The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 897669409.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: j.burgess@uea
Subject: Re: report- edit this and send an email
Date: Fri Jun 12 12:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Return-path: <m.baillie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Envelope-to: f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Delivery-date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:42:11 +0100
>X-Sender: mbaillie@143.117.30.62
>Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:42:31 +0000
>To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: Mike Baillie <m.baillie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: report- edit this and send an email
>
>Keith, here are some thoughts on belfast work. Come back to me on this.
>Cheers Mike
>
>10K Belfast Report.
>
>All the remaining long chronology (prehistoric) oak data from Ireland,
>England, north and south Germany (including the major Hohenhein holdings
>(2827 tree series spanning 8239 BC to 841 AD) and the Netherlands (667
>series spanning 6025 BC with gaps to 1721 AD) has now been centralised and
>screened.
>Work has been progressing on calculating running statistics on and between
>these data sets and their constituent ring patterns. Additional attention
>has been paid to attempting to understand/interpret the data in various
>ways. During the year, three principal work packages have been explored
>with respect to assessing the oak data.
>
>work package i)
>signatures
>With such a wide grid of chronologies it is possible to review the
>occurrence of years of common growth trend. Signatures are normally
>defined as those years in which 80% or more of all trees in a 'region'
>exhibit the same trend towards wider or narrower growth. All sub-regional
>and overall European signatures have been isolated and the intention is to
>re-do the 1985 analysis of Kelly et al. comparing rainfall, temperature and
>drought index data with the ocurrence of widespread signatures.
>
>work package ii)
>Stepped windows of correlation
>With the availability of the raw data from each laboratory all regional
>chronologies for Ireland, Britain, North Germany and South Germany have
>been reconstructed by standard means (initially fitting a 30-year spline to
>each individual tree-ring pattern). Using these standardised chronologies,
>stepped windows of correlation have been run comparing all regions across
>time back to 5000 BC. Notable changes are observed indicating periods of
>consistent, north-European-wide similarity and dis-similarity. The
>availability of the raw data then allows interrogation of anomalies. For
>example, there is a notable fall-off in correlation between the
>standardised Irish and English chronologies at AD 775 to 825. In the past
>this would have been attributed to aspects such as a) poor replication or
>b) narrow versus wide rings. In this case examination of these aspects
>showed that neither was the cause of the poor correlation; it appears that
>English and Irish trees were responding in completely opposite manner
>during this period. Such findings have important implications for both
>identifying and interrogating such episodes throughout the record.
>
>work package iii)
>Widest and narrowest rings.
>It had always been assumed that the widest (or narrowest) ring in any tree,
>in any year, would be idiosyncratic. This assumption produced the
>expectation that the information from such extremes would be largely
>meaningless. With the availability of the raw data it is now possible to
>create new chronologies of the 1st narrowest, and or the 2nd/3rd narrowest,
>the widest, etc, rings in each year, for each region, or for the entire
>regional dataset. The result of isolating these extremes turns out to be
>surprising in that plots of the extremes show remarkable coherence. Figure
>Z shows a section of the Irish chronology constructed from the widest (and
>narrowest) raw ring widths (the narrowest values being converted to indices
>for clarity). This presentation shows the 'maximum envelope of oak growth'
>year by year through time. This is a remarkable way to demonstrate periods
>when there are no narrow rings in any trees and others where there are no
>wide rings in any trees. Extreme events such as that in AD 540 can be seen
>as an overall downturn in the ring width envelope, not just a reduction in
>mean ring width.
>
>Extreme events.
>Work has continued documenting extreme events in the European oak, and
>other, records, partly as a preliminary to the detailed comparison between
>the oak and Fennoscandian and Finnish pine chronologies. Some of the
>events appear to be of a sufficiently global character that their effects
>should be apparent in the more temperature sensitive northern pine
>chronologies. Recently preliminary work has documented declines in the
>seventeenth century and twelfth century BC and in the later fifth century
>BC. Notable declines in the 1620s and 1120s in Foxtail pine chronologies
>from the Sierra Nevada (Scuderi 1993; Caprio and Baisan 1991) suggest
>reduced temperatures around the time of spaced events in the floating
>Fennoscandian record. With several exactly-spaced events available over
>several millennia it should be possible to link the major oak and pine
>holdings, with the additional possibility of using dated English and Irish
>sub-fossil pine chronologies to confirm linkages.
>Refs
>Caprio, A.C. and Baisan, C.H. 1992. Multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies
>from foxtail pine in the southern Sierras of California. Abstract in
>Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 73, 133.
>
>Scuderi, L.A. 1993, A 2000-Year Tree-Ring Record of Annual Temperatures in
>the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Science 259, 1433-6
>
>
>Related applications:
>
>Interhemispheric Radiocarbon Calibration
>In addition collaboration has continued on a range of topics including
>interhemispheric radiocarbon calibration. Oak samples from Ireland and
>exactly contemporaneous samples of cedar from New Zealand have been measued
>in radiocarbon laboratories in Belfast and Waikato (samples from each
>hemisphere being dated in both laboratories). This work is showing
>interesting hemispheric changes through time with implications for carbon
>cycle modellers (related paper accepted for publication).
>
>Global tree-ring responses to environmental change.
>As part of our network of collaborators, it is possible to have access to
>tree-ring patterns and related temperature reconstructions from a wide grid
>of chronologies outside Europe. An example of the power of such grids is
>provided by the observed changes during the fourteenth century AD. Here
>chronologies from the EU oak group have been combined with those from Ed
>Cook (Tasmanian Huon pine); Keith Briffa (Fennoscandian and Polar Urals
>pine); Peter Kuniholm (Aegean oak and pine) and Xiong Limin (New Zealand
>cedar). When permed (random groups of five from seven chronologies) to
>show common responses, the overall pattern exhibits reduced growth in the
>1340s, the decade of the arrival of the Black Death in Europe, see Figure.
>Such a clear environmental context for the plague has never been available
>before.
>
>Comparisons with other proxy data.
>The strict annual character of tree-ring data is only truly comparable with
>precisely dated human records. For the early fourteenth century
>surprisingly complete records exist from England for crop yields and
>prices. In an attempt to compare two different but parallel proxy records,
>namely those for tree growth and for crop prices, collaboration with
>economic historians (Prof. Bruce Campbell Econ. and Soc. Hist. QUB) has
>been initiated. Preliminary plots of robust, screened European master
>chronologies against grain prices reveals surprising levels of common trend.
>
>Innundated trees
>As part of an effort to understand physiological response of oak to
>waterlogging, 21 oaks were sampled at garryland Wood, County Galway. These
>trees grow in a limestone area which is flooded in some winters to depths
>of 10s of metres, for durations up to months. Some of the trees exhibit
>scar damage almost certainly from bark burst during submersion. Scars
>appear to to coincide with winters of higher than average rainfall. The
>fact that the trees are not submerged during the growing season means that
>they do not show the extreme dieback and micro-rings associated with trees
>left standing in permanent water, such as examples from beside Loch Lomond,
>Scotland.
>
>Publications with Grant number
>
>Baillie, M.G.L. 1996 Chronology of the Bronze Age 2354 BC to 401 BC. Acta
>Archaeologica 67, xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>Baillie, M.G.L. 1998 Evidence for climatic deterioration in the 12th and
>17th centuries BC. in H
Original Filename: 907339897.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,evag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: INTAS,Vienna and Norwich
Date: Fri Oct 2 10:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Stepan and Eugene ( and Fritz),
I have now receivd contracts from The EC for the INTAS work.
I have received the real signed Power Of Attorney form from Stepan , but not from Eugene.
It seems I must have both . I am a bit reluctant to forge Eugene's signature! We will need to think about how the money should be handled . Also please all go back and look at the document I wrote and be sure you are happy with the committment. The most important new aspect is the biomass work and I think new , or additional collections need to be taken to look at the growth of young , medium and old trees separately through time. We have very few recent young and middle age trees in recent years. We could consider using data along north/south transects (how goes the status of the Siberian Transect?).
Also, I must go to Vienna in 2 weeks to present the results of ADVANCE10K . We have a meeting of this group here in Norwich in November but I am very sorry that I have no funds to invite you to attend this. Could you afford a meeting some time , perhaps in a neutral spot where we all (including Fritz) might get together to talk about the INTAS work and future EC work? A state of the art report of progress of the Taimyr and Yamal work is needed very soon ( by email),also so that I can report on it in Vienna and Norwich. I am also writing a paper for PAGES for the book of the conference in London that Rashit attended. I will include a report of both projects , hopefully with some Figures of the data distribution or plots of the some version of the curves themselves ( along with others at high latitudes) . I would appreciate new copies of the full dated raw data sets , in Tucson compact format, to produce some curves in a standard style. I would like to compare changing variance through time at different wave lengths and perhaps co spectra.
As for money on ADVANCE10K, I initially was awarded 50,000ECU to be split between Krasnoyarsk and Ekaterinburg. Because of exchange rate changes , which have gone against us continually since the start of the project, this is now worth between 0.2 and 0.25 LESS than it did then. I have looked at the remaining money and I think I can give you each a final payment of between 4000 and 4500 US dollars. This is not definate - but it is pretty definate! I hope this means you may be able to do this year's fieldwork. We need to think also about how and if this should be coordinted with the INTAS work - but maybe not? How about some discussion by email regarding these points. I look forward to a quick reply.
my best wishes
Keith
Original Filename: 939141116.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@uea, p.jones@uea, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tim,
Thanks for the information. I don't want to speak for Tom Karl, but I think it
may be a bit too late (past the Oct 1 deadline) to make further revisions
in the draft 1.0. It would be a bit of an imposition on Tom at this point
given what he's been through in finalizing the draft. However, I see no
reason that we can't make that revision when the paper comes back from
expert review in a couple months. We'll have the further advantage that
the supporting manuscript you describe should be available at that point
(a requirement in the IPCC peer-review process). I think we'll all be
looking forward to updating the plot w/ the latest series you describe...
As for decisions about the most appropriate baseline period to use for the
series, that is as you point out an important issue and one we have to
consider with some circumspection, especially if a "modern" calibration
(e.g., 1xxx xxxx xxxx) to the instrumental record gives a substantially
different alignment
from the more 19th century-oriented calibration you describe. The tradeoff
of course is that the instrumental series itself is considerably less certain
prior to the 20th century while, as you point out, the non-climatic influence
on tree growth may be setting in by the mid 20th century. Something I think
we can iron out satisfactorily at the next juncture.
I hope the above sounds ok to you guys. Let me know. Thanks,
mike
At 04:18 PM 10/5/99 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
>Dear Mike and Ian
>
>Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
>reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
>attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
>stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
>is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
>smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
>the same filter was used for all curves.
>
>The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
>that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
>different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
>is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
>from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
>for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
>
>A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
>method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
>other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
>Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
>Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
>Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
>density network. In preparation.
>Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
>completion.
>
>I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
>curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
>eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
>series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
>what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
>figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).
>
>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1xxx xxxx xxxxmatches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1xxx xxxx xxxxbut I don't see that this improves
>things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod.
>
>If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
>me and/or Keith.
>
>Best regards
>
>Tim
>
>Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N
>
>
>Year Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.283
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.334
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.124
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.220
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.129
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.386
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.319
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.172
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.322
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.282
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.143
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.411
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.160
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.105
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.357
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.137
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.358
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.199
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.366
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.397
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.230
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.209
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.237
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.056
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.376
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.513
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.327
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.208
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.125
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.245
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.244
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.146
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.394
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.526
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.264
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.233
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.415
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.306
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.011
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.157
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.162
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.135
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.180
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.166
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.035
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.384
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.302
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.541
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.467
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.586
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.417
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.451
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.398
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.584
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.448
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.009
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.047
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.285
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.419
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.347
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.202
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.445
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.488
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.674
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.324
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.273
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.623
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.483
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.551
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.409
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.580
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.530
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.591
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.475
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.403
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.414
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.472
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.564
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.822
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.789
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.617
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.681
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.733
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.524
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.706
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.714
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.662
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.387
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.566
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.665
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.759
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.654
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.396
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.067
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.092
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.649
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.632
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.554
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.368
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.572
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.215
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.268
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.332
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.182
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.260
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.440
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.837
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.857
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.779
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.871
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.463
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.663
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.870
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.523
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.794
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.768
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.701
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.518
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.369
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.688
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.481
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.229
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.254
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.316
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.955
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.687
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.054
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.630
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.818
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.510
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.420
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.527
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.344
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.242
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.110
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.427
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.249
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.633
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.723
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.426
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.373
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.206
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.557
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.734
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.594
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.808
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.501
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.150
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.389
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.168
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.227
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.259
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.431
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.340
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.429
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.544
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.547
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.421
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.186
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.550
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.339
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.164
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.757
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.179
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.023
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.030
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.243
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.028
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.228
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.117
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.020
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.089
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.582
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.458
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.855
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.861
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.629
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.680
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.246
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.276
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.140
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.293
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.033
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.087
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.045
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.621
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.660
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.647
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.775
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.771
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.267
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.144
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.077
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.435
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.101
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.106
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.079
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.165
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.250
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.538
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.126
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.029
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.555
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.303
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.437
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.119
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.321
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.213
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.352
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.487
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.120
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.184
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.717
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.281
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.153
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.313
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.065
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.574
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.205
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.034
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.214
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.147
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.297
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.198
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.018
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.081
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.057
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.007
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.019
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.060
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.113
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.053
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.059
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.038
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.107
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.269
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.118
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.127
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.474
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.171
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.599
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.355
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.563
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.262
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.336
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.507
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.558
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.363
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.522
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.423
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.430
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.424
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa et al.ps"
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
>University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
>UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
Original Filename: 939154709.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@uea,p.jones@uea
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
density network. In preparation.
Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
completion.
I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).
With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1xxx xxxx xxxxmatches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1xxx xxxx xxxxbut I don't see that this improves
things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod.
If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
me and/or Keith.
Best regards
Tim
Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1xxx xxxx xxxx
averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N
Year Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
1xxx xxxx xxxx.283
1xxx xxxx xxxx.334
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.124
1xxx xxxx xxxx.220
1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.129
1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
1xxx xxxx xxxx.386
1xxx xxxx xxxx.319
1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
1xxx xxxx xxxx.172
1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.322
1xxx xxxx xxxx.282
1xxx xxxx xxxx.143
1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
1xxx xxxx xxxx.411
1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.160
1xxx xxxx xxxx.105
1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
1xxx xxxx xxxx.357
1xxx xxxx xxxx.137
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.358
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.199
1xxx xxxx xxxx.366
1xxx xxxx xxxx.397
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.230
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.209
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.237
1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
1xxx xxxx xxxx.056
1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
1xxx xxxx xxxx.376
1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
1xxx xxxx xxxx.513
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.327
1xxx xxxx xxxx.208
1xxx xxxx xxxx.125
1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
1xxx xxxx xxxx.245
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.244
1xxx xxxx xxxx.146
1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
1xxx xxxx xxxx.394
1xxx xxxx xxxx.526
1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
1xxx xxxx xxxx.264
1xxx xxxx xxxx.233
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.415
1xxx xxxx xxxx.306
1xxx xxxx xxxx.011
1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.157
1xxx xxxx xxxx.162
1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
1xxx xxxx xxxx.135
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.180
1xxx xxxx xxxx.166
1xxx xxxx xxxx.035
1xxx xxxx xxxx.384
1xxx xxxx xxxx.302
1xxx xxxx xxxx.541
1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.467
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.586
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.417
1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
1xxx xxxx xxxx.451
1xxx xxxx xxxx.398
1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
1xxx xxxx xxxx.584
1xxx xxxx xxxx.448
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.009
1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
1xxx xxxx xxxx.047
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.285
1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.419
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.347
1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
1xxx xxxx xxxx.202
1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
1xxx xxxx xxxx.445
1xxx xxxx xxxx.488
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
1xxx xxxx xxxx.674
1xxx xxxx xxxx.324
1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
1xxx xxxx xxxx.273
1xxx xxxx xxxx.623
1xxx xxxx xxxx.483
1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
1xxx xxxx xxxx.551
1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
1xxx xxxx xxxx.409
1xxx xxxx xxxx.580
1xxx xxxx xxxx.530
1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
1xxx xxxx xxxx.591
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
1xxx xxxx xxxx.475
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.403
1xxx xxxx xxxx.414
1xxx xxxx xxxx.472
1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
1xxx xxxx xxxx.564
1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
1xxx xxxx xxxx.822
1xxx xxxx xxxx.789
1xxx xxxx xxxx.617
1xxx xxxx xxxx.681
1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
1xxx xxxx xxxx.733
1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.524
1xxx xxxx xxxx.706
1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
1xxx xxxx xxxx.714
1xxx xxxx xxxx.662
1xxx xxxx xxxx.387
1xxx xxxx xxxx.566
1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
1xxx xxxx xxxx.665
1xxx xxxx xxxx.759
1xxx xxxx xxxx.654
1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.396
1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.067
1xxx xxxx xxxx.092
1xxx xxxx xxxx.649
1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
1xxx xxxx xxxx.632
1xxx xxxx xxxx.554
1xxx xxxx xxxx.368
1xxx xxxx xxxx.572
1xxx xxxx xxxx.215
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
1xxx xxxx xxxx.268
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.332
1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
1xxx xxxx xxxx.182
1xxx xxxx xxxx.260
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.440
1xxx xxxx xxxx.837
1xxx xxxx xxxx.857
1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
1xxx xxxx xxxx.779
1xxx xxxx xxxx.871
1xxx xxxx xxxx.463
1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
1xxx xxxx xxxx.663
1xxx xxxx xxxx.870
1xxx xxxx xxxx.523
1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
1xxx xxxx xxxx.794
1xxx xxxx xxxx.768
1xxx xxxx xxxx.701
1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
1xxx xxxx xxxx.518
1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
1xxx xxxx xxxx.369
1xxx xxxx xxxx.688
1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
1xxx xxxx xxxx.481
1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
1xxx xxxx xxxx.229
1xxx xxxx xxxx.254
1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
1xxx xxxx xxxx.316
1xxx xxxx xxxx.955
1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
1xxx xxxx xxxx.687
1xxx xxxx xxxx.054
1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
1xxx xxxx xxxx.630
1xxx xxxx xxxx.818
1xxx xxxx xxxx.510
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.420
1xxx xxxx xxxx.527
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
1xxx xxxx xxxx.344
1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
1xxx xxxx xxxx.242
1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.110
1xxx xxxx xxxx.427
1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
1xxx xxxx xxxx.249
1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.633
1xxx xxxx xxxx.723
1xxx xxxx xxxx.426
1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.373
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.206
1xxx xxxx xxxx.557
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.734
1xxx xxxx xxxx.594
1xxx xxxx xxxx.808
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.501
1xxx xxxx xxxx.150
1xxx xxxx xxxx.389
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.168
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.227
1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
1xxx xxxx xxxx.259
1xxx xxxx xxxx.431
1xxx xxxx xxxx.340
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
1xxx xxxx xxxx.429
1xxx xxxx xxxx.544
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.547
1xxx xxxx xxxx.421
1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.186
1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
1xxx xxxx xxxx.550
1xxx xxxx xxxx.339
1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
1xxx xxxx xxxx.164
1xxx xxxx xxxx.757
1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.179
1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
1xxx xxxx xxxx.023
1xxx xxxx xxxx.030
1xxx xxxx xxxx.243
1xxx xxxx xxxx.028
1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
1xxx xxxx xxxx.228
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
1xxx xxxx xxxx.117
1xxx xxxx xxxx.020
1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
1xxx xxxx xxxx.089
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
1xxx xxxx xxxx.582
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
1xxx xxxx xxxx.458
1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
1xxx xxxx xxxx.855
1xxx xxxx xxxx.861
1xxx xxxx xxxx.629
1xxx xxxx xxxx.680
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
1xxx xxxx xxxx.246
1xxx xxxx xxxx.276
1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
1xxx xxxx xxxx.140
1xxx xxxx xxxx.293
1xxx xxxx xxxx.033
1xxx xxxx xxxx.087
1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
1xxx xxxx xxxx.045
1xxx xxxx xxxx.621
1xxx xxxx xxxx.660
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.647
1xxx xxxx xxxx.775
1xxx xxxx xxxx.771
1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
1xxx xxxx xxxx.267
1xxx xxxx xxxx.144
1xxx xxxx xxxx.077
1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
1xxx xxxx xxxx.435
1xxx xxxx xxxx.101
1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
1xxx xxxx xxxx.106
1xxx xxxx xxxx.079
1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.165
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.250
1xxx xxxx xxxx.538
1xxx xxxx xxxx.126
1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
1xxx xxxx xxxx.029
1xxx xxxx xxxx.555
1xxx xxxx xxxx.303
1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.437
1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
1xxx xxxx xxxx.119
1xxx xxxx xxxx.321
1xxx xxxx xxxx.213
1xxx xxxx xxxx.352
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
1xxx xxxx xxxx.487
1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
1xxx xxxx xxxx.120
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
1xxx xxxx xxxx.184
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.717
1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.281
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.153
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.313
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
1xxx xxxx xxxx.065
1xxx xxxx xxxx.574
1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
1xxx xxxx xxxx.205
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.034
1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
1xxx xxxx xxxx.214
1xxx xxxx xxxx.147
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
1xxx xxxx xxxx.297
1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
1xxx xxxx xxxx.198
1xxx xxxx xxxx.018
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.081
1xxx xxxx xxxx.057
1xxx xxxx xxxx.007
1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
1xxx xxxx xxxx.019
1xxx xxxx xxxx.060
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
1xxx xxxx xxxx.113
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.053
1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
1xxx xxxx xxxx.059
1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
1xxx xxxx xxxx.038
1xxx xxxx xxxx.107
1xxx xxxx xxxx.269
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.118
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
1xxx xxxx xxxx.127
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
1xxx xxxx xxxx.474
1xxx xxxx xxxx.171
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.599
1xxx xxxx xxxx.355
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.563
1xxx xxxx xxxx.262
1xxx xxxx xxxx.336
1xxx xxxx xxxx.507
1xxx xxxx xxxx.558
1xxx xxxx xxxx.363
1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
1xxx xxxx xxxx.522
1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.423
1xxx xxxx xxxx.430
1xxx xxxx xxxx.424
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa et al.ps"
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
Original Filename: 1036182485.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: paleo data
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:28:05 +0000
X-Sender: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paleo data
No worries, I can wait till next week!
It would be great to hear from you next week particularly if you
feel I have overlooked something, I am planning to submit a little
GRL paper on the detection results based on paleodata soon, and so a warning
if I am doing something wrong would be great.
Its not surprising that the detection results are stable, since other than volcanic
forcing is mainly driven by the low-f component anyway.
But it looks to me like the volcanic response is not smaller or even a bit larger in the
annual JGR data (except for one real real big peak in
the 1998 data).
Greetings, have a good weekend and good luck for Keith's back
Gabi
Gabi,
I have printed the files, but I do not know the answer. Keith is off today with a
bad back -
seeing a chiropractor. I need to talk to him before we can reply. I will be away
Mon/Tues
next week, so we will not be able to reply until later next week.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:27 31/10/xxx xxxx xxxx, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Dear Keith and Phil,
I checked and found that we did indeed use the JGR 2001 data (by reloading them
from your JGR data file). I also got the
1998 data from the volcano paper, and did some checking. My detection results
appear quite unimpressed by if I filter the 2001 data to focus on lower
frequencies or not (the estimated amplitudes of solar, volcanic and ghg signals
are virtually identical, volcanism gets a bit tougher to detect if you remove
the high-frequency component).
Then I redid the Epoch analysis comparing the
response of your data old and new to volcanism, and find somewhat bigger volcanic
signals on average (using 50 eruptions between 1400 and 1940) in the
JGR paper record. I high-passed both datasets and get somewhat more variability
in the JGR record, not the 1998 record.
I am wondering is there something I am overlooking?
I append a figure of the high-passed (var > ca 10 yrs removed) records,
and the volcanic response in both datasets (averaging years xxx xxxx xxxxafter the eruption,
and removing the best-estimate solar and ghg signal before the analysis).
The analysis omits years with another volcanic eruption within the 20 yrs.
I also append one version of the figure where the upper 95%ile of the ghg signal (which
appears underestimated in Briffa 98 data) is removed rather than the
best estimate, in that case, the volcanic signals in both data appear nearly
identical.
Greetings, and please let me know if I am doing something wrong with your data!
Also, what is the best reference to a discussion on the difference between both
datasets?
