>>
>>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
>>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels'
>>>PhD is at the same level).
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>Best wishes to all,
>>>Tom.
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>
>--
>C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
>Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
>Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
>
>NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
>325 Broadway E/CC23
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Internet: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
>
>

_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1051230500.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

Dear friends and colleagues

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.

Warm wishes to all

Jim


On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>
> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
> unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>
> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>
> to which I add ....
>
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>
> ____________________
>
> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
> Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was
> nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
> Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
> complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
> editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
> 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
> it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
> this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
> paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
> ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>
> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
> in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>
> _____________________________
>
> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
> of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
> the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
> Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
> time on this?
>
> _______________________________
>
> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
> involved in writing a response.
>
> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
> for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
> recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow
> it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
> I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
> Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
> response is necessary.
>
> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
> Research (vol. 23, pp. 1

Original Filename: 1170724434.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Return-Path: X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Received:
from tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (tr12g04.aset.psu.edu [128.118.146.130]) by mail.meteo.psu.edu
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 160CA2D00B0 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:53:xxx xxxx xxxx(EST) Received:
from web60817.mail.yahoo.com (web60817.mail.yahoo.com [209.73.178.225]) by
tr12n04.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with SMTP id l160rCcf2019402 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007
19:53:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: (qmail 49251 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2007 00:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Conten
t-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
b=folyoWjSumv93mmwcsECLmtGDEGDd6Y3/mv2WavTLrekb/5qH8IhkAvbh8+QfRCfOALVKIAxeGEmhPVbFkhVMGOET
Ykx4oF2q6wyDIVXVl+BSd06vv8o6hjSKJ/M+li1R05sH7KOixpNoxvSdjQNCDt1US3zQI3bmCWA4epZNw8=;
X-YMail-OSG: gSuRbqAVM1nhqat8Zt4GNlp5xY8qoAOh_P_TmtEgvuaLnZ0ixbR.Ev2V_eFEhTnCZQ-- Received:
from [128.115.27.11] by web60817.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:53:07 PST
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:53:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST) From: Curt Covey Subject: IPCC and sea level
rise, hi-res paleodata, etc. To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer Cc: Jim Hansen ,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Clifford Lee In-Reply-To: <20061229145211.611FC1CE304@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="xxx xxxx xxxx0723187=:47787"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <805971.47787.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 0 Christopher and
Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC's estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen's argument. The IPCC says their estimates are "excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking."
In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today's Journal editorial that the
science is not yet settled. Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks
thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so
years on record, and (2) asserting a "significant cooling the oceans have undergone since
2003" based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others. It is
not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way. It's like trying to figure out
long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today's value of the Dow with last
Tuesday's value.
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's
without showing alternates. Phil's Jones' data was also available at the time. Focusing
so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the
sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc.
It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last
year's NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so. Of
course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth
than anyone else. But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find
that the rate of warming over the last xxx xxxx xxxxyears is unusually high compared with
previous centuries.
Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
on Page 8, "Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . ." The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
-- and would appreciate seeing both Christopher's report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred's comment on Rahmstorf's article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
Curt
Christopher Monckton <monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Dear Mr. Covey - Many thanks for coming back to me so quickly. You mention Hansen's recent
papers. I have recently been looking at an (attached) earlier projection of his - the
projection of temperature increase which he made to the US Congress in 1988, effectively
starting the "global-warming" scare. Updating his graph shows that annual global mean land
and sea surface air temperature is not rising anything like as fast as his
attention-grabbing but now manifestly-misconceived Scenario A suggested. Indeed, it is
beginning to look as though temperature is beginning to fall below his estimate based on
CO2 having been stabilized in 1988. Morner, the world's leading authority on sea level, has
been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC's sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the "consensus", then not only does the "consensus" not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.

