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: 990718506.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Recent Paper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:35:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jto@u.arizona.edu>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike:
You are right: this is a disinformation campaign.
Some remarks
1) On the Christy et al grl paper, I sent the following to John following
the IPCC Shanghai mtg.:
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:39:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: your grl paper
John:
Just back from IPCC. One surprise was the strong Saudi delegation
distributed your recent grl paper and wanted it inserted into the SPM! In
spite of the fact that you are a lead author on Chapter 2 , the paper is
referenced, etc. In fact Simon Brown was there.
Chris Folland made a comment about his hypothesis for this: related to
changes/growth in ships. My hypothesis focusses on the buoy data.
See our recent paper submitted to jgr:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html also
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001a/jgr_interann.html
This shows that during and following El Nino there is an anomalous flux of
heat out of ocean into atmosphere in the east Pacific of order 50 W m-2 over
many months: so ocean T warms relative to air. During La Lina flux goes
other way. i.e. air warms relative to ocean.
So your results must be affected by 1xxx xxxx xxxxevent at end of series and that
may explain trend differential.
Hope this helps
Regards
Kevin
i.e. the result is not as advertized.
=====================
2) wrt Lindzen's paper
Here is the text from my recent Senate testimony
The determination of the climatic response to the changes in heating and
cooling is complicated by feedbacks. Some of these can amplify the original
warming (positive feedback) while others serve to reduce it (negative
feedback). If, for instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
were suddenly doubled, but with other things remaining the same, the outgoing
long-wave radiation would be reduced and instead trapped in the atmosphere.
To restore the radiative balance, the atmosphere must warm up and, in the
absence of other changes, the warming at the surface and throughout the
troposphere would be about 1.2dg C. In reality, many other factors will
change, and various feedbacks come into play, so that the best IPCC estimate
of the average global warming for doubled carbon dioxide is 2.5dg C. In
other words, the net effect of the feedbacks is positive and roughly doubles
the response otherwise expected. The main positive feedback comes from
increases in water vapor with warming.
In 2001, the IPCC gave special attention to this topic. The many issues with
water vapor and clouds were addressed at some length in Chapter 7 (of which I
was a lead author, along with Professor Richard Lindzen (M.I.T.), and
others). Recent possibilities that might nullify global warming (Lindzen
2001) were considered but not accepted because they run counter to the
prevailing evidence, and the IPCC (Stocker et al., 2001) concluded that ``the
balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of the
magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."
===
Here is a more complete rebuttal, written March 23 to MacCracken.
Subject: Re: Recent Lindzen paper
Kevin Trenberth
1) The paper is based on very simple conceptual ideas that do not mesh with
reality. Fig. 2 is simply not correct. For a more correct view of the
overturning see:
Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak and J. M. Caron, 2000: The global monsoon
as seen through the divergent atmospheric circulation. {J. Climate},
13, 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
This paper also shows that the flow in the tropics is dominated by transients
(and thus mixing) of all kinds. The mean overturning is only about a third
of the daily mean variance for a month and much less if the intra diurnal
variations and interannual variations are included.
2) The "observations" analysis makes absolutely no sense to me at all. There
is a totally inadequate description of what is done and no way to decipher
what a dot in Fig 5 or Fig 6 is. Given 20 months, and daily values (how
was that done?) why are there only about 330 points? Why isn't Fig 6 part
of Fig. 5?
In any event the results are totally at odds with other evidence. Here I
refer to the Goes Precipitation Index which uses 3 hourly data on OLR, and
thus on high cloud, as an index of rainfall, and it is clear from many
studies that OLR generally decreases (convection and high cloud increase)
with SST, the reverse of the relationship in Fig. 5.
Moreover the whole conceptual basis for anything here is surely flawed. As
stated, on short time scales SST is not changing. But clouds are NOT caused
by local SST, rather they arise from either transients, like the MJO, or for
the ITCZ and SPCZ (which are major operators in this region), they come from
moisture convergence (P>>E) and so it is the patterns of SST (gradients) as
well as where the warmest water is that determines where the convergence and
clouds occur. Now in the warm pool, the convergence is focussed more on the
edges, as that is where the pressure gradients are greater, and so the
convergence is not where SST is necessarily highest.
In any case, moisture is not equal to cloudy air. Many analyses show that
moisture is much more extensive, see for example
Trenberth, K. E., and C. J. Guillemot, 1998: Evaluation of the atmospheric
moisture and hydrological cycle in the NCEP/NCAR reanalyses. {Climate
Dyn.}, {14}, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Even with such results, other factors need to be considered.
One process might be
High SST => convergence => rainfall and cloud
OR
Less cloud => more solar radiation => higher SST
Those give opposite relations and both operate. The latter is more important
in the Indian Ocean where subsidence (from the Pacific) dominates.
However, it also operates over the oceans in the region in question in
northern summer, because that is the monsoon season, and the main convection
is over land, meaning subsidence over the ocean.
None of this is sorted out in any way in this paper.
In fact it is so bad in this regard I do not know how it got published.
In Fig 5 etc, no correlations are given, nor are their significance levels.