Thanks in advance
Gabi
Dear Tom
after a little detective work we have deduced that the data sent to you constitute a
version of Northern Hemisphere Land temperatures (april- sept) produced by PCA
regression using regional average density chronologies (ie the JGR paper you refereed I
believe). It is true that high frequency component is not in my opinion optimal in
describing the relative magnitude of extreme inter-annual extremes. This is to do with
the unpredictable weighting ascribed to certain areas (tree-density series) in the
averaging of the original raw data ( this is boring and I won't go into it unless you
really want me to). Te relative differences in year-to-year values are likely better
represented in the N.Hemisphere series produced by averaging regional series produced
using a different approach in which the initial data are high-pass filtered and then
merged in a more straight forward way. This is more equivalent to the series on volcanic
signals described in our Nature paper, though the low-frequency component in this series
is definitely not represented. There is another series , that one could consider a good
compromise . That is a composite of the Age-Banding approach (JGR) low-frequency
variance added to the earlier (Nature) high-frequency component. We did this for Figure
6 in the JGR paper , but did not provide the data on our web site I now realize. However
this composite series is VERY highly correlated with the "better" high frequency data -
see the correlations (Table 1 and related text in
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
There are many possible ways of producing a "Northern Hemisphere" average , involving
different prior regionalisation and secondary weighting (in space and through time) of
the constituent series) . Non can be considered "correct". If you would like us to dig
out the composite series or discuss specific aspects of the logic or uncertainties
associated with the different large averages let me know. Perhaps it would be better to
discuss this on the phone? As for longer series , we can provide the 2000 year
N.Eurasian data (a composite of ring width chronologies in N.Sweden, The Yamal
peninsula, and Taimyr ) . I will soon be able to provide a 4000-year version , that is
now being worked on.
or a similar Northern tree-ring chronology incorporating more data eg see
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
We do not have the bristlecone data - but they are available I presume from the
International Tree-Ring Data bank , part of the NGDC holdings?
At 02:29 PM 10/1/02 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
Been away and going again tomorrow. Had a chat with Keith and Tim and one of them
will send a reply and data later this week.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:28 26/09/xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi Phil,
thanks for all your help on the bams paper
DOE is being exceedingly slow in processing the paperwork for our new round - I will
keep you posted.
I am also wondering whether we can get some data from you:
Gabi is comparing our 2d ebm run with the briffa et al 2001 jgr time series in order to
compare the model prediction of - I think you mentioned at one point something to the
effect that, although this series is good for estimating low resolution temperature
variability, it may dampen high frequency variability. if my memory is correct in this
case, would you please send gabi the record you consider best for comparing with the
model predicted interannual response to volcanic eruptions?
on another matter we are extending our runs back in time - I have now compiled a record
of global volcanism back to 4000 BP for both hemispheres - extended back to 8000 BP for
30-90N. we are therefore trying to compile paleo records older than AD 1000 to at least
get some reconstruction we can compare with.
I seem to recall that Keith or you may have published some longer reconstructionn but
cannot recall where it is? if so, would you be so kind as to send it to me? also I am
trying to find a long record from the eastern California for the bristlecone pine - for
some reason I am having difficulty finding one. if you have a long record - even going
back beyond 2000 BP, it would be very much appreciated.
thanks for any help you can give us on this and best wishes, Tom
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxxfax
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [4]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [5]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
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.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
5. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
Original Filename: 1065785323.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: data again
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Jan,
Did you finally get the raw ring-width data from Malcolm? Does Keith
know about this? He asked Malcolm for the data as well, but did not
receive a reply as far as I know.
Ed
>Dear Malcom
>
>thank you for the series of mails and attachements! I just came back
>into office (and I am already close to leave for another fieldtrip
>next week), and had no time yet to look in all the files you sent
>me. As soon as I get an overview of what you sent, I will keep you
>informed.
>
>About the Central Asian data, I am just putting another draft
>together also describing some of the new data Kerstin Treydte (who
>is now in our team) sampled. Kerstin herself started working on a
>bigger analysis including her new ring width and stable isotope data
>(she processed 1000-yr. records of carbon and oxygen stable
>isotopes). This will be the major paper of her PhD, and once this
>paper is accepted, we are intending to release data to the ITRDB.
>Will keep you posted.
>
>Thank you again and take care
>Jan
>
>
>
>
>
>>Dear Jan - did you get the e-mail I sent on September 22? It may have caused
>>problems, because there were 10 attachemnts. In fact, I include
>>some that were
>>missed with this message. In addition, you should be able to get
>>the *.rwl files
>>for the 27 western chronologies usedin Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 at the
>>following web location:
>>http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~fenbiao/For_Jan_27rwl/
>>Please let me know if you experience any problems with this.
>>I also omitted some of the attachments from the earlier message. THey should
>>be attached to this one. Good luck! Malcolm
>>
>>------- Forwarded message follows -------
>>From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>To: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Subject: data
>>Copies to: fenbiao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Date sent: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>>Dear Jan - I have recently started to clear up all outstanding
>>business related to the next analysis by Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, et
>>al., and found, to my horror, that I had not replied to your e-mail of
>>last April 8 (copy at end of this message). In response to our
>>request for access to the data on which your 2000 and 2002 papers were
>>based, you indicated that you would need to check with a colleague at
>>WSL. Have you been able to do this, and if so, what is the result?
>>Obviously we are keen to include all important data already in the
>>peer reviewed literature, such as yours, in our analyses. You also
>>requested "the raw measurements of (y)our sequoia data and the western
>>conifer data used in the Mann et al 1998, 1999 papers". 1) data used
>>in Mann et al 1998 - these are all listed in the Nature on-line
>>supplementary materials (attached), and were all from the ITRDB, so
>>they may be downloaded from there. The same list is also attached. We
>>think we can find theraw data (the *.rwl files) and send them to you
>>if you would like - please let me know. 2) The western conifer data
>>used in MBH 99 are a subset of these, as indicated in another set of
>>attached MS-Excel files. These are a little bit repetitive, but
>>contain the following particularly useful information for these 27
>>longer chronologies: vchron11000 contains, inter alia, the ITRDB ID,
>>species code, first year, last year, collector's name
>>
>>vchron41000 contains the ITRDB ID, then the first and last
>>years with 5, 10, etc samples
>>
>>vchron81000 contains the ID, etc and then in the following
>>cols: V mn sensitivity W chronology autocorrelation, AE
>>number of series, AG mean correlation of series with
>>chronology AH mean series autocorrelation, AI series mean
>>length, series median segment length.
>>Please remember that this set ranges from lower forest
>>border to upper forest border, so that various mixtures from
>>all precip to precip plus temp locally apply.
>>
>>As I recently told Keith Briffa, you should be aware that it
>>would be completely unjustified to assume that the first
>>measured ring was anywhere near the pith in many of these
>>sites, especially as you go back in time, where the
>>chronologies are based on remnants that have weathered on
>>the inside and the outside. For this, and related, reasons, it
>>would also be completely unjustified to assume any
>>constant, or small, distance in years of the first measured
>>rings from pith. That is, I can see no way of making a
>>remotely reliable estimate of cambial age in the vast
>>majority of these samples. I am sitting on the
>>bones of a manuscript in which I had someone spend
>>several months checking many hundreds of bristlecone and
>>similar cross-sections and cores in our store. They found
>>only a few dozen - less than 10%, where either pith was
>>present, or the innermost ring could reasonably be described
>>as 'near pith'. If you have seen these stripbark montane 5-
>>needle pines, and ever tried to core them, you will
>>understand why. A further problem arises from the
>>observation that radial increment may increase rather
>>dramatically in the period after most of the bark dies back,
>>but of course we don't know when that was. Andy Bunn at
>>Montana State University has, I think, a manuscript in
>>preparation of review on this. I have a manuscript in
>>preparation where we restandardized many of these series
>>in the following way -
>>identify the long, flat part of the sample ringwidth curve
>>(i.e. remove the 'grand period of growth', if present) and
>>then fit a straight line of no or negative slope.
>>3) I attach *rwl and chronology files from three sequoia sites (those
>>referred to by Hughes and Brown, 1992 Drought frequency in central
>>California since 101 B.C. recorded in giant sequoia tree rings.
>>Climate Dynamics, 6, xxx xxxx xxxx) Please note the reasons given for the
>>rather strong standardization used (explained in text) and for the
>>splitting of the Mountain Home samples at AD 1297 (this explains my
>>sending you 4 of each kind of file, even though there were only three
>>sites in this case). We do not have pith dates for these samples, but
>>it is important to note the following caution - most of the radials
>>and cross- sections were from stumps, where we found that very slow
>>growth near the pith was often an indicator of great age. This of
>>course tells us that trees destined to be very old were often
>>suppressed for many years in their early life (but not all of them).
>>The tricky part comes from the observation that, although we could see
>>slow growth on the top of the stump near the pith, the wood was often
>>in too poor a state of presevation there to date and measure.
>>Therefore, do not assume that the first ring measured was anywhere
>>near pith - it could easily be off by centuries. There is a *.crn and
>>*.rwl for each of the four chronologies. Gfo is Giant Forest, CSX is
>>Camp Six, and MH is Mountain Home, split into MH1 and MH 2 as
>>indicated above. I'd be interested to know how you get on with this.
>>Cheers, Malcolm . .
>> ----- Forwarded message from Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> -----
>>> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:15:35 +0200
>>> From: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>> Reply-To: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>> Subject: Re: from Malcolm Hughes
>>> To: fenbiao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>
>>> Dear Fenbiao and Malcom
>>>
>>> Since I got funding from the Swiss Science Foundation to do some
>>> similar research, I really like the idea to share our tree ring
>>> data. However, I have to discuss this again with Kerstin Treydte who
>>> now started to work at the WSL and is running a re-analysis
>>> (including new samplings) for western central Asia.
>>>
>>> In principle, would it be possible to receive the raw measurements
>>> of your Sequoia data and the western conifer data used in the Mann
>>> et al. 1998, 1999 papers?
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Take care
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> CC
>>> K Treydte
>>> D Frank
>>>
>>> >Dear Jan,
>>> >You may be familiar with our earlier attempts at very large scale
>>> multi-proxy
>>> >reconstruction of certain aspects of climate, (for example, Mann,
>>> >Bradley
>>> and
>>> >Hughes, 1998, Nature, 392, xxx xxxx xxxx). This work was possible because
>>> >many colleagues made their data available. We are now assembling an
>>> >updated and extended dataset for new work along similar lines. We
>>> >hope to take advantage of data that were not available five years
>>> >ago, and to use improved methods in our analyses.
>>> >
>>> >Would you be willing to permit us to use the
>>> >(chronologies/reconstruction?) reported in your paper (s) listed
>> > >below?
>>> >
>>> >Esper J. (2000). Long-term tree-ring variations in Juniperus at the
>>> >upper timber-line in karakorum (Pakistan). Holocene 10 (2),
>>> >xxx xxxx xxxx.
>>> >
>>> >Esper J., Schweingruber F.H., Winiger M. (2002). 1300 years of
>>> >climatic history for western central Asia inferred from tree-rings.
>>> >Holocene 12 (3),
>>> xxx xxxx xxxx.
>>> >
>>> >We are particularly interested in (1) the ring-width series of
>>> >Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb and Juniperus turkestanica Kom. From 6
>>> >different sites in
>>> the
>>> >Hunza-karakorrum;
>>> >xxx xxxx xxxxindividual sites ranging from the lower to upper local
>>> >timber-lines
>>> in
>>> >the Northwest karakorum of Pakistan and the Southern Tien Shan of
>>> Kirghizia.
>>> >
>>> >If at all possible, we would prefer to receive tree-ring data as
>>> >both raw
>>> data
>>> >(individual unmodified measurement series for all samples used) and
>>> >your
>>> final
>>> >chronologies used in the publication.
>>> >
>>> >If you are willing to share your data for the purposes of our
>>> >analyses, but
>>> do
>>> >not
>>> >wish them to be passed on to anyone else by us, please tell us, and
>>> >we will mark the data accordingly in our database. If data have
>>> >been marked as not being publicly available, we will pass on any
>>> >requests for them to you.
>>> >
>>> >Please reply to Dr. Fenbiao Ni
Original Filename: 1066166844.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: smoothing
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Sorry--one more error. The MSE values for "minimum norm" and "minimum roughness" are
switched in the figure legend. Obviously the former is a better fit...
mike
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa
<k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: smoothing
Bcc: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
correction '1)' should read:
'1) minimum norm: sets padded values equal to mean of available data beyond the
available data (often the default constraint in smoothing routines)'
sorry for the confusion,
mike
At 05:05 PM 10/14/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
To those I thought might be interested, I've provided an example for discussion of
smoothing conventions. Its based on a simple matlab script which I've written (and
attached) that uses any one of 3 possible boundary constraints [minimum norm, minimum
slope, and minimum roughness] on the 'late' end of a time series (it uses the default
'minimum norm' constraint on the 'early' end of the series). Warming: you needs some
matlab toolboxes for this to run...