As to future world population, I did some research on this several years ago, because the
UN was making alarmist noises and this alerted me to the likelihood that we were being fed
political propaganda masquerading as science. I learned that the prime determinant of dP in
any population is the general level of prosperity in that population. As prosperity
increases, dP tends to zero. The prosperity factor is many times more potent as an
influence on dP than even enforced, artificial contraception or child-killing. Since I
expect world prosperity to increase in the coming century, I regard it as near-certain that
dP will tend to zero in the next half-century. The reason for the plummet thereafter is the
widespread availability and use of artificial methods of birth-control. The combined
effects of rising general prosperity and the general availability of artificial
birth-control on depressing indigenous population are already discernible in all those
Western European populations not having to cope with mass immigration from poorer
countries. In Russia, the indigenous population is falling so fast that Muslims will soon
form more than half the population.

As to the "hockey-stick" problem, the NAS report does state very clearly that, though the
conclusion of Mann et al. is "plausible", evidence going back more than 400 years before
the present is increasingly unreliable, and that very few reliable conclusions can be drawn
if one goes back more than 900 years. This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the
climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are
trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This
should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses: but
anyone with diplomatic knowledge of the fast-emerging, fast-growing fast-polluters such as
China, India, Indonesia and Brazil will tell you that the ruling regimes in these countries
will not try to prevent their people from enjoying the fossil-fuelled economic growth we
have already enjoyed unless and until the science is honest, the uncertainties are admitted
and the case is strengthened by the accumulation of measurements and the improvement of
analytical techniques in the coming years.

Finally, you are right to take me to task for using words such as "rubbish" and "useless".
I apologize. That said, a validation skill not significantly different from zero indicates
that no valid scientific conclusion may be drawn from the "hockey-stick" graph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Covey"
To: "Christopher Monckton"
Subject: Sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:05:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST)
Dear Dr. Monckton,
Thanks for copying me on your correspondence with Fred and prompting me to look again at
IPCC sea level rise estimates for 2100. I agree you are comparing like-for-like. The
2001 report has an upper limit of 0.7 meters for the A1B scenario. If the 2007 report
lowers this to 0.43 meters (or if the number gets raised again before the report is made
final) it will certainly be appropriate to ask why. After reading Hansen's recent
papers, I don't see how to justify such small upper limits.
It also seems obvious to me (and apparently to you but not to Fred) that the A2 scenario
would entail more sea level rise than A1B. Regarding the relative likelihoods of
scenarios, I don't agree with you that it's "almost certain" that world population will
"plummet" in the second half of this century.
Regarding the issue of recent vs. earlier global warming, when I look at the totality of
data compiled by North et al. this year for their NAS / NRC report (see attached
graphic), it seems clear that most of the warming since about 1850 (or 1900) occurred in
recent decades. Going farther back in time, the data are of course more uncertain and
estimates vary, but it appears that the warming rate for the 20th century was unusually
high compared with the past 2000 years. This conclusion follows whether or not one
includes Mike Mann's data.
For the record, I must add that I do not share your characterization of Mann's work as
"rubbish" or "useless." Nor do I see a situation of "flagrant dishonesty in which the
UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and
extreme claims has been properly demonstrated."
Sincerely,
Curt Covey
Christopher Monckton <monckton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Dear Fred, - Many thanks for sending me this exchange. Some comments:



Temperature: This question, like so many others to do with supposed "climate change", is
bedevilled by the recency of reliable, instrument-based observations. Nevertheless, some
conclusions can be attempted. The Dalton Minimum is generally considered to have come to an
end in 1910. The five-year mean global land and sea surface air temperature anomaly for
1xxx xxxx xxxx, calculated from NCDC annual figures, was --0.3579K. By 1940 there had been a
rapid increase of 0.4700K to +1121K. By 2004 (again taking the five-year average, including
2006) there had been a further increase of +0.4413K to +0.5534. The mean annual increase in
the 30 years 1xxx xxxx xxxxwas thus 0.0157K more than two and a quarter times greater than the
0.0069K mean annual increase in the 64 years to 2004. Mean global temperature has hardly
risen at all in the five years since the IPCC's last report. And the fact of the
20th-century temperature increase tells us nothing of the cause. It is interesting, for
instance, that the polar icecaps on Mars are receding, inferentially in response to
increased solar activity. At any rate, it is certain that anthropogenic planetary warming
is not responsible. It is possible, therefore, that most of the warming both before and
after 1940 was heliogenic.