My rough estimate is that the correlation is about 0.2 to 0.3 and that is
significant if the 330 or so points are independent. But why should I have
to guess at that.
Again I would question the editorial and review process.
3) Finally, I refer you to chapter 7 of IPCC which is a more balanced
assessment. Lindzen was a coauthor of that with me and others. Lindzen
wrote 7.2.1 and the same figure 1 in the BAMS article was included as 7.1 in
chapter 7 along with similar ones from models, showing that these things are
fully simulated in good models, although better with higher resolution.
Anyway, his arguments were fully considered in chapter 7 and you can read it
to see the result. The whole of 7.2.1, including 7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2 and
7.2.1.3 was put together originally by Lindzen, Pierrehumbert and Le Treut,
but basically the final version was rewritten by me to provide better
balance. Pierrehumbert is an agnostic of sorts: disbelieves everything
including models but seems to have faith in simple theories. Le Treut was
sound on the modeling. I did not change the substance of what they prepared,
I did reshape it and polish and it ended up in a form they accepted.
Note at the end it clearly states:
"the balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of
the magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."
The 4 subsections together are quite long and throughly air the issue, much
moreso than any previous IPCC report. For those of you who do not have it:
7.2.1 "Physics of the water vapour and cloud feedbacks" (draft written by
Lindzen) is 1.3 pages, 7.2.1.1 (I think Pierrehumbert) "Water vapour
feedback", is 1 page, 7.2.1.2 "Representation of watre vapour in models" is
1.5 pages (Le Treut) and 7.2.1.3 "Summary on water vapour feedbacks" is half
a page or so.
---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, ML www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, [1850 Table Mesa Drive] (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80307 [80305] (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
*******************************
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> FYI. I received this from a colleague. This gives you some idea of who is
> behind this latest disinformation push.
>
> A note to all regarding the Broecker piece, which has been heavily referred
> to in this and other similar recent pieces (though it is an opinion piece,
> and not peer-reviewed).
> A response by Bradley, Briffa, Crowley, Hughes, Jones, and Mann appears in
> tomorrows issue of "Science". This response simply points out that old
> fallacies that are simply reiterated in Broecker's piece...
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
> >
> >
> > Advancing the principles of free enterprise and
> > limited government
> >
> >
> > 5/16/01
> >
> > Latest Global Warming Report Already Obsolete
> >
> > By Paul J. Georgia
> >
> >
> >
> > The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> >(IPCC) is
> > conducting a campaign of fear to convince us that energy
> >suppression is
> > our only salvation. The "Summary for Policymakers" of the
> >group's latest
> > report ? the report itself has not been officially released ?
> >paints a horrific
> > picture of a climate system gone mad.
> >
> > The new report, known as the "Third Assessment Report" (TAR),
> >is
> > expected to be the focal point for policymakers for the next
> >five years as
> > they decide what to do about global warming, just as the 1995
> >Second
> > Assessment Report has guided policymakers for the last five
> >years.
> > Indeed, the bureaucrats driving the global warming process
> >are using the
> > IPCC to justify their anti-energy policies. Klaus Toepfer,
> >executive
> > director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said,
> >"The
> > scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report
> >about
> > human induced climate change should sound alarm bells in
> >every
> > national capital and in every local community."[1]
> >
> > In the midst of this campaign, however, the science continues
> >to move
> > apace, leaving many of the IPCC's underlying assumptions and
> > subsequent conclusions in shambles. A sampling of scientific
> >studies
> > published after the completion of the final drafts of the TAR
> >is presented
> > here to give the reader a taste of the constant flux of
> >scientific inquiry and
> > our rapidly changing understanding of the climate system.
> >Indeed, if
> > recent studies are correct there would be little
> >justification for Kyoto-style
> > policies that would ultimately impede humanity's ability to
> >provide itself
> > with the wealth- and health-enhancing benefits of modern
> >civilization.
> >
> > Water Vapor Feedback. The biggest uncertainty in climate
> >science
> > remains "feedback" effects on the climate. The conventional
> >explanation
> > by proponents of global warming theory always assumes that
> > human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of
> >greenhouse
> > gases, primarily carbon dioxide, could lead to catastrophic
> >warming of
> > the planet. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions, however, are
> >only an
> > indirect cause of the forecasted warming. A doubling of
> >carbon dioxide
> > concentrations alone would lead to slight warming of about
> >one degree
> > Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years.
> >This small
> > amount of warming, according to standard global warming
> >theory, speeds
> > up evaporation, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor
> >(a major
> > greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This "positive water
> >vapor feedback"
> > effect is where most of the predicted warming comes from.
> >This
> > assumption has never been tested.
> >
> > A recent study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society
> > suggests that the reverse is true.[2] The authors find a
> >negative water
> > vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all
> >other positive
> > feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover
> >from
> > satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface
> >temperatures,
> > the researchers found that there is an "iris effect" in which
> >higher
> > temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds.
> >
> > According to a NASA statement about the study, "Clouds play a
> >critical
> > and complicated role in regulating the temperature of the
> >Earth. Thick,
> > bright, watery clouds like cumulus shield the atmosphere from
> >incoming
> > solar radiation by reflecting much of it back into space.