The routines uses a simple butterworth lowpass filter, and applies the 3 lowest order
constraints in the following way:
1) minimum norm: sets mean equal to zero beyond the available data (often the default
constraint in smoothing routines)
2) minimum slope: reflects the data in x (but not y) after the last available data
point. This tends to impose a local minimum or maximum at the edge of the data.
3) minimum roughness: reflects the data in both x and y (the latter w.r.t. to the y
value of the last available data point) after the last available data point. This tends
to impose a point of inflection at the edge of the data---this is most likely to
preserve a trend late in the series and is mathematically similar, though not identical,
to the more ad hoc approach of padding the series with a continuation of the trend over
the past 1/2 filter width.
The routine returns the mean square error of the smooth with respect to the raw data. It
is reasonable to argue that the minimum mse solution is the preferable one. In the
particular example I have chosen (attached), a 40 year lowpass filtering of the CRU NH
annual mean series 1xxx xxxx xxxx, the preference is indicated for the "minimum roughness"
solution as indicated in the plot (though the minimum slope solution is a close 2nd)...
By the way, you may notice that the smooth is effected beyond a single filter width of
the boundary. That's because of spectral leakage, which is unavoidable (though minimized
by e.g. multiple-taper methods).
I'm hoping this provides some food for thought/discussion, esp. for purposes of IPCC...
mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
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
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
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
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1101999700.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
Date: Thu Dec 2 10:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Toms, Chris and Ben,
If large-scale is important (as said by Tom W), I can't see how microclimatic
issues that Roger goes on about can be that important. Maybe when you all
meet at the delightful Chicago Airport Hilton, you can remind him of spatial
degrees of freedom.
Is the NOAA Tsurf used the new Smith and Reynolds (2005) spatially infilled
surface dataset? If this is the case maybe Ben could do a plot of NOAA minus
HadCRUT2v?
I have a plot that David Parker produced of Smith and Reynolds (2005) over land
and Jones and Moberg (2003) land (as smoothed global averages) from 1880.
Prior to about 1960 the SR dataset is always about 0.15 warmer than JM. This looks
likely due to infilling with xxx xxxx xxxxaverages (i.e zeroes) over the Antarctic and some
continental interiors of S. America, Africa, western China and Australia (where there
are no obs pre early 1950s, 1956 for the Antarctic). SR should be OK for 1979-99
and be very similar to HadCRUT2v.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:31 01/12/2004, Roger Pielke wrote:
Tom-
One issue to sort out with respect to "VTT" remains whether there are
unrecognized biases in the surface data. This issue is very much relevant
if, as seems the case from Phil Jones's e-mail, the "raw data" that has
been used has such large overlap among the different surface analyses.
If this is the case, there are not three independent assessments of
surface temperature trends. Moreover, unlike the MSU data, there are
inhomogeneities associated with the diverse locations of each surface
monitoring site (which have microclimate changes over time).
This issue is also very much a tropical issue as this is where large
land use/land cover change has occurred in the satellite era (photographs
rather than written documentation would really help in this assessment,
as we have proposed).
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx,
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, Email: pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [1]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [2]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
> From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Roger Pielke <pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
>
> Chris et al.,
>
> I do not see this as high priority. We are supposed to be looking at
> *VTT*. Uncerts/diffs in individual data sets are relevant, of course, but
> what is currently missing is a map (maps) of sfc vs trop trend diffs.
> We are meant to be addressing a problem that we have made
> clear at the global and tropix scale -- but just *where* are the problem
> areas? (I think Carl showed us such a map previously -- we need this,
> or similar, or more, in the report since it really is the crux of the
> problem.)
>
> Ideally we need sfc minus MSU LoTrop (A), sfc minus MidTrop
> (UAH (B) and RSS(C)) to at least look at, and decide which is/are best to
> show. I imagine this will have some bearing on Roger Pielke's concerns
> re LULC. If the biggest differences are over the oceans (and from memory
> this is the case, worst in the SH), then sorting this out would arguably
> be more important than sorting out LULC effects. It would be hard to
> argue (albeit not impossible) that teleconnections from LULC in (e.g.)
> North America, or even the Amazon Basin, are responsible for trend diffs
> over the South Pacific
>
> In Ch. 1 there is a correlation map -- this is pretty useless in my
> view, altho
> it would be interesting to compare the correl map with an equiv trend
> diff map.
>
> Ch. 3 has maps of the trends at sfc, mid trop, lo strat -- so we are close
> to trend diff map. But even those who might be brilliant enough to produce
> the trend diff map in their heads will be thwarted, becoz the mid trop map
> in Ch. 3 uses the average of UAH and RSS. Good grief! This really is
> carrying political correctness too far. Please, please John L et al.,
> replace
> the mid trop panel in 3.6.2.3 by separate panels for RSS and UAH.
>
> The next in my list of related wishes is a map of the RSS minus UAH trend
> diffs (D). Eyeballing A, B, C and D together could be interesting.
>
> I would put these things right at the top of my wish list for Chicago.
>
> Tom.
> ========================
>
> Folland, Chris wrote:
>
> >Tom
> >
> >Can you get Russ Vose to look at the issues of data overlap and local
> >and regional similarity. My original suggestion was to compare trends
> >over 1xxx xxxx xxxxand 1xxx xxxx xxxxat each grid point in the two data sets and
> >also over larger (regional) areas. This would go to the heart of any
> >differences in the context of this report, is easy to do, and can be
> >plotted on a pair of maps with a third "difference in trend" map for
> >each period. Where differences are large, a more detailed look at the
> >data can be done. It might even show up errors! Even the first analysis
> >on its own should give enough information to sharpen up well the current
> >speculative text and can be done perhaps in parallel with NRC review.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >Professor Chris Folland
> >
> >Head of Climate Variability Research
> >
> >Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org
> >
> >Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> > (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)<[4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> >
> >Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of
> >East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Thomas R Karl [[5]mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >Sent: 01 December 2004 18:23
> >To: Roger Pielke
> >Cc: Phil Jones; Folland Chris; carl mears;
> >CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
> >
> >
> >Phil,
> >
> >I think we need to be careful -- the method of combining the data can
> >matter very much. It is just that despite our different methodologies
> >the results are similar on large scales. I know we could use other
> >methods and the differences are more significant, e.g, first
> >differences, homogenization of ships, etc.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Roger Pielke wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Phil
> >>
> >>Thanks for the quick feedback. This helps a lot!
> >>
> >>With Best Regards
> >>
> >>Roger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
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://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
2. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/
3. http://www.hadobs.org/
4. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
5. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1153232546.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: new fig 6.14
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my
computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding
got cleared up.
Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab
at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can
clarify.
1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc,
higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his
usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's
ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a
chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really
would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or
whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the
more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and
also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting
the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This
last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw
data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the
TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks
that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the
caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated
for plotting purposes" or something like that.
2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all
of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim.
Otherwise, it will be too confusing.
3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the
scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in
order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed
forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to
have them all proportional in this fig.
Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the
ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's
mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok -
we get serious play in the TS.
Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you
want to provide some options, that's fine.
Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as
brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report.
thanks all! best, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1155150358.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: cbaisan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: help with an idea?
Date: Wed Aug 9 15:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Chris
just wondering what became of my forwarded request (from you to Tony) ? Have not received
any feedback and still anxious to follow this up
cheers
Keith
At 15:53 17/10/2003, you wrote:
Keith,
I am inclined to forward your note to Tony Caprio - any objections?
He has the best temperature sensitive foxtail pine material I am
aware of.
I have some sense that there is a change in regional climate
patterns prior to 1000AD in the western US. Not sure what or
why...
Matt Salzer and Malcolm Hughes are working on 3k yr material
from temperature sensitive upper tree-line sites in the west.
John King knows a great deal about the Sierra collections and
data.
MaryBeth Keifer and Andrea Loyd-Faste collected the Sierra
Foxtail you referred to.
Chris B.
> Hi Lisa and Chris and Ed
>
> The first point of this message is to ask for access to the raw data
> for the Boreal and Camp Hill Foxtail pine chronologies (Lisa) that I
> believe you and/or your students produced and similar data that you
> may have (Chris). for the area inland of the Santa Barbara Basin ,
> California. I am also trying to stimulate your interest and hopefully
> start a joint collaboration (Lisa , Chris and Ed). Please allow me to
> explain . I was reading some papers on the putative link between North
> Atlantic temperatures (oxygen isotope record from Greenland) and
> climate (bio-turbation index) in the Santa Barbara basin , on the
> 1000-year time scale (papers by Boyle and Leuschner et al. in the
> PAGES QSR Volume published in 2000). It got me to thinking whether a
> robust regional temperature chronology for North west Scandinavia
> might show any associations with any climate factors as represented in
> either high or low elevation tree-ring chronologies in Western
> California , at higher temporal resolution (perhaps decades to
> century) - and hence whether there is any evidence for a thermohaline
> link (or other more direct dynamic atmospheric connection) operating
> on various time scales. Of course there are problems with what
> specific climate response one would investigate (in terms of season
> and variable). However, as a first look I compared our Tornetrask
> temperature reconstruction (JJA in Northern Sweden) with a (very) few
> series I had for the west US - among which were the chronologies
> mentioned above from AD 800 that Jan Esper and Ed produced for their
> Science paper, using data supplied by Lisa I believe .
> Now I don't actually like the general way they applied the RCS ( -
> using
> a very large scale standardisation curve based on disparate data from
> a very wide expanse of sites across the Northern Hemisphere - but as
> Ed might say " it seems to work "). However, the association between
> the Tornetrask series and the curves for Boreal/ Upper Wright have
> stimulated me to try to look deeper and solicit your interest and
> help. In my opinion, for the 600-year period between AD 1100 and 1700
> the similarity in the 5 circa 120-year cycles that make up these
> series certainly warrant serious further study. The similarity is not
> apparent before this but the two California series themselves show
> little agreement in the earlier 300 years of data that I have seen,
> implying that the common signal at the regional level may not be well
> represented in either anyway. This could be a standardisation issue
> though. By producing more robust mean series and especially by
> extending the series back before the post Christian era we could
> significantly extend the power of the comparison. I would like to
> establish well replicated series (using more-local RCS curves based
> applied to more, and longer, data) for both the Tornetrask (and
> possibly Northern Finnish) region and the combined set from Upper
> Wright and Boreal and any other nearby Foxtail data ( from the region
> of the 118 degrees west 36 degrees north) . We have earlier (than
> circa AD 800 ) data for Tornetrask and Finland , showing good inter
> region coherence . If we can establish stronger evidence of a North
> Atlantic/Eastern Pacific link (at different time scales perhaps) we
> can look at other high resolution records to establish the nature of
> the likely forcing and the possible climate dynamic mechanisms. What
> do you think? Can I play with your data to this end ? Whatever you
> think , I would appreciate it if you would treat this as confidential
> and any thoughts on the idea , or pointers to relevant data sets are
> still welcome.
> All the very best
> Keith
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
):)) ) )) )) ) )).)) ) )) ) )) ) ).))
Christopher Baisan
Sr. Research Specialist
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona, Tucson 85721
email: cbaisan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
).)) ) )) ) ) )) ).) )) ) )) ) ) )).) ) )) )))
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1177534709.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really
like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. They seem to
have no understanding of how science is actually done - no appreciation
of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once
again, just let me know how I can help....
It will be good to see you in Exeter. I'm looking forward to that. I'll
have two nights in London after the meeting, and am hoping to spend some
time wandering around the British Museum.
I met a very nice lady (Stephanie) while I was giving a series of
climate change lectures in Puerto Rico back in January. She's a
Professor at the University of San Francisco, and (fortuitously),
specializes in the policy implications of climate change, risk
assessment, etc. She also likes hiking and climbing. It's fun to "have a
life" again (as they say over here).
Best wishes to you and Ruth,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'm in Geneva at the moment,
> so have a bit of time to think. Possibly I'll
> get the raw data from GHCN and do some work to replace
> our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw
> (i.e. as transmitted by the NMSs). This will annoy them
> more, so may inflame the situation.
>
> Got some ideas/thoughts from Mike, Kevin and Gavin Schmidt.
>
> Some of the stuff on the Climat Audit web site is awful.
>
> Will also be talking to someone at UEA, is they have
> anything useful to say.
>
> Also talking to Wei-Chyung about how he'll respond.