Sea level: Your correspondent does not disagree with my statement that the IPCC has revised
its upper-bound estimate of sea level rise to 17 inches (0.43m). He says, however, that
this upper bound is based on the A1 scenario, by which world population will peak in
mid-century at ~9bn and fall thereafter. So was the 2001 report's upper bound of 0.88m. I
was correctly comparing like for like. The Sunday Telegraph, which reported these figures,
has been told that the revisions arise from "better data" now available to the IPCC,
supporting skeptics' conclusions that the IPCC's figures are little better than exaggerated
guesses. Morner (2004) concludes firmly that there is little evidence for sea level rising
any faster now than it has in geologically-recent times. Your correspondent says that the
A2 scenario is "business-as-usual": in fact, it is an extreme scenario regarded by very
nearly all serious demographers as absurdly unrealistic, in that it posits an increase in
world population to 15bn by 2100, when it is now almost certain that rising prosperity and
the consequent decrease in birth rates will cause population to peak somewhere between 9bn
and 10bn in mid-century, and plummet thereafter.



Reliability of the IPCC's reports: I understand that the IPCC's 2007 draft does not contain
an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of
Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from
zero". In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have
confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the
peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been
useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to
use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the
main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".

The supposed scientific "consensus": Your correspondent seems unaware of the letter written
by 61 Canadian and other scientists in climate and related fields to the Canadian Prime
Minister. At the end of the attached commentary on Al Gore's recent attempt to rebut my
articles on climate change in the Sunday Telegraph, beneath the references, I have appended
the full text of the letter and the names, qualifications and then-current affiliations of
all 61 scientists. Al gore and others tend to lean rather more heavily than is wise upon a
single, rather bad one-page essay in Science for their contention that there is a
scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was
anthropogenic. The essay was by Oreskes (2004), who said that she had analyzed 928
abstracts mentioning "climate change" published in peer-reviewed journals on the Thomson
ISI database between 1993 and 2003, and that none of the 928 had expressed dissent from the
"consensus". Dr. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University subsequently made a more
careful enquiry. Science had been compelled to publish an erratum to the effect that the
search term used by Oreskes had not been the neutral "climate change" - which returned some
12,000 articles, but the more loaded "global climate change", which returned 1,117
articles. Of these, Dr. Peiser found that only 1% had explicitly endorsed the "consensus"
as defined by Oreskes"; that almost three times as many had explicitly expressed doubt or
outright disagreement; and that less than one-third had expressed explicit or implicit
agreement with the "consensus". He wrote a paper for Science pointing out these serious
defects, which pointed to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Oreskes. Science
at first asked him to shorten his paper, and then said that, because conclusions like his
had been widely reported on the internet, his paper would not be published. As far as I can
discover, Science has not published any corrigendum to this day, providing further
confirmation of what I have long suspected: that the leading peer-reviewed journals, having
unwisely taken strongly-political editorial positions on the question of climate change,
are no longer objective.



The need for honest science: It was only after years of increasingly-public pressure that
Nature was induced to oblige Mann et al., the authors of the useless "hockey-stick" graph
that starred in the IPCC's 2001 report, to publish a mealy-mouthed, partial and
unsatisfactory corrigendum. In such an environment of flagrant dishonesty in which the UN
and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme
claims has been properly demonstrated, it is in my view unreasonable to expect China,
India, Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-polluting countries to deny to themselves the
fossil-fuelled economic growth which we in the West have been fortunate enough to enjoy.
Until there is honest science, no one will believe either the UN or the journals to the
extent of adopting the expensive and (on my calculations) probably futile remedial measures
which they and their supporters so stridently advocate. - Christopher