> >Thin, icy cirrus
> > clouds are poor sunshields but very efficient insulators that
> >trap energy
> > rising from the Earth's warmed surface. A decrease in cirrus
> >cloud area
> > would have a cooling effect by allowing more heat energy, or
> >infrared
> > radiation, to leave the planet."[3]
> >
> > The researchers found that a one degree Celsius rise in ocean
> >surface
> > temperature decreased the ratio of cirrus cloud area to
> >cumulus cloud
> > area by 17 to 27 percent, allowing more heat to escape.
> >
> > In an interview, lead author Dr. Richard S. Lindzen said the
> >climate
> > models used in the IPCC have the cloud physics wrong. "We
> >found that
> > there were terrible errors about clouds in all the models,
> >and that that will
> > make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because
> >the
> > sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor
> >and clouds.
> > Moreover, if clouds are wrong, there's no way you can get
> >water vapor
> > right. They're both intimately tied to each other." Lindzen
> >argues that
> > due to this new finding he doesn't expect "much more than a
> >degree
> > warming and probably a lot less by 2100."[4]
> >
> > The study is the best empirical confirmation to date of the
> >negative
> > feedback hypothesis proposed by Lindzen early on in the
> >global warming
> > debate. It builds on earlier empirical work by Drs. Roy
> >Spencer of NASA
> > and William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation. Their
> >1997 study
> > also cast doubt on the assumption of a positive water vapor
> >feedback
> > effect.[5] They found that the tropical troposphere, the
> >layer of air
> > between 25,000 and 50,000 feet, is much dryer than climate
> >modelers
> > previously thought. Further empirical work will no doubt
> >confirm whether
> > this phenomenon is common throughout the tropics, which act
> >as the
> > Earth's exhaust vents for escaping heat.
> >
> >
> > Black Carbon. In 1995, the IPCC had to explain in its Second
> > Assessment Report why its previous predictions of global
> >temperature
> > change were nearly three times larger than observed in the
> >actual
> > temperature record. The SAR concluded that emissions of
> >sulfate
> > aerosols from burning coal were offsetting the warming that
> >should be
> > caused by carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Sulfate
> >aerosols,
> > according to this explanation, reflect incoming solar
> >radiation back to
> > space, thereby cooling the planet.
> >
> >
> > The TAR takes the sulfate aerosol idea even further. The SAR
> >had
> > predicted a temperature rise of 1 to 3.5 degrees C (1.8 to
> >6.3 degrees F)
> > over the next 100 years. The TAR goes even further,
> >anticipating a 1.4 to
> > 5.8 degrees C (2.52 to 10.44 degrees F) rise in temperature.
> >The
> > extreme case scenario of a 5.8 degrees C of warming, for
> >instance, is
> > based partly on assumptions that the whole world will raise
> >its level of
> > economic activity to that of the U.S., will equal U.S. per
> >capita energy
> > use, and energy use will be carbon intensive. The primary
> >assumption
> > behind the new scenario, however, is that sulfate aerosol
> >emissions will
> > be eliminated by government regulation, giving carbon dioxide
> >free
> > reign.[6]
> >
> > Sulfate aerosols, then, are a key component of catastrophic
> >global
> > warming scenarios. Without them, the IPCC cannot explain why
> >the
> > earth is not warming according to their forecasts, nor can
> >they
> > reasonably claim that global warming will lead to
> >catastrophes of biblical
> > proportions.
> >
> > A new study in Nature eliminates sulfate aerosols as a
> >corrective for the
> > models. [7] The author, Mark Jacobson, a professor with the
> >Department
> > of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Stanford University,
> >examines
> > how black carbon aerosols affect the Earth's climate. Unlike
> >other
> > aerosols that reflect solar radiation back into space, black
> >carbon (soot)
> > absorbs solar radiation, thereby raising atmospheric
> >temperatures.
> >
> > Until now the warming influence of black carbon was thought
> >to be minor,
> > leading researchers to ignore it. James Hansen, with the
> >Goddard
> > Institute for Space Studies, in a paper published in August
> >2000, first
> > suggested that black carbon plays an important role in global
> > warming.[8] Jacobson found "a higher positive forcing from
> >black carbon
> > than previously thought, suggesting that the warming effect
> >from black
> > carbon may nearly balance the net cooling effect of other
> >anthropogenic
> > aerosol constituents."
> >
> > There you have it. Soot offsets the cooling effect of other
> >aerosols,
> > meaning we are back at square one. Scientists still do not
> >have a
> > plausible explanation for why the Earth has failed to warm in
> >line with
> > climate model results. Indeed, all the prognostications of
> >the IPCC are
> > wrong if the Nature study is right.
> >
> >
> > Natural Cycles. The main propaganda device of the TAR is the
> >"hockey
> > stick graph." The graph is a temperature record derived from
> >tree rings
> > dating back to 1000 AD and running through 1900, with the
> >20th century
> > thermometer-based temperature data attached at the end.[9]
> >It claims to
> > show that global temperatures have remained steady or even
> >decreased
> > during the last millennium until the industrial age, when
> >there was an
> > anomalous warming represented by the blade of the hockey
> >stick. The
> > hockey stick is largely bogus, however. The margin of error
> >is so large
> > that nearly any temperature trend could be drawn to fit
> >within it.