>
> I will be in Exeter. Get back from Tarragona on the
> Weds am, so should be there for dinner on the first day.
>
> Lots of odd things going on at the HC by the way.
>
> See you in Exeter.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in replying to your email - I've been out of my
>> office for a few days.
>>
>> This is really nasty stuff, and I'm sorry that it's happened to you. The
>> irony in this is that you are one of the most careful and thorough
>> scientists I know.
>>
>> Keenan's allegations of research misconduct, although malicious and
>> completely unfounded, clearly require some response. The bottom line is
>> that there are uncertainties inherent in measuring ANY properties of the
>> real-world climate system. You've probably delved deeper than anyone
>> else on the planet into uncertainties in observed surface temperature
>> records. This would be well worth pointing out to Mr. Keenan. The whole
>> tenor of the web-site stuff and Keenan's garbage is that these folks are
>> scrupulously careful data analysts, and you are not. They conveniently
>> ignore all the pioneering work that you've done on identification of
>> inhomogeneities in surface temperature records. The response should
>> mention that you've spent much of your scientific career trying to
>> quantify the effects of such inhomogeneities, changing spatial coverage,
>> etc. on observed estimates of global-scale surface temperature change.
>>
>> The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy".
>> They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be.
>> This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds
>> - in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and
>> radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs,
>> profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more
>> accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale
>> changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working
>> towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties
>> in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others
>> in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is
>> now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the
>> past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate
>> this basic message.
>>
>> Hope some of these random musings might be useful, Phil. Let me know if
>> there's anything else I can do to help. Will you be at the Hadley Centre
>> Science Review Group meeting in May?
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Thanks for the thoughts. I'll muse on them whilst
>>> away. I've decided to ignore the blogs, but will wait
>>> till I hear from Wei-Chyung when he's back. There is
>>> no point yet in my responding to Keenan till Wei-Chyung
>>> hears.
>>> I'm away much of the next 3 weeks, so I won't be
>>> responding quickly. I'll be noting down some points
>>> for a possible response, so anything I'll do will
>>> be considered rather than my usual quick responses.
>>> The unequivocal statement in the SPM will be clear
>>> in any response.
>>> The whole tone of their argument smacks of a last
>>> resort challenge. 2007 continues warm for the first
>>> 3 months.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>> I agree on the blogs: I have refrained from any responses to the
>>>> attacks
>>>> on me wrt hurricanes etc.
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't disagree w/ Kevin's points here, but I do think it is
>>>>> dangerous to respond to an accusation made on a blog (a dubious
>>>>> one at that). It sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, since
>>>>> the letter to Wang was copied to you, I guess it is legitimate for
>>>>> you to respond to that. but very carefully as Kevin points out,
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I am sure you know that this is not
>>>>> about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some
>>>>> way.
>>>>> In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests
>>>>> as
>>>>> one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys
>>>>> and
>>>>> lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
>>>>> to
>>>>> construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling
>>>>> capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble
>>>>> suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in
>>>>> some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do
>>>>> seems like a good thing to do. How about "I tried to get some data
>>>>> from
>>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn't have
>>>>> such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!" There is
>>>>> no
>>>>> basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One may have
>>>>> to
>>>>> offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it
>>>>> claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
>>>>> data
>>>>> are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata
>>>>> do
>>>>> not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be used.
>>>>> Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial
>>>>> manner will undermine his case. Kevin Hi Phil, This is
>>>>> all
>>>>> too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one
>>>>> thing
>>>>> they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might
>>>>> be
>>>>> able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on
>>>>> the
>>>>> whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say
>>>>> is
>>>>> wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every landmass is independently
>>>>> warming, and much as the models predict. So they can harp all they
>>>>> want
>>>>> on one Chinese data set, it couldn't possibly change the big picture
>>>>> (let
>>>>> alone even the trends for China). The So they are simply hoping to
>>>>> blow
>>>>> this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The
>>>>> last
>>>>> thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is
>>>>> to
>>>>> ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power
>>>>> here
>>>>> in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the
>>>>> rants
>>>>> of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their
>>>>> disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment
>>>>> appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would
>>>>> advise
>>>>> Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries
>>>>> this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a
>>>>> defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the
>>>>> states),
>>>>> mike Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Have a look at
>>>>> this
>>>>> web site. I see you're away. The websites can wait, but scroll down
>>>>> to
>>>>> the letter below from Keenan - the last sentence.
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471#comments and
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1479#more-1479 One is about data from
>>>>> a
>>>>> paper 17 years ago (Jones et al. 1990) Also there is this email
>>>>> (below)
>>>>> sent to Wei-Chyung Wang, who was one of the co-authors on the 1990
>>>>> paper. Wei-Chyung is in China, and may not yet have seen this. When
>>>>> he's
>>>>> back in Albany, I've suggested he talks to someone there. It is all
>>>>> malicious. I've cc'd this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>> from their experiences. If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as
>>>>> well,
>>>>> but I'm talking to some people at UEA first. Susan has enough to do
>>>>> with getting the AR4 WG1 volume out. On the 1990 paper, I have put
>>>>> the
>>>>> locations and the data for the rural stations used in the paper on
>>>>> the
>>>>> CRU website. All the language is about me not being able to send them
>>>>> the station data used for the grids (as used in 1990!). I don't have
>>>>> this information, as we have much more data now (much more in
>>>>> Australia
>>>>> and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR are
>>>>> as
>>>>> well. As for the other request, I don't have the information on the
>>>>> sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding
>>>>> in
>>>>> new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we
>>>>> don't keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have
>>>>> multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know
>>>>> things
>>>>> roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a
>>>>> while.
>>>>> GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does all come from
>>>>> the
>>>>> NMSs - well mostly, but some from scientists. A lot of the issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> in various papers, but they never read these. Also certainly no use
>>>>> talking to them. In Geneva all week. David Parker and Tom Peterson
>>>>> will be there. I can live with the web site abuse, but the Keenan
>>>>> letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now !
>>>>> Cheers Phil From: "D.J. Keenan" To: "Wei-Chyung Wang" Cc:
>>>>> "Phil
>>>>> Jones" Subject: retraction request Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:15
>>>>> +0100
>>>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-UEA-Spam-Score:
>>>>> 0.0
>>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Dr. Wang, Regarding the
>>>>> Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] and
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that there are severe
>>>>> problems.
>>>>> In particular, the data was obtained from 84 meteorological stations
>>>>> that can be classified as follows. 49 have no histories 08 have
>>>>> inconsistent histories 18 have substantial relocations 02 have
>>>>> single-year relocations 07 have no relocations Furthermore, some of
>>>>> the relocations are very distant--over 20 km. Others are to greatly
>>>>> different environments, as illustrated here:
>>>>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970 The above
>>>>> contradicts
>>>>> the published claim to have considered the histories of the stations,
>>>>> especially for the 49 stations that have no histories. Yet the claim
>>>>> is
>>>>> crucial for the research conclusions. I e-mailed you about this on
>>>>> April
>>>>> 11th. I also phoned you on April 13th: you said that you were in a
>>>>> meeting and would get back to me. I have received no response. I ask
>>>>> you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the claims made
>>>>> in
>>>>> Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I intend to
>>>>> publicly
>>>>> submit an allegation of research misconduct to your university at
>>>>> Albany.
>>>>> Douglas J. Keenan http://www.informath.org phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>>>>> The
>>>>> Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK Prof. Phil Jones Climatic
>>>>> Research
>>>>> Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental
>>>>> Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity of East Anglia Norwich
>>>>> Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director,
>>>>> Earth
>>>>> System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
>>>>> Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX:
>>>>> (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxThe Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>>> ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO
>>>>> Box
>>>>> 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System
>>>>> Science
>>>>> Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
>>>>> xxx xxxx xxxxWalker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> The
>>>>> Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University
>>>>> Park,
>>>>> PA 16xxx xxxx xxxxhttp://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>> ___________________
>>>> Kevin Trenberth
>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>>>> PO Box 3000
>>>> Boulder CO 80307
>>>> ph xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Benjamin D. Santer
>> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
>> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1188412866.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Something not to pass on
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:41:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Phil
Confidential: Dennis Shea just had angiogram: 75% blockage: having open heart surgery
tomorrow morning. He does not want this known till the operation results are known.
============
This is awful stuff and I can't imagine that this could be published. I know of this
fellow Peiser though and he is extremely biased (against you likely). So treading with
caution is warranted. The email seems to invite a comment but not a review. You should
probably only respond with something that you would not mind being published. You can also
point out errors of fact. Whether you point out errors of logic or opinion is another
matter altogether. If you write just to the editor you can try to evaluate the comment and
point out that it lacks substance.
I think my approach would be to try to stick to science.e.g.
I don't know what was done for the 1990 paper but obviously sound practice is
1) we attempt to use homogeneous data
2) Site moves are one indication of lack of homogeneity but there are standard means of
adjusting for such moves especially when there is an overlap in the record.
3) All data are scrutinized for possible problems and discontinuities, especially if there
is a question about a possible move and the date is known.
4) Site movements do not necessarily prejudice the record toward warming or cooling: a move
from the inner city to an outlying airport can result in cooling, for instance.
5) Revisions are made when new information becomes available.
6) It is helpful if researchers can improve the records and provide updated analyses.
Or something to this effect. You could try a patronizing approach of over explaining the
difficulties.
At the very least you should be critical of the statement in 4. that he "politely requested
an explanation". He quotes you as saying:
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it?".[1][1]
______________________________
[2][1] McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations (Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives). This is a
sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at
[3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd
f.]
but you have no reason to be defensive: if there was a problem with the data and all due
care was taken, then if there is something wrong with it, it was the responsibility of
those who took the data, not those who used it responsibly. You should also point out that
the data are just as available to anyone as to you.
In the IPCC report we are careful to say that there are urban effects and they are
important and we have a lot about them. But they are small on the global scale. His
conclusions are wrong. Also the IPCC evaluates published works and does not do research or
deal with raw data.
In the appendix, presumably the quotes are based on the best information at the time. That
was then.
The conclusions of the author that fabrication occurred is not valid. Maybe things could
have been done better, but that universally applies.
Let me know if you want more concrete suggestions
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin, Mike,
Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment has gone
to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but
Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about.
I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond?
If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends. I could come up
with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data
rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's
web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the
sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has
no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't
seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for whatever, so it
seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review?
E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal.
Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best documentary
proxies.
Cheers
Phil
Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
From: "Peiser, Benny" [4]<B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: [5]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Dr Jones
I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
[6]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Benny Peiser
Guest editor, E&E
Liverpool John Moores University, UK
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 [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [9]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
Visible links
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftnref1
3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf
4. mailto:B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Hidden links:
10. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox5320.html#_ftn1
Original Filename: 1199994210.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Dian, something like this?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:43:30 +0000
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Susan Solomon' <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
All,
as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This
has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,
but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for
where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to
use it. To do this I've taken every single scrap of info I have in my
possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have
considered the common period of 1xxx xxxx xxxx. So, assuming you are all
sitting comfortably:
Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.
See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling
factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to
HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if
we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or
not depending upon one's pre-conceived notion as to whether the models
are correct.
Red is HadAT2 dataset.
black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all
tropical stations with a xxx xxxx xxxxclimatology)
Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from
Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world
assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here
and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.
Bright green is RATPAC
Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here
and not me so any final version I'd want to get the raw gridded data and
do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided
as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at
height) difference:
Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment
estimates)
Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2
Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3
Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4
I am also in possession of Steve's submitted IUK dataset and will be
adding this trend line shortly.
I'll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.
My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that
this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer
et al. Figure 3.B.
I'll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for
it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for
Leo's to be used. Whatever people prefer.
Peter
--
Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachtrend_profiles_dogs_dinner.png"
Original Filename: 1200003656.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Dian, something like this?
Date: Thu Jan 10 17:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Susan Solomon' <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Ben et al,
As Dian has said Ben's diagrams are as usual great! I also like the one
that Peter has just sent around as that illustrates the issue with the
various RAOBCORE versions. Although I still think they should have used
HadCRUT3v for the surface, I know HadCRUT2v shows much the same.
What this figure shows is the differences between the various sonde
datasets. Dian/Peter also make the point that there are other new datasets
to be added - so the sondes are very much still work in progress. I know
you will point out all the analytical/statistical issues see the series
brings home the issues better. I know you could add the values to
your Fig1, a plot like this is much better.
In the email Ben, you seem to have written much of the response!
Whichever route you go down (GRL/IJC) the text can't be too long.