----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Fred Singer"
To: "Curt Covey"
Subject: Re: Belated response to "Say You're Sorry"
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
At 07:15 PM 12/18/2006, Curt Covey wrote:

Received your 5 May 2006 e-mail via Andy Revkin last week. Regarding the Wall Street
Journal and "other forums that substitute quips, showmanship, hyperbole, and conjecture
for substantial discussion," the following recent quips from their Letters to the Editor
may interest you:
Fred Singer's claim (13 December) that "more than 70% of the warming observed since the
end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 occurred before 1940, and thus before much
human-emitted CO2." Fred has been saying this for a long time. I think it was true 20
years ago. Up-to-date records (e.g. this year's NAS report from North et al.) show that
much more than half the warming since c.1850 has occurred after 1940.

Dear Curt, I am sure you are aware of the fact that such ratios depend entirely on
the choice of time intervals. I don't want to quibble but surely the relevant fact
is that most agree (incl IPCC -- but not Tom Wigley) that the pre-1940 warming was
mostly due to natural causes.

Lord Monckton's claim (13 December) that "The U.N. [presumably IPCC] is about to cut its
high-end estimate of sea-level rise in 2100 from three feet to just 17 inches." We are
not supposed to discuss IPCC reports before they become final, but the last draft I saw
does indeed project 17 inches (0.43 meters) of sea-level rise as the high-end climate
model estimate from Emissions Scenario A1B. The scenario itself, however, is one in
which (to quote IPCC) "global population peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter,
and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies" has atmospheric CO2
leveling off by the end of the century. A business-as-usual scenario (like A2) would
give much higher sea-level rise by 2100.

I don't think so. But you will have to read my forthcoming response to Rahmstorf (in
SciencExpress). Meanwhile, peruse the attached.

Senator Inhofe's comment today (18 December) that "60 scientists" together with "Claude
Allegre, a leading French scientist who is a member of both the U.S. and French National
Academies of Sciences" have concluded that agreements like Kyoto are "unnecessary"
because "the cause of global warming is 'unknown.'" Presumably true, but so what?
Allegre is an award-winning geochemist; the other 60 scientists are unidentified. There
are tens of thousands of members of the American Geophysical Union alone (many of whom
are petroleum geologists). I'm sure you can find a few hundred to support any claim you
want to make about global warming.

I am one of the xxx xxxx xxxxand I am sure you know most of the other 59.
Best for 2007! Fred

S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 S. Eads St, #712-S
Arlington, VA 22xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: 703/xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http ://[2]www.sepp.org
<singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Read about what is really causing warming
Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years
(Natural climate cycles as seen in the geological record)
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
Rowman & Littlefield (20xxx xxxx xxxxpp. $25.00 plus $5 S&H
Send tax-deductible donations to SEPP
<< Supreme arguments2.doc >>

--

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com << nrc_2006_figS1.jpg >>

--
______________________________________________________________________________________

Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. [3]Get started! Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachcovey_glwarm_Feb07.pdf"

References

Visible links
1. http://www.sepp.org/
2. http://www.sepp.org/
3. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

Hidden links:
4. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=en-mail_a_01
5. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=en-mail_a_01

Original Filename: 1200421039.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Differences in our series (GISS/HadCRUT3)
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

At 21:39 14/01/2008, you wrote:

To be removed from Jim Hansen's e-mail list respond with REMOVE as subject
Discussion of 2007 GISS global temperature analysis is posted at Solar and Southern
Oscillations
[1]http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf
Jim

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf

Original Filename: 1200651426.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "James Hansen" <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Dueling climates]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Karl, Tom" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Reto Ruedy" <rruedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks, Phil. Here is a way that Reto likes to list the rankings that come out of our
version of land-ocean index.
rank LOTI
xxx xxxx xxxx.62C
xxx xxxx xxxx.57C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.57C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.56C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.55C
2xxx xxxx xxxx.54C
xxx xxxx xxxx.49C
i.e., the second through sixth are in a statistical tie for second in our analysis. This
seems useful, and most reporters are sort of willing to accept it. Given differences in
treating the Arctic etc., there will be substantial differences in rankings. I would be a
bit surprised is #7 (2004) jumpred ahead to be #2 in someone else's analysis, but perhaps
even that is possible, given the magnitude of these differences.
Jim