> >
> >
> >
> > The hockey stick features prominently in all of IPCC Chairman
> >Robert
> > Watson's speeches, and to the uninitiated it is very
> >persuasive. Senator
> > John McCain (R-AZ), for example, expressed alarm when he saw
> >the
> > graph at Commerce Committee hearings last May.
> >
> >
> > Watson uses the hockey stick to claim that current warming is
> >greater
> > than at any other time in the last 1,000 years. The Medieval
> >Warm
> > Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were two naturally
> >occurring
> > events during the last millennium where the range of global
> >temperature
> > change exceeded that of the 20th century. During the MWP,
> >global
> > temperatures were higher than they are today. The MWP,
> >however, does
> > not show up in the hockey stick graph.
> >
> > The hockey stick has effectively been dismantled in a recent
> >study in
> > Science, however.[10] Wallace Broecker, of the
> >Lamont-Doherty Earth
> > Observatory, argues that the MWP and the LIA were indeed
> >global
> > phenomena. Referring to the hockey stick, Broecker notes, "A
> >recent,
> > widely cited reconstruction leaves the impression that the
> >20th century
> > warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no
> >hint of the
> > Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during
> >which the
> > Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event
> >was
> > regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just
> >at the dawn
> > of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of
> >substantial
> > amounts of anthropogenic [manmade] greenhouse gases, Earth's
> > temperature began to rise steeply."
> >
> >
> > Broecker reviewed several scientific studies which
> >reconstruct the Earth's
> > temperature history into the distant past using various
> >proxies. He
> > concludes, "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent
> >in a
> > series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year
> >intervals
> > throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."[11] In
> >other words,
> > the current warm period may just be attributable to natural
> >cycles.
> >
> >
> > Flawed Temperature Data. The National Oceanic and
> >Atmospheric
> > Administration (NOAA) claimed that the year 2000 was the
> >sixth
> > warmest since 1880. Other temperature records find less
> >warming.[12]
> > Last year was only the 14th warmest, or 9th coolest, year
> >since 1979
> > according to the satellite temperature record,[13] and only
> >the 9th
> > warmest, according to records that include only measurements
> >from
> > meteorological stations.[14]
> >
> > The NOAA data, which is cited by government officials and the
> >news
> > media, may be the least accurate, according to a study that
> >recently
> > appeared in Geophysical Research Letters.[15] The NOAA
> >datasets "are
> > a mixture of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea
> >water
> > temperatures over oceans," according to lead author Dr. John
> >Christy,
> > professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
> >System
> > Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
> >
> > Since actual air temperature data over many large ocean areas
> >are
> > nonexistent, the NOAA uses sea surface temperatures as a
> >"proxy,"
> > assuming that sea surface temperatures and air temperatures
> >move in
> > lock step. This is not the case, according to the data
> >compiled by
> > Christy and his colleagues at the Hadley Centre of the United
> >Kingdom's
> > Meteorological Office, who worked on the study. The
> >researchers used
> > buoy data in the tropical Pacific Ocean to compare "long-term
> >xxx xxxx xxxxyear)
> > trends for temperatures recorded one meter below the sea
> >surface and
> > three meters above it."
> >
> > What they found was a significant discrepancy. "For each
> >buoy in the
> > Eastern Pacific, the air temperatures measured at the three
> >meter height
> > showed less of a warming trend than did the same buoy's water
> > temperatures at one meter depth," the study said. The
> >difference is a
> > near-surface seawater warming trend of 0.37 degrees C per
> >decade and
> > an air temperature trend of only 0.25 degrees C per decade
> >during the
> > 20-year period tested. Replacing the sea surface
> >temperatures with the
> > air temperature data reduces the Earth's global warming trend
> >by a third,
> > from 0.19 to 0.13 degree C per decade.
> >
> > This is significant due to difficulties with reconciling the
> >various global
> > temperature data sets, particularly the discrepancy between
> >tropospheric
> > temperatures measured by satellites that show little to no
> >warming, and
> > the surface-based temperature data that show slightly more
> >warming.
> > Last year, the National Research Council stated that both
> >temperature
> > records are correct and speculated about an explanation.[16]
> >
> > This brings up another problem, however. The standard
> >explanation of
> > the greenhouse effect suggests warming occurs first five
> >kilometers
> > above the earth's surface in the atmospheric layer known as
> >the
> > troposphere. How events at the surface are connected to what
> >happens
> > high in the atmosphere is not clear, but it is believed that
> >surface
> > warming would follow tropospheric warming through climatic
> >processes
> > such as air circulation.[17] If both temperature records are
> >correct, then
> > this explanation of the greenhouse effect is wrong. Christy
> >et al. brings
> > the surface temperature data into closer agreement with the
> >satellite
> > data, suggesting that a better explanation for the
> >discrepancy is flawed
> > surface data.
> >
> > Progressive Science. At a press conference at the National
> >Press
> > Club on April 18, Mr. Jan Pronk, chairman of the Sixth
> >Conference of the
> > Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
> >Change
> > said most issues were still on the table in the ongoing Kyoto
> >negotiations
> > but the scientific basis of catastrophic global warming could
> >not be
> > questioned. That would be like going back ten years, he
> >said. This is a
> > myopic and erroneous view of science. Science is not static
> >but
> > dynamic. It reaches tentative conclusions at best, and those
> > conclusions constantly give way to new data. The IPCC is a
> >static
> > process, however. The Third Assessment Report is already
> >obsolete and
> > it has not even been released yet. With these four recent
> >studies, it may
> > be time to bid catastrophic global warming theory a warm
> >farewell.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] "Evidence of Rapid Global Warming Accepted by 99 Nations,"
> >Environment News Service, January 22,
> > 2001.
> > [2] Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, "Does the
> >Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?,
> > Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82:417-32, March
> >2001.
> > [3] ftp://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/PAO/Releases/2001/01-18.htm
> > [4] "Is Globe Warming? Sure, But Far Less than Alarmists Say,"
> >Tech Central Station
> > (http://www.techcentralstation.com/BigShotFriday.asp), March 5,
> >2001.
> > [5] Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell, "How Dry is the
> >Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for
> > Global Warming Theory," Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society, 78:1xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [6] In correspondence with Nature magazine, one of the IPCC's
> >coordinating lead authors, Thomas Stocker of
> > the Physics Institute at the University of Bern in Switzerland,
> >wrote, "First, although climate modeling has
> > advanced during the past five years, this is not the main reason
> >for the revised range of temperature
> > projections. The higher estimates of maximum warming by the year
> >2100 stem from a more realistic view of
> > sulphate aerosol emissions. The new scenarios assume emissions
> >will be reduced substantially in the coming
> > decades, as this becomes technically and economically feasible, to
> >avoid acid rain. Sulphate emissions have
> > a cooling effect, so reducing them leads to higher estimates of
> >warming." See "Climate panel looked at all
> > the evidence," Nature, 410: 299, March 15, 2001.
> > [7] Mark Z. Jacobson, "Strong radiative heating due to the mixing
> >state of black carbon in atmospheric
> > aerosols," Nature, 409: 695-72, February 8, 2001.
> > [8] James D. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and
> >Valdir Oinas, "Global Warming in the
> > twenty-first century: An alternative scenario," Proceedings of the
> >National Academy of Sciences,
> > 97:9xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [9] The tree ring data originated with Michael E. Mann, Raymond S.
> >Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes,
> > "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium:
> >Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations,"
> > Geophysical Research Letters, 26: 759, March 15, 1999.
> > [10] Wallace S. Broecker, "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?"
> >Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23,
> > 2001.
> > [11] Also see H.H. Lamb, Climate History and the Modern World, (New
> >York: Routledge, 1985), and Brian
> > Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1xxx xxxx xxxx,
> >(New York: Basic Books, 2000).
> > [12] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/2000/ann/ann.html
> > [13] http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
> > [14] http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01.htm#Phil
> > [15] John R. Christy, David E. Parker, Simon J. Brown, Ian Macadam,
> >Martin Stendal, and William B. Norris,
> > "Differential Trends in Tropical Sea Surface and Atmospheric
> >Temperatures since 1979," Geophysical
> > Research Letters, 28:183.
> > [16] Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change,
> >National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.,
> > 2000.
> > [17] Richard S. Lindzen, "Climate Forecasting: When Models are
> >Qualitatively Wrong," George C. Marshall
> > Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Original Filename: 1069630979.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Russell.Vose@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Workshop: Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, timo.hameranta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ceforest@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sokolov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, phstone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ekalnay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.w.reynolds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, roy.spencer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, benjie.norris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kostya@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Norman.Grody@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, climatesceptics@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aarking1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bjorn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, c.defreitas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cidso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, douglass@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mercurio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fredev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, seitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Heinz.Hug@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hughel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfriday@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jeb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kondratyev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klyashtorin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, SCRIPTEC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marsleroux@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, visbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.polunin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjm8x@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, per.ericson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p_dietze@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rabryson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, baliunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wibjorn.karlen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wsoon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, andre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, avogelmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tonyb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cwunsch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schoenwiese@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ds533@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, legates@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Hans.von.Storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, igor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, josefino.c.comiso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kenc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus-p-heiss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kump@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jacobson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, claussen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marty.hoffert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mike.bergin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mauel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, glantz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rodolfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, olavi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ocanz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, air@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pdoran@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tpatters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmyneni@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anthes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.sausen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wofsy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, smenon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tbarnett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ulrich.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Uli.Neff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vramanathan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broecker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All:
The excuses seem to be becoming desperate. Unjustified assertion that I fail to understand
"Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change" does not stop
the attribution study being an error. The problem is that I do understand what is being
done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
Tim Allen said;
In a message dated 19/11/03 08:47:16 GMT Standard Time, m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:
I would just like
to add that those of us working on climate change detection and attribution
are careful to mask model simulations in the same way that the observations
have been sampled, so these well-known dependencies of nominal trends on the
trend-estimation technique have no bearing on formal detection and
attribution results as quoted, for example, in the IPCC TAR.
I rejected this saying:
At 09:31 21/11/2003, RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>It cannot be known that the 'masking' does not generate additional
>spurious trends. Anyway, why assume the errors in the data sets are
>geographical and not?. The masking is a 'fix' applied to the model
>simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
>spurious trends. This is simple GIGO.
Now, Tim Osborn says of my comment;
In a message dated 21/11/03 10:04:56 GMT Standard Time, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:
Richard's statement makes it clear, to me at least, that he misunderstands
Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change.
As far as I understand it, the masking is applied to the model to remove
those locations/times when there are no observations. This is quite
different to removing those locations which do not match, in some way, with
the observations - that would clearly be the wrong thing to do. To mask
those that have no observations, however, is clearly the right thing to do
- what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate
change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no
observations there in which to detect the expected signal? That would
clearly be pointless.
Yes it would. And I fully understand Myles' comments. Indeed, my comments clearly and
unarguably relate to Myles comments. But, as my response states, Myles' comments do not
alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false
trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the conducted
attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad hominem insults don't change that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the facts of these matters.
Richard
Original Filename: 1107454306.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxx(last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
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 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
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.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1116611126.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Empire Strikes Back - return of proper science !
Date: Fri May 20 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Just reviewed Caspar's paper with Wahl for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good.
Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM have gone wrong. Should keep
them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume
you know all about this. Should make Keith's life in Ch 6 easy !
Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer have admitted
at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong !! They used the wrong
sign for the diurnal correction ! Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface
but within error bands. Between you and me, we'll be going with RSS in Ch 3
and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models. Should make Ch 3
a doddle now ! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then.
RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake !
The skeptic pillars are tumbling !
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1196872660.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
well put Phil,
I think you've put your finger right on it. JGR-Atmospheres has been publishing some truly
awful papers lately; we responded (Gavin, me, James Annan) to the awful Schwartz
sensitivity estimate paper, but there are so many other bad papers that are appearing there
(Chylak, etc.) that its just impossible to respond to them all.
I hadn't seen this latest one though. McKitrick and Michaels team up again, wow! maybe
McKitrick has figured ou the difference between radians and degrees this time!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Also I see him writing things - then people saying you should
write this up for a paper, as though it can be knocked up in an
afternoon. He realises he can't do this - as it takes much longer.
Then we wastes more and more time opening up new threads.
He doesn't seem clever enough to realise this.
Gavin and Rasmus have seen the attached piece of garbage!
UAH is correct, therefore the land surface must be wrong.
Let's adjust it for a dodgy reason - ah, it now agrees with UAH.
Let's forget that the land now disagrees with the ocean surface.
If only I'd thought of that first, I could have not bothered with
the awful analysis. If only I'd just believed RSS in the first place.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:16 05/12/2007, you wrote:
HI Phil,
thanks--thats good.
Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny--w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
it compromises the integrity of his own "work" even further. He can't distance himself
from E&E much as he'd like to. He also seems to be losing lots of credibility now w/
all but his most loyal followers, which is good to see...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled
by Thorsten. The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon.
So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get
it fast-tracked through the Holocene - well that's the plan.
The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process
in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back - I got the impression
that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by
saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:00 04/12/2007, you wrote:
Hey Phil,
thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review
paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know.
Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP.
I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science,
and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us
about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor,
has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.
So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and
Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they
publish.
Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away
from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon,
its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still.
I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time
- maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There
is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will
be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner!
As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.
I take it you've seen the attached in E&E. I've not heard any more from
Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months. I'm working on a paper
on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you
to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate
your thoughts on how I will have said things.
Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected
by all three reviewers for GRL! It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al
- thus you'll know what it is on.
Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
down. seems like some time since I've heard from you.
Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the
Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
you'd like me to investigate...
thanks,
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis
Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Gavin Schmidt [1]<gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael E. Mann [2]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[5]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[7]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[8]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[9]<3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[10]<475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's
investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some
reason, but is that done with?
That's a great story that needs to be told.
Gavin
On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> thanks Eric,
>
> That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info
too.
>
> Will keep you in the loop!
>
> mike
>
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I do hope you all are able to put this all together.
> > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate,
suggesting
that
> > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a
bad
rap.
> >
> > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another
> > poster
> > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between
> > data points for these series where there are many years
between
> > samples.
> > Here's the other fellow's comments:
> >
> >
[11]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
> >
[12]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
> >
[13]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
> >
> > I would go further than that. These data sets represent
samples
of
> > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a
single
> > year.
> > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the
variable
> > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be
> > analyzed.
> >
> > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The
> > subcores
> > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a
device
> > that
> > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the
sample
> > would
> > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample
rate
> > of
> > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a
100
> > year
> > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over
40
> > years.
> > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying
change
> > between
> > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40
year
> > value
> > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm
of
the
> > core
> > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted
each
> > research
> > group that did the analysis and requested more information
than
that
> > which
> > might be found in the published reports.
> >
> > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on
Loehle's
> > 2004 paper
> >
> > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of
trends
> > from long-term
> > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4)
(2004)
> > xxx xxxx xxxx],
> > Ecological Modelling 192 (20xxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Eric Swanson
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > At 01:18 PM 12/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> > >>>>
> > Eric--this is
great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken
> > the liberty of
forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of
> > doing an RC
post on this, and this would be very useful. We
> > should
certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats
> > ok w/ you?
> >
> > Looking
forward
to hearing what else you find here!
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Associate Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> 503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University
email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
[15]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [16]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[17]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
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 [18]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [19]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[20]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
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 [21]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker
Building
FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University
email: [22]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[23]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
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 [24]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [25]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[26]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
12. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
13. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
16. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
18. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
24. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
26. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Hidden links:
27. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1248785856.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
The leads and lags are analyzed in detail in this paper
Trenberth, K. E., J. M. Caron, D. P. Stepaniak, and S. Worley 2002: [1]The evolution of
ENSO and global atmospheric surface temperatures J. Geophys. Res., 107, D8,
10.1029/2000JD000298.
and we were not able to reproduce Tom Wigley's result (we tried). It may depend in indices
used. In this paper we also document the extent to which ENSO contributes to warming
overall.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
See below for instructions.
Also, just because IPCC (2007, Ch 3) didn't point out the 6/7-month lag
between the SOI and global temperatures doesn't mean it hasn't been
known for years. IPCC is an assessment and not a review of everything
done. If they had even read Wigley (2001) they would have seen this
lag pointed out. I wasn't the first to do this in 1989 either. I don't
think Walker was either. I think the first was Hildebrandsson in the
1890s. Why does it always go back to a Swede!
file is at [2]ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk
login anonymously with emails as pw
then go to people/philjones
and you should find santeretal2001.pdf
Cheers
Phil
At 14:08 28/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of
the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. I've
taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues who have
been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some
time ago, and has been doing a number of analyses aimed at
demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is
ready to the broader group of people who have been included in these
exchanges for feedback and potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup
message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there
are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of
reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing
the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to
concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the
paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they
smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980
from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this
removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is
possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also
enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without
the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These
clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI
doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30
are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events
occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say
what is purported - in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies
the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it
is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,
J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and
Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO
in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did
something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I
added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual
timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [3]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [4]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [5]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et- tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--
papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [8]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[9]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [11]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [15]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[16]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[17]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [21]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this,
I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading
a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff
on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [24]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at
Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [25]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been
on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [26]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got
a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped
through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer
MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were
a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[27]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions
of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to
estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on
the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the
mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO,
volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little
less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen
for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[28]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is
intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader
of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [29]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently
published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[30]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[31]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [32]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [33]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[34]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [35]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [36]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[37]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[38]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [39]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [40]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[41]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [42]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [43]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[44]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.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 [45]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Parker-on-Pielke-2009.pdf><Jones_ENSO_1990.pdf><wigley2001.pdf>
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [46]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [47]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[48]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of the main points that
need to be covered in a formal response. I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple
other colleagues who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some time ago, and has
been doing a number of analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et
al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is ready to the
broader group of people who have been included in these exchanges for feedback and
potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup message. Can you post
in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after
volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported -
in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the
effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 28xxx xxxx xxxx.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[49]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[50]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[51]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[52]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[53]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[54]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[55]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[56]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [57]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [58]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[59]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [60]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [61]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[62]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[63]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [64]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [65]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[66]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [67]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [68]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[69]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[70]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[71]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[72]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[73]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[74]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[75]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[76]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[77]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [78]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [79]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[80]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [81]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [82]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[83]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[84]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [85]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [86]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[87]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [88]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [89]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann
Original Filename: 1248790545.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Salinger <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue Jul 28 10:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported - in
fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects
of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
= 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[8]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[13]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann <[15]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/
L where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e. Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[16]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences. the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt. it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[17]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
xxx xxxx xxxx
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[18]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability. It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[19]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag xxx xxxx xxxx
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxxext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[20]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [21]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [24]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [25]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph xxx xxxx xxxx
[27]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [28]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [29]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[30]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [31]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
website: [32]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[33]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.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.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu
2. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
6. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
7. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
9. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
10. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
13. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
17. mailto:sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
20. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
21. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
23. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
24. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
26. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
27. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
28. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
29. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
30. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
31. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
32. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
33. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Original Filename: 1255095172.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "'Kevin E. Trenberth'" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Steve,
I was made aware of this yesterday (see forwarded email).
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>
X-Account-Key: account1
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path: <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id n991Sh62016185;
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Attachments: None
Received: from dione.llnl.gov ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Message-ID: <4ACE91CA.7000006@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Reply-To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Piltz <piltz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Jim Hansen <jeh1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bob Watson <robert.watson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"'John F. B. Mitchell'" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with
charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature
record
References: <80955b$27nkli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <80955b$27nkli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<x-flowed>
Dear Rick,
I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
influence" conclusions.
Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
[One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
test of time.]
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
global-mean temperature changes.
As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
of our professional societies.
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you've got it.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
issues.
With best regards,
Ben
Rick Piltz wrote:
> Gentlemen--
>
> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>
> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
> response to their allegations.
>
> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
> some collective coherence.
>
> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
> someone please explain this to me?
>
> Best regrads,
> Rick
>
>
> *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
> 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>
> *
>
>
> *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>
> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
> health and welfare.
>
> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
> <http://*www.*eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf>
> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>
> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>
> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
> homogenized) data."
>
> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>
> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>
> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
> <http://*eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9>, Sept. 27, 2007).
>
> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>
> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>
> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
> endangerment proposal.
>
> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
> underlying the finding.
>
> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
> technical support document.
>
> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
> vets its data.
>
> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
> challenging the IPCC data.
>
> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
> the mainstream science community."
>
> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
> scientific merit of the research data.
>
> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
> of relying upon flawed data.
>
> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
> scientific information."
>
> Rick Piltz
> Director, Climate Science Watch
> xxx xxxx xxxx
> www.*climatesciencewatch.org
>
> <http://*www.*climatesciencewatch.org/>Climate Science Watch is a
> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>
> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
> --Albert Einstein
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1255100876.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,
I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is. I forwarded the message
> to Rick. So if you want to add anything else feel free to do so.
> We have more stations going into the latest CRU data than we did in the
> 1980s.
>
> In Lecce next week for 2 days at a GKSS summer school led by Hans VS!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Dear Rick,
>>
>> I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
>>
>> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>>
>> First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
>> colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
>> intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used
>> in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
>>
>> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
>> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human
>> influence" conclusions.
>>
>> Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
>> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
>> 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
>> might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
>> Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
>> scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
>> global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
>> here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
>> Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
>> Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
>> completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
>> process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
>> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
>> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
>> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
>> changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
>>
>> I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
>> his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
>> Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
>> withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
>> computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
>>
>> I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
>> every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
>> temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
>> preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
>> generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
>>
>> [One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
>> had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
>> scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
>> out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in
>> global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
>> test of time.]
>>
>> The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
>> They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
>> available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
>> every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
>> vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
>> understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
>> every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years.
>>
>> The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are
>> like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
>> also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
>> observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
>> changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
>> obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
>> global-mean temperature changes.
>>
>> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
>> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
>> Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge"
>> Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
>> performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
>> temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
>> atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
>> runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
>> temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
>> Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
>> that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
>> we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
>> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
>> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
>> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
>>
>> Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
>> behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
>> being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
>> influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
>> publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
>> out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
>> as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
>> on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
>> Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
>> others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
>> of our professional societies.
>>
>> The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
>> our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
>> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
>> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
>> have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
>> construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
>> dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
>> transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
>> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
>> various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
>> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
>> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
>> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
>> the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
>> for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
>> the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
>>
>> The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
>> allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
>> and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
>> can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
>> from me - you've got it.
>>
>> I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at
>> the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
>> issues.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> Rick Piltz wrote:
>>> Gentlemen--
>>>
>>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
>>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
>>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
>>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
>>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
>>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
>>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
>>> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
>>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
>>>
>>> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
>>> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
>>> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
>>> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical
>>> response to their allegations.
>>>
>>> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
>>> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
>>> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
>>> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
>>> some collective coherence.
>>>
>>> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
>>> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
>>> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
>>> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
>>> someone please explain this to me?
>>>
>>> Best regrads,
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>> *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
>>> 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
>>>
>>> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
>>> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
>>> health and welfare.
>>>
>>> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to
>>> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned*
>>> <http://**www.**eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf>
>>> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
>>> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
>>> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
>>>
>>> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
>>> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
>>> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
>>> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
>>> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
>>> when drafting its endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage
>>> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
>>> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
>>> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
>>> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
>>> homogenized) data."
>>>
>>> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
>>> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on
>>> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's
>>> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
>>> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA
>>> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into
>>> the most important regulatory issue we face."
>>>
>>> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
>>> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the
>>> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws
>>> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>>> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote.
>>>
>>> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
>>> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped
>>> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he
>>> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
>>> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
>>> <http://**eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9>, Sept. 27, 2007).
>>>
>>> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were
>>> not available to comment on the CEI petition.
>>>
>>> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
>>> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,"
>>> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval."
>>>
>>> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
>>> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
>>> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
>>> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
>>> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
>>> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
>>> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
>>> endangerment proposal.
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
>>> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
>>> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the
>>> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew
>>> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document
>>> underlying the finding.
>>>
>>> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth
>>> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
>>> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
>>> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
>>> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
>>> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's
>>> technical support document.
>>>
>>> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
>>> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
>>> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
>>> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
>>> vets its data.
>>>
>>> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
>>> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by
>>> challenging the IPCC data.
>>>
>>> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When
>>> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
>>> the mainstream science community."
>>>
>>> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
>>> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
>>> scientific merit of the research data.
>>>
>>> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
>>> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
>>> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
>>> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
>>> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
>>> of relying upon flawed data.
>>>
>>> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
>>> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
>>> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
>>> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic
>>> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
>>> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available
>>> scientific information."
>>>
>>> Rick Piltz
>>> Director, Climate Science Watch
>>> xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> www.**climatesciencewatch.org
>>>
>>> <http://**www.**climatesciencewatch.org/>Climate Science Watch is a
>>> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
>>> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
>>> science and related research effectively and with integrity in
>>> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
>>>
>>> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
>>> any part of what one has recognized to be true.
>>> --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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>