I would favour copious captions, and even an Appendix, to get the
main points across quickly.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:43 10/01/2008, Peter Thorne wrote:
All,
as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This
has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,
but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for
where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to
use it. To do this I've taken every single scrap of info I have in my
possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have
considered the common period of 1xxx xxxx xxxx. So, assuming you are all
sitting comfortably:
Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.
See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling
factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to
HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if
we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or
not depending upon one's pre-conceived notion as to whether the models
are correct.
Red is HadAT2 dataset.
black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all
tropical stations with a xxx xxxx xxxxclimatology)
Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from
Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world
assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here
and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.
Bright green is RATPAC
Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here
and not me so any final version I'd want to get the raw gridded data and
do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided
as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at
height) difference:
Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment
estimates)
Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2
Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3
Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4
I am also in possession of Steve's submitted IUK dataset and will be
adding this trend line shortly.
I'll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.
My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that
this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer
et al. Figure 3.B.
I'll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for
it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for
Leo's to be used. Whatever people prefer.
Peter
--
Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB
tel. xxx xxxx xxxxfax xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs
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.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs
Original Filename: 1200010023.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, something like this?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Susan Solomon' <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Leo,
Thanks very much for your email. I can easily make the observations a
bit more prominent in Figure 1. As you can see from today's
(voluminous!) email traffic, I've received lots of helpful suggestions
regarding improvements to the Figures. I'll try to produce revised
versions of the Figures tomorrow.
On the autocorrelation issue: The models have a much larger range of
lag-1 autocorrelation coefficients (0.66 to 0.95 for T2LT, and 0.69 to
0.95 for T2) than the UAH or RSS data (which range from 0.87 to 0.89). I
was concerned that if we used the model lag-1 autocorrelations to guide
the choice of AR-1 parameter in the synthetic data analysis, Douglass
and colleagues would have an easy opening for criticising us ("Aha!
Santer et al. are using model results to guide them in their selection
of the coefficients for their AR-1 model!") I felt that it was much more
difficult for Douglass et al. to criticize what we've done if we used
UAH data to dictate our choice of the AR-1 parameter and the "scaling
factor" for the amplitude of the temporal variability.
As you know, my personal preference would be to include in our response
to Douglass et al. something like the Figure 4 that Peter has produced.
While inclusion of a Figure 4 is not essential for the purpose of
illuminating the statistical flaws in the Douglass et al. "consistency
test", such a Figure would clearly show the (currently large) structural
uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of the vertical profile of
atmospheric temperature changes. I think this is an important point,
particularly in view of the fact that Douglass et al. failed to discuss
versions 1.3 and 1.4 of your RAOBCORE data - even though they had
information from those datasets in their possession.
However, I fully agree with Tom's comment that we don't want to do
anything to "steal the thunder" from ongoing efforts to improve
sonde-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change, and to better
quantify structural uncertainties in those estimates. Your group,
together with the groups at the Hadley Centre, Yale, NOAA ARL and NOAA
GFDL, deserve great credit for making significant progress on a
difficult, time-consuming, yet important problem.
I guess the best solution is to leave this decision up to all of you
(the radiosonde dataset developers). I'm perfectly happy to include a
version of Figure 4 in our response to Douglass et al. If we do go with
inclusion of a Figure 4, you, Peter, Dian, Melissa, Steve Sherwood and
John should decide whether you feel comfortable providing radiosonde
data for such a Figure. I will gladly abide by your decisions. As you
note in your email, our use of a Figure 4 would not preclude a more
detailed and thorough comparison of simulated and observed amplification
in some later publication.
Once again, thanks for all your help with this project, Leo.
With best regards,
Ben
Leopold Haimberger wrote:
> All,
>
> These three figures are really very clear and leave no doubts that the
> Douglass et al analysis is flawed. This is true especially for Fig. 1.
> In Fig. 1 one has to look carefully to find the RSS and UAH "observed"
> trends to the right of all the model trends. Maybe one can make their
> symbols more prominent.
>
> Concerning Fig. 3 I wonder whether the UAH autocorrelation is the lowest
> of all available data. .86 is quite substantial autocorrelation. Maybe
> it is a good idea to be on the safe side and use the lowest
> autocorrelation of all datasets (models, RSS, UAH) for this analysis.
>
> Concerning Fig. 4, I like Peter's and Dian's idea to include RAOBCORE,
> HadAT2, RATPAC and Steve's data and compare it in one plot with model
> output. While I agree that the first three figures and the corresponding
> text are already sufficient for the reply, they target mainly to the
> right panel of Fig. 1 in Douglass et al's paper. The trend profile plot
> of Fig. 4 is complementary as a counterpart to the left panel of their
> plot. To see the trend amplification in in some of the vertical profiles
> is much more suggestive than seeing the LT trends being larger than
> surface trends, at least for me. Showing all available profiles adds
> value beyond the RAOBCORE v1.2 vs RAOBCORE v1.4 issue. Yes, it is work
> in progress and such a plot as drafted by Peter makes that very clear.
> In this paper it is sufficient to show that the uncertainty of
> radiosonde trends is much larger than suggested by Douglass et al. and
> we do not need to have the final answer yet. I have nothing against
> Peter doing the drawing of the figure, since he has most of the
> necessary data. The plot would be needed for 1xxx xxxx xxxx, however. Peter,
> I will send you the trend profiles for this period a bit later.
>
> Publishing the reply in either IJC or GRL including Fig. 4 is fine for me.
> When we first discussed a follow up of the Santer et al paper in
> October, we had in mind to publish post-FAR climate model data up to
> present (not just 1999) and also new radiosonde data up to present in a
> highest ranking journal. I am confident that this is still possible even
> if some of the new material planned for such a paper is submitted
> already now. What do you think?
>
> With best Regards,
>
> Leo
>
> Peter Thorne wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This
>> has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,
>> but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for
>> where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to
>> use it. To do this I've taken every single scrap of info I have in my
>> possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have
>> considered the common period of 1xxx xxxx xxxx. So, assuming you are all
>> sitting comfortably:
>>
>> Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.
>> See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling
>> factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to
>> HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if
>> we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or
>> not depending upon one's pre-conceived notion as to whether the models
>> are correct.
>>
>> Red is HadAT2 dataset.
>>
>> black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all
>> tropical stations with a xxx xxxx xxxxclimatology)
>>
>> Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from
>> Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world
>> assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here
>> and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.
>>
>> Bright green is RATPAC
>>
>> Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here
>> and not me so any final version I'd want to get the raw gridded data and
>> do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided
>> as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at
>> height) difference:
>>
>> Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment
>> estimates)
>>
>> Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2
>> Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3
>> Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4
>>
>> I am also in possession of Steve's submitted IUK dataset and will be
>> adding this trend line shortly.
>>
>> I'll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.
>>
>> My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that
>> this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer
>> et al. Figure 3.B.
>>
>> I'll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for
>> it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for
>> Leo's to be used. Whatever people prefer.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1200162026.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Updated Figures
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carl Mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Ben and All,
After returning to the office earlier in the week after a couple of weeks
off during the holidays, I had the best of intentions of responding to
some of the earlier emails. Unfortunately it has taken the better part of
the week for me to shovel out my avalanche of email. [This has a lot to
do with the remarkable progress that has been made -- kudos to Ben and others
who have made this possible]. At this point I'd like to add my 2 cents worth
(although with the declining dollar I'm not sure it's worth that much any more)
on several issues, some from earlier email and some from the last day or two.
I had given some thought as to where this article might be submitted.
Although that issue has been settled (IJC) I'd like to add a few related
thoughts regarding the focus of the paper. I think Ben has brokered the
best possible deal, an expedited paper in IJC, that is not treated as a
comment. But I'm a little confused as to whether our paper will be titled
"Comments on ... by Douglass et al." or whether we have a bit more latitude.
While I'm not suggesting anything beyond a short paper, it might be possible
to "spin" this in more general terms as a brief update, while at the same
time addressing Douglass et al. as part of this. We could begin in the
introduction by saying that this general topic has been much studied and
debated in the recent past [e.g. NRC (2000), the Science (2005) papers, and
CCSP (2006)] but that new developments since these works warrant revisiting
the issue. We could consider Douglass et al. as one of several new
developments. We could perhaps title the paper something like "Revisiting
temperature trends in the atmosphere". The main conclusion will be that, in
stark contrast to Douglass et al., the new evidence from the last couple of
years has strengthened the conclusion of CCSP (2006) that there is no
meaningful discrepancy between models and observations.
In an earlier email Ben suggested an outline for the paper:
1) Point out flaws in the statistical approach used by Douglass et al.
2) Show results from significance testing done properly.
3) Show a figure with different estimates of radiosonde temperature trends
illustrating the structural uncertainty.
4) Discuss complementary evidence supporting the finding that the tropical
lower troposphere has warmed over the satellite era.
I think this is fine but I'd like to suggest a couple of other items. First,
some mention could be made regarding the structural uncertainty in satellite
datasets. We could have 3a) for sondes and 3b) for satellite data. The
satellite issue could be handled in as briefly as a paragraph, or with a
bit more work and discussion a figure or table (with some trends). The main
point to get across is that it's not just UAH vs. RSS (with an implied edge
to UAH because its trends agree better with sondes) it's actually UAH vs
all others (RSS, UMD and Zou et al.). There are complications in adding UMD
and Zou et al. to the discussion, but these can be handled either
qualitatively or quantitatively. The complication with UMD is that it only
exists for T2, which has stratospheric influences (and UMD does not have a
corresponding measure for T4 which could be used to remove the stratospheric
effects). The complication with Zou et al. is that the data begin in 1987,
rather than 1979 (as for the other satellite products).
It would be possible to use the Fu method to remove the stratospheric
influences from UMD using T4 measures from either or both UAH and RSS. It
would be possible to directly compare trends from Zou et al. with UAH, RSS
& UMD for a time period starting in 1987. So, in theory we could include
some trend estimates from all 4 satellite datasets in apples vs. apples
comparisons. But perhaps this is more work than is warranted for this project.
Then at very least we can mention that in apples vs. apples comparisons made
in CCSP (2006) UMD showed more tropospheric warming than both UAH and RSS,
and in comparisons made by Zou et al. their dataset showed more warming than
both UAH and RSS. Taken together this evidence leaves UAH as the "outlier"
compared to the other 3 datasets. Furthermore, better trend agreement between
UAH and some sonde data is not necessarily "good" since the sonde data in
question are likely to be afflicted with considerable spurious cooling biases.
The second item that I'd suggest be added to Ben's earlier outline (perhaps
as item 5) is a discussion of the issues that Susan raised in earlier emails.
The main point is that there is now some evidence that inadequacies in the
AR4 model formulations pertaining to the treatment of stratospheric ozone may
contribute to spurious cooling trends in the troposphere.
Regarding Ben's Fig. xxx xxxx xxxxthis is a very nice graphical presentation of the
differences in methodology between the current work and Douglass et al.
However, I would suggest a cautionary statement to the effect that while error
bars are useful for illustrative purposes, the use of overlapping error bars
is not advocated for testing statistical significance between two variables
following Lanzante (2005).
Lanzante, J. R., 2005: A cautionary note on the use of error bars.
Journal of Climate, 18(17), 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
This is also motivation for application of the two-sample test that Ben has
implemented.
Ben wrote:
> So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined
> rejection rates? Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to
> the skewness of the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions.
[NB: this is in regard to Ben's Fig. 3 which shows that the rejection rate
in simulations using synthetic data appears to be slightly positively biased
compared to the nominal (expected) rate].
I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the distribution
of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to
explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to
apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then
reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield
data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.
Ben wrote:
> Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the interior
> of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added arrows to
> indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for 5%, 10%, and
> 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors and thicknesses
> of the lines indicating results for the "paired trends". Visually,
> attention is now drawn to the results we think are most reasonable -
> the results for the paired trend tests with standard errors adjusted
> for temporal autocorrelation effects.
I actually liked the earlier version of Fig. 3 better in some regards.
The labeling is now rather busy. How about going back to dotted, thin
and thick curves to designate 5%, 10%, and 20%, and also placing labels
(5%/10%/20%) on or near each curve? Then using just three colors to
differentiate between Douglass, paired/no_SE_adj, and paired/with_SE_adj
it will only be necessary to have 3 legends: one for each of the three colors.
This would eliminate most of the legends.
Another topic of recent discussion is what radiosonde datasets to include
in the trend figure. My own personal preference would be to have all available
datasets shown in the figure. However, I would defer to the individual
dataset creators if they feel uncomfortable about including sets that are
not yet published.
Peter also raised the point about trends being derived differently for
different datasets. To the extent possible it would be desirable to
have things done the same for all datasets. This is especially true for
using the same time period and the same method to perform the regression.
Another issue is the conversion of station data to area-averaged data. It's
usually easier to insure consistency if one person computes the trends
from the raw data using the same procedures rather than having several
people provide the trend estimates.
Karl Taylor wrote:
> The lower panel <of Figure 2> ...
> ... By chance the mean of the results is displaced negatively ...
> ... I contend that the likelihood of getting a difference of x is equal
> to the likelihood of getting a difference of -x ...
> ... I would like to see each difference plotted twice, once with a positive
> sign and again with a negative sign ...
> ... One of the unfortunate problems with the asymmetry of the current figure
> is that to a casual reader it might suggest a consistency between the
> intra-ensemble distributions and the model-obs distributions that is not real
> Ben and I have already discussed this point, and I think we're both
> still a bit unsure on what's the best thing to do here. Perhaps others
> can provide convincing arguments for keeping the figure as is or making
> it symmetric as I suggest.
I agree with Karl in regard to both his concern for misinterpretation as
well as his suggested solution. In the limit as N goes to infinity we
expect the distribution to be symmetric since we're comparing the model data
with itself. The problem we are encountering is due to finite sample effects.
For simplicity Ben used a limited number of unique combinations -- using
full bootstrapping the problem should go away. Karl's suggestion seems like
a simple and effective way around the problem.
Karl Taylor wrote:
> It would appear that if we believe FGOALS or MIROC, then the
> differences between many of the model runs and obs are not likely to be
> due to chance alone, but indicate a real discrepancy ... This would seem
> to indicate that our conclusion depends on which model ensembles we have
> most confidence in.
Given the tiny sample sizes, I'm not sure one can make any meaningful
statements regarding differences between models, particularly with regard to
some measure of variability such as is implied by the width of a distribution.
This raises another issue regarding Fig. xxx xxxx xxxxwhy show the results separately
for each model? This does not seem to be relevant to this project. Our
objective is to show that the models as a collection are not inconsistent
with the observations -- not that any particular model is more or less
consistent with the observations. Furthermore showing results for different
models tempts the reader to make such comparisons. Why not just aggregate the
results over all models and produce a histogram? This would also simplify
the figure.
Best regards,
_____John
Original Filename: 1225462391.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter.Thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Santer et al 2008]
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear folks, While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of
the model data used in our IJoC paper (see forwarded email). After some conversation with
my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre's request. If McIntyre
repeats his request, I will provide him with the same answer that I gave to David Douglass
- all model and observational data used in our IJoC paper are freely available to
scientific researchers (as are algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU temperatures from
climate model and radiosonde data). If Mr. McIntyre wishes to "audit" our analysis and
findings, he has access to exactly the same raw data that we employed. He can compute
synthetic MSU temperatures exactly the same way that we did. And he has full details of the
statistical tests we applied to compare modeled and observed temperature trends. Recall
that McIntyre is the guy who "audited" the temperature reconstructions of Mike Mann and
colleagues. Now it appears as if McIntyre wants to audit us. McIntyre should have "audited"
the methods and findings of Douglass et al. 2007 - not the methods and findings of Santer
et al. 2008. I thought you should know about this development. With best regards, Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D.
Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxxemail: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Account-Key:
account1 Return-Path: Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-2.llnl.gov
(Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: from mail-2.llnl.gov
(localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $)
with ESMTP id m9KHTFlg029183 for <[vacation]santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008
10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: (from vacmgr@localhost) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit)
id m9KHTFgZ029180 for [vacation]santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Authentication-Warning: mail-2.llnl.gov: vacmgr set sender to
stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx using -f Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov
[128.115.41.82]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id
m9KHSuoB029014 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxX-Attachments: None X-IronPort-AV:
E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5408"; a="29194653" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,453,1220252400";
d="scan'208,217";a="29194653" Received: from nsziron-1.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.81]) by
nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxX-Attachments: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
AosBADJd/EiAZISXgWdsb2JhbACCRyyHF4llAQELBwQKBxGvE4Ns X-IronPort-AV:
E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5408"; a="65324012" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,453,1220252400";
d="scan'208,217";a="65324012" Received: from bureau61.ns.utoronto.ca ([128.100.132.151]) by
nsziron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2008 10:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: from acerd3c08b49af
(CPE0050bfe94416-CM00195efb6eb0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.231.2.44]) (authenticated
bits=0) by bureau61.ns.utoronto.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9KHT9Ds024194
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
-0400 From: "Steve McIntyre" To: Subject: Santer et al 2008 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
-0400 Message-ID: <000001c932d9$5e5831a0$6602a8c0@acerd3c08b49af> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C932B7.D74691A0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build
10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Dear Dr Santer,
Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 series) used for
statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL. I understand that your
version has been collated from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it
(I presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) .
Thank you for your attention,
Steve McIntyre
Original Filename: 1228249747.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Further fallout from our IJoC paper
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:29:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Leopold Haimberger" <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Karl Taylor" <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John Lanzante" <john.lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, susan.solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Melissa Free" <melissa.free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter gleckler" <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thomas R Karl" <thomas.r.karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Steve Klein" <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "carl mears" <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Doug Nychka" <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gavin Schmidt" <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Steven Sherwood" <steven.sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Frank Wentz" <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Ben,
I support you on this. However, there is more to be said than
what you give below. For instance, it would be useful to note
that, in principle, an audit scheme could be a good thing if done
properly. But an audit must start at square one (your point). So,
one can appear to applaud McIntyre at first, but then go on to
note that his modus operandi seems to be flawed.
In this case, as you have noted before, if Mc could not get the
data from us, then he could have got it from Douglass. Given this,
it is strange to keep hounding us. This would, of course, raise the
issue of whether the Douglass data are the same as ours (and/or the
same as in CCSP 1.1). I'm not sure whether Douglass et al. actually
state that there data are the same as CCSP 1.1, but it would be
good if they did -- because or IJoC data are the same as CCSP 1.1.
Mc could say that Douglass already effectively audited our calculations
from the raw data, which is why he does not want to/need to repeat
this step. But if he does say this then why not get the data from
Douglass?
Have a go at writing something -- but try to pre-empt any come back
from Mc or others. Also, don't just consider our case, but put it
as an example of more general issues.
The issue of auditing is a tricky one. The auditers must, themselves,
be able to demonstrate that they have no ulterior motives. One way
to do this would be to audit papers on both sides of an issue. In
other words, both us and Douglass should be audited together. In a
sense, our paper is an audit of Douglass -- and we found his work
to be flawed. A second opinion on this already exists, through the
refereeing of our paper. I suppose a third opinion from the likes
of Mc might be of value in a controversial area like this. But then,
is Mc the right person to do this? Is he unbiased? Does he have the
right credentials (as a statistician)?
One could argue that IPCC had an auditing system in place. This is
partly through the multiple levels of review -- but doesn't each
chapter have another person(s) to sign off on the responses to
review comments?
There are some interesting general issues here.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm happy to co-author anything you write.
> Dear folks,
>
> There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our paper
> in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven
> McIntyre's discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
> about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
> official at DOE headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at LLNL,
> claiming that my behavior is bringing LLNL's good name into disrepute.
> Cherry is the Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at
> LLNL, and reports to LLNL's Director (George Miller).
>
> I'm getting sick of this kind of stuff, and am tired of simply taking it
> on the chin.
>
> Accordingly, I have been trying to evaluate my options. I believe that
> one option is to write a letter to Nature, briefly outlining some of the
> events that have transpired subsequent to the publication of our IJoC
> paper. Nature would be a logical choice for such a letter, since they
> published a brief account of our findings in their "Research Highlights"
> section. The letter would provide some public record of my position
> regarding McIntyre's data request, and would note that:
>
> "all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008
> Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are
> freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
> and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he
> has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing
> Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
> (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic
> Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very
> purpose of an audit." (email from Ben Santer to Tom Karl, Nov. 11, 2008).
>
> I think that some form of public record would be helpful, particularly
> if LLNL management continues to receive emails alleging that my behavior
> is tarnishing LLNL's scientific reputation.
>
> Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities
> (synthetic MSU temperatures), I'm perfectly happy to be the sole author
> of such a letter to Nature.
>
> Your thoughts or advice in this matter would be much appreciated.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Original Filename: 1228258714.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Further fallout from our IJoC paper
Date: 02 Dec 2008 17:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter.Thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Ben, there are two very different things going on here. One is technical
and related to the actual science and the actual statistics, the second
is political, and is much more concerned with how incidents like this
can be portrayed. The second is the issue here.
The unfortunate fact is that the 'secret science' meme is an extremely
powerful rallying call to people who have no idea about what is going
on. Claiming (rightly or wrongly) that information is being hidden has a
huge amount of resonance (as you know), much more so than whether
Douglass et al know their statistical elbow from a hole in the ground.
Thus any increase in publicity on this - whether in the pages of Nature
or elsewhere - is much more likely to bring further negative fallout
despite your desire to clear the air. Whatever you say, it will still be
presented as you hiding data.
The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you
can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional
calculations, residuals, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a
workable version of the code on any platform etc.), and like Somali
pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always
shake them down again.
Thus, I would not advise any public statements on this. Instead, email
you immediate superiors and the director with a short statement along
the lines of what you suggest below (i.e. of course you want open
science, the data *are* in the public domain (with links) and calls for
more intermediate steps are just harassment to prevent scientists doing
what they are actually paid too). I wouldn't put in anything
specifically related to McIntyre.
A much more satisfying response would be to demonstrate how easy it is
to replicate the analysis in the paper starting from scratch using
openly available data (such as through Joe Sirott's portal) and the
simplest published MSU weighting function. If you can show that this can
be done in a couple of hours (or whatever), it makes the other side look
like incompetent amateurs. Maybe someone has a graduate student
available....?
Gavin
On Tue, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 15:52, Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear folks,
>
> There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our paper
> in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven
> McIntyre's discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
> about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
> official at DOE headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at LLNL,
> claiming that my behavior is bringing LLNL's good name into disrepute.
> Cherry is the Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at
> LLNL, and reports to LLNL's Director (George Miller).
>
> I'm getting sick of this kind of stuff, and am tired of simply taking it
> on the chin.
>
> Accordingly, I have been trying to evaluate my options. I believe that
> one option is to write a letter to Nature, briefly outlining some of the
> events that have transpired subsequent to the publication of our IJoC
> paper. Nature would be a logical choice for such a letter, since they
> published a brief account of our findings in their "Research Highlights"
> section. The letter would provide some public record of my position
> regarding McIntyre's data request, and would note that:
>
> "all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008
> Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are
> freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
> and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he
> has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing
> Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
> (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic
> Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very
> purpose of an audit." (email from Ben Santer to Tom Karl, Nov. 11, 2008).
>
> I think that some form of public record would be helpful, particularly
> if LLNL management continues to receive emails alleging that my behavior
> is tarnishing LLNL's scientific reputation.
>
> Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities
> (synthetic MSU temperatures), I'm perfectly happy to be the sole author
> of such a letter to Nature.
>
> Your thoughts or advice in this matter would be much appreciated.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Original Filename: 1228841349.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: David Thompson <davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Kennedy <john.kennedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Wallace <wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: the paper and a can of worms
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
hi all, I plan on sending the 'penultimate' draft of the full paper later today, but
thought I'd comment on the NH/SH comparison in a separate email. Anyway, I've been debating
adding a comparison of the NH and SH, as per your suggestions. But I think I'm going to
delay that discussion to a different paper. The current paper is already long. And I think
looking at the differences between the hemispheres is going to open a can of worms. Here is
an example that influenced my thinking: The time series in the attached figure show the
differences between the NH and SH mean (0-90N minus 0-90S) for the raw data (top) and
ENSO/COWL residual data (bottom). (COWL is removed only from the NH). Among many things,
the difference time series show that the cooling in the 70s is largest in the NH, which we
know from previous work. Maybe it's just my eye, but the differences between the time
series in the 70s look almost discrete. It's as if the NH ratcheted downwards relative to
the SH in a very short period ~1968, then crept upwards through the present. My thinking is
that we will get a lot of mileage out of comparing the hemispheres, but that to do it
right, it's going to take a fair bit more analysis. And at 27 pages I think we're pushing
the attention span of the average reader. So I'm going to delay the analysis to our next
paper. It gives us something to do in future! Paper will follow later... -Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet ? Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxhi all,
I plan on sending the 'penultimate' draft of the full paper later today, but thought I'd
comment on the NH/SH comparison in a separate email.
Anyway, I've been debating adding a comparison of the NH and SH, as per your suggestions.
But I think I'm going to delay that discussion to a different paper. The current paper is
already long. And I think looking at the differences between the hemispheres is going to
open a can of worms. Here is an example that influenced my thinking:
The time series in the attached figure show the differences between the NH and SH mean
(0-90N minus 0-90S) for the raw data (top) and ENSO/COWL residual data (bottom). (COWL is
removed only from the NH).
Among many things, the difference time series show that the cooling in the 70s is largest
in the NH, which we know from previous work. Maybe it's just my eye, but the differences
between the time series in the 70s look almost discrete. It's as if the NH ratcheted
downwards relative to the SH in a very short period ~1968, then crept upwards through the
present.
My thinking is that we will get a lot of mileage out of comparing the hemispheres, but that
to do it right, it's going to take a fair bit more analysis. And at 27 pages I think we're
pushing the attention span of the average reader. So I'm going to delay the analysis to our
next paper. It gives us something to do in future!
Paper will follow later...
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachNHandSHRawFullResidual.pdf"
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 1233586975.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: data availability]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
Yes, this is the same Geoff Smith who wrote to me. Do you know who he
is? From his comments about the RMS, he seems to be a Brit.
In his email to you, Mr. Smith notes that: "there is a strong case to be
made that intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the
relevant code should be made available in studies such as this one,
since there is an important possibility of errors in trying to replicate
such a collation".
This is a key point. Douglass et al. already audited our "collation" of
the primary temperature data (i.e., our calculation of synthetic MSU
temperatures). As I've already told Mr. Smith, Douglass et al. obtained
synthetic MSU temperatures very similar to the ones published in our
IJoC paper. Mr. Smith does not understand this. Nor does he understand
that the algorithms used to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from
raw model temperature data have already been published and documented in
the peer-reviewed literature.
I think it would be useful to raise these issues with Paul Hardaker.
Cheers,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Is this the Smith who has emailed? Why does he think
> you've not informed your co-authors that you've made the
> data available? Most odd - though he does accept that the
> raw data was already there. Pity that loads of people on
> CA including McIntyre didn't seem to accept or realise this.
> I'm not on an RMS committee at the moment, but I could
> try and contact Paul Hardaker if you think it might be useful.
> Possibly need to explain what is raw and what is intermediate.
>
> I wasn't going to give this guy Smith the satisfaction of a reply!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: data availability
> From: "Smithg" <smithg49@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Sun, February 1, 2009 2:09 pm
> To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49 series)
> used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL with
> a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested from the
> first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line, but in the
> meantime the data is now available at
> http:// www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported response
> to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no monthly time
> series from climate models used in the paper referred to, and no
> correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at the
> request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary action.
> You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies. A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to time
> I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no reply is
> necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> ref: Santer, et. al.
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere
> International Journal of Climatology
> Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
> know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
>
> You will be aware that intermediate data ("monthly model data (49
> series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to
> a URL with a file of the data as used it the paper") had been requested
> from the first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted on line,
> but in the meantime the data is now available at
> http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php .
>
> Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
> claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported
> response to a FOIA request was "I have examined my files and have no
> monthly time series from climate models used in the paper referred to,
> and no correspondence regarding said time series".
>
> No one disputes Dr. Santer's claim that the "primary model data" is
> publicly available, but there is a strong case to be made that
> intermediate results, e.g., collation of such data and the relevant code
> should be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an
> important possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation.
> The archiving of such intermediate results is required for econometrics
> journals, among others.
>
> It is further reported on line that the posting of the data was not
> pursuant to an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at
> the request of the funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of
> Science). I hope other scientists will take this type of voluntary
> action. You may have heard that Professor Hardaker, the CEO of the Royal
> Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of
> Climatology, has confirmed the issue of data archiving will be on the
> agenda for the next meeting of the Society's Scientific Publishing
> Committee. There is a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and
> publishing scientists themselves, to establish and enforce good data and
> code archiving policies. A more precise definition of "recorded factual
> material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to
> validate research findings" is probably overdue.
>
> I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to
> time I'll look at the progress on archiving, but in the meantime, no
> reply is necessary.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geoff Smith
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1237496573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: See the link below
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would
send something to their Chief Exec.
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI
and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy
to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),
but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit
of a UHI and it has go bigger.
I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained
about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't
be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.
The paper is about London and its UHI!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with
that kind of crap.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
Paul,
I sent you this last night, but in another email. I should have sent you two
emails - apologies. The issues were not linked. This email is to bring your
attention to the link at the end.
The next few sentences repeat what I said last might.
I had been meaning to email you about the RMS and IJC issue of data availability
for numbers and data used in papers that appear in RMS journals. This results from
the issue that arose with the paper by Ben Santer et al in IJC last year. Ben has made
the data available that this complainant wanted. The issue is that this is intermediate
data. The raw data that Ben had used to derive the intermediate data was all fully
available. If you're going to consider asking authors to make some or all of the
data available, then they had done already. The complainant didn't want to have
to go to the trouble of doing all the work that Ben had done.
I hope this is clear.
Another issue that should be considered as well is this.
With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these
from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available
to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases.
This email came overnight - from Tom Peterson, who works at NCDC in Asheville.
[1]http://
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-ma
jor-climate-scientist/
"Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK."
We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in JGR
last year. The paper is
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale
temperature records, with an emphasis on China. /J. Geophys. Res/. *113*, D16122,
doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
The paper clearly states where I work - CRU at UEA. There is no mention of the Hadley
Centre!
There is also no about face as stated on the web page.
Sending this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you are dealing
with when you might be considering changes to data policies at the RMS.
Several years ago I decided there was no point in responding to issues raised
on blog sites. Ben has made the same decision as well.
There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more main stream
in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider. I just think you should
be aware of some of the background. CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the
beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, NCDC and GISS have had as well - many
related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes and the way we do things changes,
but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not have an influence
on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.
Cheers
Phil
--
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:///
Original Filename: 1241415427.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueacanitdb01.uea.ac.uk id n457EfQ5005459
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...
"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."
and
"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it,
under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang
had committed fraud."
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records
for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was
not possible to select stations on the basis of ...
"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
[THIS IS ITEM "X"]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations
that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if
some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above
selection method could not have been applied (but see belowxxx xxxx xxxxunless
there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report
(but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says
is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information
available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much
trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it
did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems
that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data
do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But
ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it
come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been ...
"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation"
OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what
the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?
-----
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
*am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes,
Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make
him happier about his own parallel experiences.
</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <b.j.peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Original-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivered-To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu (nscan3.ucar.edu [128.117.64.193])
by post2.cgd.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB38C3803F;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDD3230C024;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Received: from nscan3.ucar.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (nscan3.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 12674-01; Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-SMTP-Auth: no
X-SMTP-Auth: no
Received: from exch4.jmu.ac.uk (exch4.jmu.ac.uk [150.204.37.14])
by nscan3.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B970230C00B;
Sun, 3 May 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Subject: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 15:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <08927B60D87D374DB001D814D5D2250F01663F4F@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?
Thread-Index: AcnIu0OvOgPY3fShTXip0PBdcf9mWwAAWuOQAGIoisAAbhWS4A==
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu
CCNet Xtra - 3 May 2xxx xxxx xxxxAudiatur et altera pars
CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
-------------------------------------------
The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
"Investigations" of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don't want to investigate things properly.
-- Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
(2) THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG
Douglas J. Keenan, Informath, April 2009
(3) KAFKA AT ALBANY
Peter Risdon, Freeborn John, 15 March 2009
=====
(1) ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AT ALBANY - THE WANG CASE
Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html
Aubrey Blumsohn
Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.
I have no inclination to "weigh in" on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change "denialist" or a "warmist". The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of "method" in science.
The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.
Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the "denialist" side of the climate change debate. He maintains that "almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists".
Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.
Case Summary
The allegations concern two publications. These are:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169
Original Filename: 1248902393.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: This and that
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
Good idea with that BAMS paper. There is also the KNMI web site,
which tells that they have restricted data from Europe - on the ECA part.
Both despite WMO-Res40!
On IPCC, I suggested Thomas to not get too many hangers on amongst the LAs.
Chs 2 and 14 are prime candidates for upping the geographic spread. We had
about half of ours not doing that much last time.
Isn't Tom Karl on the US nominating committee?
Away all day tomorrow - CRU barbecue - so will pour down.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote:
Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those
workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be
released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South
America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data,
Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric
again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are
common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights
into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don't
mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what role
would be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my
old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an
opportunity, I would say yes.
But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or
even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and
impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details).
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1249045162.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: See below
Date: Fri Jul 31 08:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Peter,
Don't know if you got this. There is a link below to something Tom P said.
Keith is fine - seems as though there nothing malignant or cancerous
in the post op tests. Just needs to ensure the scar heals OK, then
he can come back to the madhouse.
Cheers
Phil
X-Failed-Recipients: peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:08 +0100
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk [139.222.131.184]:
554 5.7.1 Message rejected because of unacceptable content. For help, please quote
incident ID 3442835.
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from [139.222.104.75] (helo=crupdj2.uea.ac.uk)
by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>)
id 1MWmaxxx xxxx xxxxwd-KH
for peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:07 +0100
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:31:19 +0100
To: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: did you get a chance to see
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_1878687==.ALT"
--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>From: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: did you get a chance to see
>To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug xxx xxxx xxxx)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Priority: normal
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
>X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
>APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983xxx xxxx xxxxdc0798c114f
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>[1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>[2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>[3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
>
>[4]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you
-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
>Subject: Re: This and that
>
> > Hi, Phil,
> >
> > Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> > interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> > sympathy, but
> > I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> > morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> > airport on my way
> > home.
> >
> > Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> > Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> > violate agreements
> > and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> > don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
> >
> > But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> > Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> > thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> > peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> > would be
> > released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> > agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> > data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> > SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> > data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> > Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> > agreements are
> > common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> > insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> > countries don't
> > mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> > Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> > data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
> >
> > Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> > rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> > in my
> > old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> > different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> > job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> > delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> > the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> > get an
> > opportunity, I would say yes.
> >
> > But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> > be or
> > even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> > extremes and
> > impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> > nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> > notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> > asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> > details).
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> >
>
>> Tom,
> If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
> Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
> a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
> for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
> quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
> went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
> Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
> going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
> wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
> I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
> The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
> containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in
> GHCN). Presumably
> this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
> data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
> have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
>
> On something positive - attached is the outlines for the
> proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
> Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
> only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between
> some of the
> data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
> I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2
> if I decide. At the
> moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
> from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you
> considering
> getting involved?
> I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
> the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
> is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last
> time, and others in
> the US have had.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>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
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--=====================_1878687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:50:= xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: did you get a chance to see
To: Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.01 (built Aug xxx xxxx xxxx)
X-Accept-Language: en
Priority: normal
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 1.00 (*) [Hold at 5.00]
APOSTROPHE_OBFUSCATION,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 26983xxx xxxx xxxxdc0798c114f
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Df
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Dn
X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
[7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3D26983044&m=3D2dc0798c114f&c=3Ds
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
[8]http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-=
want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
----- Original Message -----
From: <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: This and that
> Hi, Phil,
>
> Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
> interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of
> sympathy, but
> I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday
> morningand flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston
> airport on my way
> home.
>
> Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC.
> Periodically,Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would
> violate agreements
> and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you
> don'tspecifically cite me or NCDC in this.
>
> But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
> Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All
> thoseworkshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
> peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data
> would be
> released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
> agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
> data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for
> SouthAmerica, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern
> data,Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia,
> Enricagain for central Africa, etc. The point being that such
> agreements are
> common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative
> insightsinto climate change in many parts of the world. Many
> countries don't
> mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
> Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
> data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
>
> Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what
> rolewould be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs
> in my
> old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
> different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
> job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
> delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
> the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I
> get an
> opportunity, I would say yes.
>
> But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would
> be or
> even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on
> extremes and
> impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
> nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
> notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
> asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the
> details).
> Regards,
> Tom
>
Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At
the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia &nbs=
p;
Norwich &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; = &nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
--=====================_1878687==.ALT--
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. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=f
2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=n
3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=26983044&m=2dc0798c114f&c=s
4. http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
5. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
6. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
7. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm
8. file://localhost/tmp/3D.htm