On Jan 18, 2008 5:03 AM, Phil Jones <[1]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Kevin,
When asked I always say the differences are due to the cross-Arctic extrapolation.
Also
as you say there is an issue of SST/MAT coming in from ships/buoys in the Arctic. HadCRUT3
(really HadSST2) doesn't use these where there isn't a xxx xxxx xxxxclimatology - a lot of areas
with sea ice in most/some years in the base period. Using fixed SST values of -1.8C is
possible for months with sea ice, but is likely to be wrong. MAT would be impossible to
develop xxx xxxx xxxxclimatologies for when sea ice was there. This is an issue that will have to
addressed at some point as the sea ice disappears. Maybe we could develop possible
approaches using some AMIP type Arctic RCM simulations?
Agreeing on the ranks is the hardest of all measures. Uncertainties in global averages
are of the order of +/- 0.05 for one sigma, so any difference between years of less than
0.1
isn't significant. We (MOHC/CRU) put annual values in press releases, but we also put
errors. UK newspapers quote these, and the journalists realise about uncertainties, but
prefer
to use the word accuracy.
We only make the press releases to get the numbers out at one time, and focus
all the calls. We do this through WMO, who want the release in mid-Dec.
There is absolutely no sense of duelling in this. We would be criticised if there
were just
one analysis. The science is pushing for multiple analyses of the same measure - partly
to make sure people remember RSS and not just believe UAH. As we all know, NOAA/NASA
and HadCRUT3 are all much closer than RSS and UAH!
I know we all know all the above. I try to address this when talking to journalists, but
they generally ignore this level of detail.
I'll be in Boulder the week after next at the IDAG meeting (Jan 28-30) and another
meeting Jan30/Feb 1. Tom will be also.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:12 18/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

FYI
See the discussion below.

Original Filename: 1220039621.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paper on smoothing
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Curtis Covey <covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
yeah, its statistically real, but an artifact almost certainly of
natural variability. As Josh Willis nicely pointed out in a recent
interview, anyone citing this as a reason to doubt the reality of
anthropogenic climate change is like a vegas roller thinking he can beat
the system because he's on a momentary winning streak...

m

Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> Curt,
>
> At this point the leveling off is more of a Blog myth than any change
> point scientific analysis
>
> Tom
> Kevin Trenberth said the following on 8/29/2008 3:47 PM:
>> No
>> Kevin
>>
>> Curtis Covey wrote:
>>> Very interesting. Does it mean that the apparent leveling-off of
>>> global mean surface temperature since the turn of the century is due
>>> to "artificial suppression of trends near the time series boundaries" ?
>>>
>>> - Curt
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> dear all,
>>>>
>>>> attached is a paper of mine (GRL) on time series smoothing that
>>>> might be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

website: http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
"Dire Predictions" book site: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.html


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1255318331.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:32:xxx xxxx xxxx(PDT)

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC

Original Filename: 1255352257.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.


[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/


BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.


Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?


Narasimha


-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx


--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1255352444.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[1]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[2]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics views.


[3]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[4]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/


BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.


Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?


Narasimha


-------------------------------
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx


--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [5]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

Visible links
1. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
4. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
7. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Hidden links:
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1255496484.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n9E71pl4015864

<x-flowed>
Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
> asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
> days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
> the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also
> a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January
> weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
> and then played last night in below freezing weather).
>
> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
> tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>
> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
>
> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are
> tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.
> Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It
> surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to
> El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
> since Sept 2007. see
> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>
> Kevin
>
> Michael Mann wrote:
>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
>> particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC
>> (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly
>> a weather person at the Met Office.
>>
>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might
>> be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might
>> ask Richard Black what's up here?
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and
>>> signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author"
>>> from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the
>>> sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
>>> tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely
>>> be another dramatic upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard
>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money
>>> on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of
>>> global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest
>>> in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of
>>> the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably
>>> do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such
>>> "fun", Cheers, Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen H. Schneider
>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental
>>> Studies,
>>> Professor, Department of Biology and
>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
>>> Mailing address:
>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
>>> 473 Via Ortega
>>> Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> F: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> Websites: climatechange.net
>>> patientfromhell.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC

Original Filename: 1255523796.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent

lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at

the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second

method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not

agree with this.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here
in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather
(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on
a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is
the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing
with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
since Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
g_current.ppt

Kevin

Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a
few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was
willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10
years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in
reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big
retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my
student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve

Stephen H. Schneider

Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,

Professor, Department of Biology and

Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

Mailing address:

Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205

473 Via Ortega

Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx

F: xxx xxxx xxxx

Websites: climatechange.net

patientfromhell.org

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[4]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[6]mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics' views.

[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

-------------------------------

PhD Candidate,

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)

Stanford University

Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx

--

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[10]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
<[12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--

****************

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Climate Analysis Section, [15]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

NCAR

P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx

Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [16]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [17]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [22]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
8. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
16. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Original Filename: 1255530325.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the
CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can
"explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/
the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability
that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this
has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent

lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at

the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second

method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not

agree with this.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here
in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather
(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on
a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is
the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing
with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
since Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
g_current.ppt

Kevin

Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a
few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was
willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10
years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in
reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big
retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my
student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve

Stephen H. Schneider

Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,

Professor, Department of Biology and

Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

Mailing address:

Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205

473 Via Ortega

Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx

F: xxx xxxx xxxx

Websites: climatechange.net

patientfromhell.org

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[3]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[4]mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics views.

[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

-------------------------------

PhD Candidate,

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)

Stanford University

Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx

--

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[7]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
<[8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--

****************

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

NCAR

P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx

Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [12]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [13]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [15]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[16]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
12. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
16. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Hidden links:
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1255532032.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the
observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model
projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming,
is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is
always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing"
fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be
disagreement,

mike

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent

lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at

the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf
for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations
from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second

method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not

agree with this.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here
in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather
(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on
a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is
the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing
with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
since Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
g_current.ppt

Kevin

Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a
few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
dramatic upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was
willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10
years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in
reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big
retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my
student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve

Stephen H. Schneider

Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,

Professor, Department of Biology and

Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

Mailing address:

Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205

473 Via Ortega

Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx

F: xxx xxxx xxxx

Websites: climatechange.net

patientfromhell.org

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[4]mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[6]mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics views.

[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

-------------------------------

PhD Candidate,

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)

Stanford University

Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx

--

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx

The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[10]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
<[12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--

****************

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Climate Analysis Section, [15]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

NCAR

P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx

Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [16]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [17]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [21]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [22]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [23]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [24]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[25]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
8. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
16. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
23. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
25. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Hidden links:
26. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1255550975.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Kevin,

I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
>>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
>>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
>>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
>>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
>>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
>>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
>>> weather).
>>>
>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
>>> tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
>>> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
>>> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>>>
>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
>>> moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published
>>> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
>>> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
>>> inadequate.
>>>
>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
>>> are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
>>> ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
>>> PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
>>> switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
>>> first time since Sept 2007. see
>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
>>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
>>>> might ask Richard Black what's up here?
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and
>>>>> signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author"
>>>>> from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the
>>>>> sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
>>>>> tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will
>>>>> likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1xxx xxxx xxxx. I heard
>>>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money
>>>>> on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of
>>>>> global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the
>>>>> warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea
>>>>> ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
>>>>> probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests
>>>>> below. Such "fun", Cheers, Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider
>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental
>>>>> Studies,
>>>>> Professor, Department of Biology and
>>>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
>>>>> Mailing address:
>>>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
>>>>> 473 Via Ortega
>>>>> Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> F: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net
>>>>> patientfromhell.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada
>>>>> Pacific
>>>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC