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: 876250531.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Angela.LIBERATORE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "m.hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Martin.OConnor" <Martin.OConnor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, dvm <dvm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, eepriia <eepriia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, hourcade <hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "t.jackson" <t.jackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vertic <vertic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pier.vellinga" <pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, pweingart <pweingart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, fy1 <fy1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Copy of: climate: Japanese proposal
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:55:31 +0200
From: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sender: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter DEBRINE <Peter.Debrine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia DESMARES <patricia.desmares@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cherry FARROW <cfarrow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Elizabeth FOLEY <EFOLEY@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Karen GILL <kgill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Merylyn HEDGER (wwfnet)" <mmhedger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martin HILLER <mhiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Aldo IACOMELLI <aldo.jacomelli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Lars Georg JENSEN <wwf2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve JUDD <smjudd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paolo LOMBARDI <mc2236@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tony LONG <tlong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sten LUNDBERG <sten.lundberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick MABEY <nmabey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Adam MARKHAM <ADAM.MARKHAM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Gisele McAULIFFE <gisele.mcauliffe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Konrad MEYER <konrad.meyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Stefan MOIDL <STEFAN_MOIDL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lee POSTON <LEE.POSTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael RAE <wwfmrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Andrea RIES <andrea.ries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sible SCHONE <sschone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephan SINGER <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marc van den TWEEL <mtweel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marijke UNGER <marijke.unger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Koichi WATANABE 2 <LDN02771@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Helge WEINBERG <weinberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Michael Brown <mvbrown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (ecofys)" <k.blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (univ)" <blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yvo de BOER <y.y.deboer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael BROWN <100563.1340@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Renate CHRIST <Renate.CHRIST@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON <KIRSTY.HAMILTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON 2 <khamilton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sabri ZAIN <sabriz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill HARE 1 <BHARE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bill HARE 2 <bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martina KRUEGER <MKRUEGER@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Penehuro LEFALE <lefale@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yasuko MATSUMOTO <yasuko.matsumoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paul METZ <pemetz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Katarina PANJI <KPanji@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Michel RAQUET (dg11)" <Michel.RAQUET@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Holger ROENITZ <hroenitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cornelia SIDLER <Cornelia.Sidler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (ecofys)" <a.vanwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (uu)" <vwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: climate: Japanese proposal
Message-ID: <199710051347_MC2-22DC-A5E4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Andrew Kerr, WWF Climate Change Campaign
re.: "scandalous" Japanese climate change proposal
Dear All
I am in Japan for the next week. If you need to, you can contact me by
phone at the following numbers:
* Monday - xxx xxxx xxxx(Yurika?s mobile)
* Tuesday-Thursday - via WWF Japan. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx; fax: 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
* Friday - Tokyo Grand Hotel. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Tomorrow the Japanese government is due to formally announce its emission
reduction proposal for the industrialised world for the Kyoto climate
summit: a maximum of a 5% reduction from 1990 levels for a basket of three
greenhouse gases over the period 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a second period up to 2017,
industrialised countries would not be obliged to make further reductions.
See below for fuller details and an analysis of the emission
reduction implications for various industrialised nations.
The information has been well-leaked. In a talk to the Foreign
Correspondents Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
"joke". This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today's Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!
Tanabe is moving to Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that
European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge
Japan to at least support the EU standpoint. (Note: the WWF policies and
measures study for Japan identifies how to cut CO2 emissions 8.8% below
1990 levels by 2005 and 14.8% by 2010 - very similar to the EU position).
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew
---
CLIMATE CHANGE: JAPANESE PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO
To be formally announced by the Japanese government, Monday 6 October 1997
Following information is from the Nikkei Journal, 4 October 1997
A. Content of the proposal
1. First period: the five years from 2008 to 2012
Reduction of 5%; Base year: 1990
1) Gases: CO2, methane, Nitrous oxide
2) Target figures will be flexible according to the future energy
situation, changes in industrial structures, etc. But in any case, the
total emission should not exceed 1990 level.
3) Each country's target would be based on emission per GDP, emission per
capita, and population growth rate.
If emission per GDP of 1990 (A) is smaller than emission per GDP of all
countries (B), the reduction rate should be 5%x(A/B)
If per capita emission of 1990(C) is smaller than per capita emission of
all countries (D), the reduction rate should be 5%x(C/D).
If population growth rate from 1990 to 1995 is more than the population
growth rate of all other countries, the reduction target of that country
should put into consideration their high population growth rate.
Banking, Borrowing, Joint Implementaion and Emission Trading schemes should
be introduced with certain conditions.
2. Second period: 2xxx xxxx xxxx
Emission should not exceed the level of the first period.
More sophisticated differentiation scheme should be adopted for the second
period.
B. Implications of the proposal
Resulting emission reduction targets for the five years 2xxx xxxx xxxx, relative
to 1990:
%
Australia 1.8
Czech Republic 5.0
Denmark 2.5
Germany 3.1
Italy 2.5
Japan 2.5
Portugal 1.6
Russia 5.0
Spain 2.2
Switzerland 1.3
UK 3.7
US 2.6
Overall reduction for all industrialised countries: 3.2 %
---
WWF PRESS RELEASE
JAPAN PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO SUMMIT SCANDALOUS, WWF SAYS
KYOTO, JAPAN, 5 October 1997 ? The World Wide Fund for Nature condemned as
"scandalous" the Japanese government?s proposal for reducing greenhouse
gases responsible for climate change, Sunday, and called on industrialised
nations to flatly reject it.
As full details of the proposal emerged over the weekend, it was revealed
that Japan suggests allowing industrialised countries to make extremely
marginal reductions in their emissions by as late as 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a
second five-year period up to 2017, countries would only be required to
ensure their emissions were lower than in 1990.
"The Japanese plan presents a bleak future for the environment, already
suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising
sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns
? to name just a few," said Andrew Kerr of WWF?s international Climate
Change Campaign. "The plan is laughable when you consider that some
European nations already have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by several
times more than the amount Japan proposes for emission reductions more than
a decade from now."
According to the just released "WWF State of the Climate" report that
evaluates the global impacts of climate change, a long list of impacts
already are visible today including the destruction of several land and
marine ecosystems in Asia and around the world because they cannot keep up
with the pace of global warming.
The Japanese proposal also proves the government is back-tracking on a
Ministerial Declaration concluded at the 1996 climate summit in Geneva. At
that conference, 130 countries, including Japan, agreed that the Kyoto
Summit should agree on "legally-binding objectives for emission limitations
and significant overall reductions" of greenhouse gases. At the Geneva
meeting, the Ministers recognised that climate change science showed human
activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil and gasoline, are already
affecting the planet?s climate and the impacts would be wide-ranging and
irreversible, posing threats to food supplies, public health and the
survival of many species. Nations also agreed that "significant reductions
in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible and economically
feasible".
WWF is calling on industrial nations to cut their carbon dioxide emissions
20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. A WWF report written by Dr. Haruki
Tsuchiya of the Research Institute for Systems Technology, in Tokyo, (to be
released by WWF later this month) shows that Japan can reduce its carbon
dioxide emissions by nearly nine percent by 2005 and by almost 15 percent
by 2010 without damaging the economy. Policies and measures suggested by
the WWF report would stimulate the economy and help position Japan as a
world leader in the development of new, energy efficient technologies.
"Environmentally, Japan?s plan is worse than no plan whatsoever because it
pretends to legitimise an emissions cut that is so low it will produce no
tangible result in the effort to combat climate change, " said Kerr. "Even
more alarming, it encourages many nations also to cut their emissions by
much less than they now plan. This proposal is an embarrassment for Japan
because it spells disaster for the Kyoto Summit in December which will be
seen as an absolute failure by several European nations and the entire
environmental community if such meagre greenhouse gas emission cuts are
adopted."
The complicated emission-reduction formulae that Japan proposes would
require Japan to make only a 2.5 percent cut in emissions. The United
States, responsible for over one-fifth of world releases of carbon dioxide,
would only need to make a 2.6 percent reduction. Highlighting the
political irrelevance of the Japanese formula, Germany, Denmark and the UK
would have to make reductions of 3.1 percent, 2.5 percent and 3.7 percent
respectively. But Germany already has achieved around half of its national
target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent by 2005. Denmark
is aiming for a 20 percent reduction by the same date and the UK?s target
is a 20 percent cut by 2010.
Contact: Andrew Kerr or Yurika Ayukawa. Mobile tel: xxx xxxx xxxxand
Hearton Hotel, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Original Filename: 893188400.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Anne JOHNSON <johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sandy MacCracken <smaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nicolette Manson <Nicolette_Manson-Engelbrecht@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: meeting next week
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:53:20 +0200
Cc: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Colleagues,
Due to the large number of participants at the Lead Authors meeting, the
location has been changed from IPCC WG II TSU offices to the World Bank,
H Building, 600 19th Street, N.W.
The closest metro stop to this building is Farragut West on the orange and
blue lines. Take the 18th Street exit from the metro and go one block to
19th Street and then two blocks over to G Street. You will need a badge to
get
into the meeting, but someone will be there to help you with this. In any
case, it may be a good idea to come a bit early on the first day to get
checked in. The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday morning.
The Modelers meeting will still be held at the WG II TSU office as
originally planned. That meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. on Monday morning.
The address, once again, is 400 Virginia Avenue S.W., Suite 750,
Washington, D.C.
We look forward to seeing everyone in Washington.
Best regards,
Anne Johnson
Anne JOHNSON
IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
E-Mail: johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone : xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax : xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 904080701.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Guenther Fischer <fischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rik Leemans <Rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matthew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres-Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <Nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <H.H.Rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexei Sankovski <ASankovski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sascha van Rooijen <vanrooijen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Xing Xiaoshi <xxiaoshi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting in Beijing, 7-9 October
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:31:41 +0200
Cc: johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dowds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Colleagues,
Zhou Dadi has been kind enough to organize the next SRES Lead Authors
meeting in Beijing, China, to be held on 7-9 October, 1998. Dadi will
provide us with more detailed information on meeting logistics in the near
future, and I will send out a meeting agenda as we get closer to the
meeting date. Basically, there are four items that need to be discussed at
the meeting: 1) SRES progress to date; 2) the open process; 3) scenario
revisions and additional work; and 4) planning the final report.
Please mark you calendars for this date and RSVP to both Zhou Dadi
(becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and Anne Johnson (johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) as soon
as possible I will be out of the office xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember and will not be
able to receive messages during this time.
I look forward to seeing you in Beijing.
Naki
Original Filename: 904762907.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Guenther Fischer <fischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rik Leemans <Rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matthew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres-Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert Metz <bert.metz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John F.B. Mitchell" <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <Nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keywan Riahi <Riahi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexander Roehrl <Roehrl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <H.H.Rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexei Sankovski <ASankovski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael Schlesinger <schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Steve Smith" <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sascha van Rooijen <vanrooijen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Xing Xiaoshi <xxiaoshi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard H. Moss" <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John F.B. Mitchell" <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting in Beijing, 7-9 October
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:01:47 +0200
Cc: Dave Dokken <ddokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "D.J. Griggs" <djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Colleagues,
This is a follow up on the earlier announcement of the next SRES Meeting.
First, I would like to thank all those of you who have confirmed that you
will join us in Beijing. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues also had to
cancel due to other commitments. Attached you will find the venue of the
meeting and hotel that Dadi reserved for us at a special discounted price.
My proposal is to convene at 13:00 hours on 7 October and try to finish on
early afternoon on 9 October so that you have some free time left for
sight-seeing before we all depart.
I will soon send to all of you formal invitation letters on IIASA
letter-head just in the case you need it for travel approval (unless you
cancel your participation in the meantime). Dadi will send you a similar
invitation letter to use in order to obtain a visa for China.
Appended is my last e-mail concerning this meeting in case you did not
receive a copy. In the attachment to this e-mail you will find two
letters. One is from IPCC outlining the possible role of scenarios in IPCC
assessment (Microsoft Photo Editor file). It is important for our work as
it indicates possible uses of new IPCC emissions scenarios. One of the
agenda items at the meeting will indeed be to discuss which of our marker
scenarios we recommend be used in the interim period before our scenarios
are approved by IPCC in early 2000. The other letter is also from IPCC
announcing the SRES web-site (PowerPoint file). The web-site includes most
of the scenario variants we have developed to date. Please circulate this
second letter as widely as you can because we need as much feedback from
the wider community of possible users as we can obtain.
Please let us know as soon as possible whether you are planing to attend.
I hope to see you all in China.
Regards, Naki
Venue:
National Meteorological Administration (No. 46 Baishiqiao Road, Haidian
District, Beijing).
Accommodation:
Olympic Hotel (No. 48 Baishiqiao Road, Haidian District, Beijing,
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx); discounted Price: US$65+15% service costs.
Meeting Announcement:
Dear Colleagues,
Zhou Dadi has been kind enough to organize the next SRES Lead Authors
meeting in Beijing, China, to be held on 7-9 October, 1998. Dadi will
provide us with more detailed information on meeting logistics in the near
future, and I will send out a meeting agenda as we get closer to the
meeting date. Basically, there are four items that need to be discussed at
the meeting: 1) SRES progress to date; 2) the open process; 3) scenario
revisions and additional work; and 4) planning the final report.
Please mark you calendars for this date and RSVP to both Zhou Dadi
(becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and Anne Johnson (johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) as soon
as possible I will be out of the office xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember and will not be
able to receive messages during this time.
I look forward to seeing you in Beijing.
Naki
Original Filename: 907293443.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sres@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Meeting on SRES Scenarios, 1 October 1998
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:57:23 +0200
Dear Colleagues,
A meeting was held today on SRES scenarios during the IPCC plenary session
in Vienna. The meeting was organized by David Griggs, Fortunaat Joos,
Richard Moss, and Rob Swart. Also present were a number of delegates
including two Co-Chairs of IPCC, John Houghton from WGI and Bert Metz from
WGIII. Attached is a document with issues discussed during this meeting.
The meeting was very productive in my view, even though it was quite brief.
Two key issues were discussed that are listed in the attachment: (1)
incomplete information concerning SRES emissions as reported on the
website, and (2) consistency and plausibility of SRES scenarios and their
emissions.
(1) Incomplete information
There appeared to be a general consensus that the range of CO2 emissions
(especially energy-related ones) are in quite good agreement across the
SRES scenarios once one adds the missing emissions categories to all model
runs. They are also in a relatively good agreement with the ranges given
in SAR.
The SRES ranges of CH4 and N2O emissions did not appear to be a problem in
themselves, but they are considerably lower than the ranges given in SAR.
It was agreed to ask the SRES writing team to further harmonize the ranges
for the base year and the period 1990 to 2000 across the scenarios for CO2,
CH4 and N2O. At the same time, David Griggs will contact the colleagues
from WGI to inquire whether the emissions ranges for these gases as given
in SAR have changed in the mean time and will inform the SRES colleagues
soon about the result. In particular, he will check whether the non-energy
CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions ranges are still appropriate as best guess for
the 1990 situation and about any new numbers about the ranges for more
recent years. It was also suggested that the SRES writing team discuss the
reasons for relatively low CH4 emissions in 1990 compared with the SAR range.
Most of the SRES models do not generate CFC and HFC emissions but these
emissions are important for climate models. It was agreed that David
Griggs will inquire with climate modelers whether they really need all
species of these gases or whether it is sufficient to report their joint
emissions. SRES team is to report whether these emissions could be added
to most of the model runs and over which time-scale. Joergen Fenhann is
in touch with a number of colleagues on this issue already and he is
planning to make a specific proposal how to handle this question across
SRES scenarios.
SRES sulfur emissions are considerably lower than the IS92 range. There
are a number of reasons for this difference that were discussed at the
meeting. It was decided that this exchange should continue in the future
so that there is a better understanding of all issues involved. This is a
new aspect of SRES scenarios that represents an important change since
IS92a, a change that was also suggested by the 1994 IPCC review of
emissions scenarios.
The concern raised by Hugh Pitcher (in the WGI scenario discussion group)
about high productivity growth in A1 scenarios was briefly mentioned. This
issue is to be settled within the SRES writing team, possibly by including
the formulation of alternative scenario variants.
(2) Consistency and Plausibility
Most participants of the meeting expressed the need to have emissions
trajectories that are somehow normalized for all SRES scenarios for 1990
and that have the same trends through 2000 and diverge only thereafter
across different scenarios. This would meet the need of climate modelers
to work with the same starting points for all scenarios they model. One
suggestion was that SRES team simply takes midpoints of emissions ranges in
1990 and renormalizes all SRES emissions. Another proposal is that climate
modelers suggest their preferred values for 1990 to be used in
renormalization. In any case, the method that is used would need to be
well documented and cited in the relevant IPCC reports. This is necessary
so as not to introduce an artificial impression that there is a full
agreement on base-year emissions across SRES scenarios.
There were no specific suggestions how to harmonize short-term emissions
through 2000. This issues is to be discussed within the SRES writing team
and within the climate modeling community in order to collect emissions
data for the last years that could be used for such harmonization.
The issue was discussed of generally lower CO2 and SO2 emissions across the
range of SRES scenarios and in particular for B2 marker. This results in
lower GHG forcing and lower "negative" SO2 forcing. The total forcing
remains roughly the same as in IS92a but has fundamentally different
implications especially at regional level.
Most of the climate models will be in the position to use just a few
scenarios, in some case, may be just two. Possible ways of avoiding the
impression that there is a "preferred" scenario were discussed and there
was a consensus that somehow the message needs to be conveyed that the
whole set of SRES scenarios is plausible and that there is really no single
"central" case that can be compared with IS92a.
Climate models need gridded SO2 emissions while SRES models generate SO2
emissions for a number world regions. Mike Schlesinger and Steve Smith
will attend the next SRES meeting and it was suggested that Mike would use
his method to produce gridded SO2 emissions and that Steve would use the
method proposed by Tom Wigley to do the same. This way there would be two
alternative gridded emissions patterns for all SRES scenarios available to
user groups.
In conclusion, it was agreed that it would be useful to organize an
informal meeting where SRES colleagues could meet with potential user
groups from TAR (especially from WGI and WGII). Next possibility to do so
would be on the occasion of the WGI meeting in Paris, 30 November to 3
December. I am not quite sure that I got the dates right. The next
communication will be more precise.
Regards, Naki
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachsres_w~1.rtf"
Original Filename: 925158373.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Connie Woodhouse (by way of "Henri D. Grissino-Mayer" <grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>)" <woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Problem with "az510.crn": No Correlation
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve,
AZ510.crn is a bristlecone pine chronology. I suspect the others you are
working with are ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. In this region, these
lower-elevation species have quite a different response to climate than the
bristlecone. I haven't worked with the AZ510 chronology, but I would
guess that bristlecone tree growth at this site would be favored by warm
winter temperatures and perhaps somewhat drier conditions, while the
ponderosa and Douglas-fir do well under cool, wet winter conditions. This
may be the reason for your poor correlations.
regards,
Connie Woodhouse
Connie Woodhouse
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80303
ph: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
email: woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
Campus Box 450
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
ph: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
email: woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 925225547.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Matthew Salzer <msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: AZ510: No Correlation
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Steve:
I've had some experience with bristlecone pine on the San Francisco Peaks
and you are correct in noting their lack of correlation with precipitation
records and with other precipitation sensitive tree-ring chronologies like
Slate Mtn. Ponderosa. There is no "problem" with the AZ510 chronology; it
is, as suggested by Dave, Connie, and Jim, a chronology constructed from
trees whose growth is not primarily limited by precipitation. Site location
and tree species are critical when comparing chronologies and evaluating
climate - tree growth relationships.
We've collected in the Peaks recently as part of an ongoing archaeological
and paleoclimate project and have built a chronology extending back to 663
BC, more than 1200 years longer than the AZ510 chronology collected by Don
Graybill in the early 1980's. We're working on a temperature reconstruction
from this chronology that should prove to be a valuable addition to the
already extensive archive of southwestern USA paleoenvironmental research.
Matt Salzer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium
msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 933716462.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:41:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: calvert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tom,
Thanks for bringing that to our attention...
I checked out that page and, unfortunately what he has
done is *so* ridden with problems that it isn't even
worth confronting. Many of us (e.g., me,
Phil Jones, Henry Pollack, Shao-Yang Huang, Rob
Harris, and others) have been scratching our heads
trying to find a statistically defensible way of combining
the information in boreholes and "conventional" proxy
indicators, and as yet it is not clear if it can be done,
given in particular the loss of information due to
geothermal diffusion, and the overriding important
of land-usage changes and snowcover variations, on borehole
temperature profiles. I don't think Hoyt has added
anything scientifically productive in this regard.
Looks more like he has wrecklessly convoluted
borhole data with our reconstructions to get just
the kind of result he wants to get...
Of course, there are issues with regard to secular trends
in dendroclimatic reconstructions (which form an important,
but not exclusive, role in oure reconstructions) and nobody
is better qualified to discuss these than Keith, or Malcolm Hughes,
who have highlighted these issues in recent publications
(there is a link to a nice recent "Nota Bene" Science piece by
Keith and Tim Osborn on my webpage:
http://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike/mbh99.html
With regard to "Co2 fertilization", it is ironic that
Hoyt frames his analysis in these terms, when it
precisely this effect (for better or for worse)
we took great pains to account for in our recent millennial
temperature reconstruction (see the above web page
for more info). At least, we have done this in a reasonably
statistically-defensible, if imperfect, manner, rather
than an ad hoc attempt to get an answer, rather than follow
a scientifically meaningful process.
This thing wouldn't have a chance at passing
peer-review (at least, not on this planet), so
he posts it on the web--the downside of absolute
freedom of dissemination I suppose. The material in
question is the scientific equivalent of trash, plain and
simple.
Like a lot of the "skeptics" out there, D.H. appears
far less interested in honest scientific discourse,
than in misleading as many unlucky soles as possible
who wander into his den of disinformation (kind of like the
"scientist" equivalent of an Ant Lion I suppose).
Every once and a while, I do choose to respond to this
type of crap (e.g., with regard to Pat Michaels--my
soon-to-be "neighbor"'s recent pieces in his
"World Climate Report"). In D.H.'s case, I doubt even
more that this would be at all productive. We just have
to wait and see if he ever tries to get this kind of
thing published in the peer-reviewed literature. For
our part, I think the best approach is to, as Jonathan
Overpeck has so effectivley been doing, try whenever
possible to educate the lay public about the essential
distinction between peer-reviewed science and un-peer-
reviewed...., well, whatever you want to call it.
Again, thanks for the head's up on this.
best regards,
mike mann
>X-Sender: tfp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>From: Tom Pedersen <pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Skeptics
>Cc: calvert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Steve Calvert), k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Hi Ray:
>My colleague, Steve Calvert, has just brought to my attention a website of
>which I was unaware but you probably know well. It's at
>http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1
>and run by Doug Hoyt.
>Amongst other things Hoyt has taken the Mann reconstruction and
>reconstructed it by "removing the effect on tree ring thickness that
>results from CO2 fertilization" (paraphrased). You will see the figure on
>his site. He concludes that there is no significant warming in the last
>half of this century relative to the last millenium. Do you know this guy?
>Are you familiar with his reconstruction of your reconstruction? Didn't
>Keith Briffa correct his tree-ring reconstructions for CO2 fertilization?
>[Keith: any comments?]. Steve and I would be most interested to hear your
>collective comments...
>
>To close this, here is a bit cut and pasted from Hoyt's sight:
>
>
> Three Final Points
>
>There are three important points to make about the reported warming of the
>last 20 years:
>
>1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This
>result is inconsistent with a warming
>caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and
>other surface effects.
>
>2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the
>upper atmosphere. This type of warming is
>completely opposite to what is predicted if greenhouse gases are the cause.
>Again these observations are consistent
>with problems in the surface measurements.
>
>3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere
>mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical
>regions. This result is consistent with urban influences, but is
>incompatible with the climate warming predicted from
>greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions.
>
>In short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to
>greenhouse gases in its temporal, vertical, and
>geographical distribution. The reported warming is consistent with problems
>in the surface network.
>
>
>Cheers, Tom
>
>
>T.F. Pedersen
>Oceanography, Earth and Ocean Sciences, 6270 University Boulevard,
>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4
>Telephone: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxEmail: pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.eos.ubc.ca/
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx | Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; memann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (attachments)
Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
Original Filename: 967041809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:xxx xxxx xxxx(PDT)
Cc: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, DEASTERL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across
various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way,
"possible" still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or
very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is
probably OK--but "quite possible" conveys medium confidence better--but
then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the
guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of
disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>
> Steve, I agree with your assesement of inconclusive --- quite possible is
> much better and we use 'possible' in the US National Assessment. Surveys
> has shown that the term 'possible' is interpreted in this range by the
> public.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> on 08/23/2000 03:02:33 AM
>
>
>
> To: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter
> <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> Tom Karl/NCDC, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: THC collapse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1,
> particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels--but please
> get rid of the ridiculous "inconclusive" for the .34 to .66 subjective
> probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay
> persons--read decisionmakers--since that probability range represents
> medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like "quite
> possible" is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well
> to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
> misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of
> increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all
> less than .66 category it was in the SOD.
> I do have some concerns with the THC issue as dealt with here--echoing
> the comments of Tim Carter and Thomas Stocker. I fully agree that the
> likelihood of a complete collapse in the THC by 2100 is very remote, but
> to leave it at that is very misleading to policymakers given than there is
> both empirical and modeling evidence that such events can be triggered by
> phenomena in one century, but the occurrence of the event may be delayed
> a century or two more. Given also that the likelihood of a collapse
> depends on several uncertain parameters--CO2 stabilization level, CO2
> buildup rate, climate sensitivity, hydrological sensitivity and initial
> THC overturning rates, it is inconceivable to me that we could be 99% sure
> of anything--implied by the "exceptionally unlikely" label--given the
> plausibility of an unhappy combo of climate sensitivity, slower than
> current A/OGCMs initial THC strength and more rapid CO2 increase
> scenarios. Also, if 21st century actions could trigger 22nd century
> irreversible consequences, it would be irresponsible of us to not mention
> this possibility in a footnote at least, and not to simply let the matter
> rest with a very low likelihood of a collapse wholly within the 21st
> century. So my view is to add a footnote to this effect and be sure to
> convey the many paramenters that are uncertain which determine the
> likelihood of this event.
> Thanks again for the good work on this improtant table. Cheers, Steve
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Thomas Stocker wrote:
>
> > DEar Jerry, Tim and Ron et al
> >
> > I agree that an abrupt collapse - abrupt meaning within less than a
> decade, say
> > - has not been simulated by any climate model (3D and intermediate
> complexity)
> > in response to increasing CO2. Some models do show for longer
> integrations a
> > complete collapse that occurs within about xxx xxxx xxxxyears. If you put that
> into
> > context of the apparent stability of THC during the last 10,000 years or
> so,
> > this is pretty "abrupt".
> >
> > Following up on the discussion regarding THC collapse, I think the
> statement Ron
> > apparently added to Ch9 needs to be made more specific. In order to keep
> Ch7 and
> > Ch9 consistent, I propose to Ron the following revision:
> >
> > "It seems that the likelihood of a collapse of the THC by year 2100 is
> less
> > than previously thought in the SAR based on the AOGCM results to date."
> >
> > There is really no model basis to extend this statement beyond 2100 as
> evidenced
> > by the figures that we show in TAR. There are many models that now run up
> to
> > 2060, some up to 2100, but very few longer.
> >
> > Also I should add for your information, that we add to Ch7 a sentence:
> >
> > "Models with reduced THC appear to be more susceptible for a
> > shutdown."
> >
> > Models indicate that the THC becomes more susceptible to collapse if
> previously
> > reduced (GFDL results by Tziperman, Science 97 and JPO 99). This is
> important as
> > "collapse unlikely by 2100" should not tempt people to conclude that THC
> > collapse is hence not an issue. The contrary is true: reduction means
> > destabilisation.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > thomas
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Stocker
> > Climate and Environmental Physics stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Physics Institute, University of Bern phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > Sidlerstrasse xxx xxxx xxxx NEW fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > 3012 Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94xxx xxxx xxxxU.S.A.
>
> Tel: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
> shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
>
>
>
------
Stephen H. Schneider
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94xxx xxxx xxxxU.S.A.
Tel: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 968450529.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Griggs, Dave" <djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'TAR CLA list' <tar_cla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'TAR LA list' <tar_la@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Uncertainties again
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:02:09 +0100
Cc: 'TAR Review Editors' <tar_re@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Watson, Bob'" <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Moss, Richard'" <richard.moss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Houghton, Sir John'" <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Albritton, Dan'" <aldiroff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Swart, Rob'" <Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Leary, Neil'" <nleary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'McCarthy, Jim'" <James_j_mccarthy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Stone, John'" <john.stone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear CLAs/LAs
As you all know, in my Victoria follow-up e-mail of 2 August I presented a
summary of the agreement we reached in Victoria on a common use of
terminology to express degree of likelihood in the TAR. At that time the
word or term to be used for the central box of 33 to 66% had not been agreed
and the word "inconclusive" was proposed for that category. Since that time
there has been a lengthy discussion, including Working Groups II and III,
regarding the best word to be used in this category. To cut a long story
short the term we would now like you to use for this middle category is
"medium likelihood". I am sorry I have not been able to canvas this around
all of you but from the discussions this term was agreed by all to be the
best compromise. In particular, it clearly maintains the scale as one of
degrees of likelihood, whereas inconclusive could be confused as to whether
a degree of likelihood was being expressed or whether there was insufficient
information to conclude a likelihood. I attach a table showing what should
now be the final scale.
During the discussions it became clear that in addition to making likelihood
statements it is sometimes more appropriate to express statements in terms
of a degree of confidence, and indeed several chapters use this terminology.
As you know the Uncertainties Guidance paper by Richard Moss and Steve
Schneider recommends a scale of confidence from Very Low to Very High
confidence. WGII in particular are using this scale and so I would ask that,
if you choose to express things in terms of a level of confidence, that you
use the terms as they are laid down in the guidance paper. This in no way
affects the use of the likelihood scale where this is more appropriate. For
example, if we are highly uncertain how well a model handles a particular
process, we may have "very low confidence" in a model result which is highly
dependent on this process. If we have no other corroborating evidence we may
therefore conclude that there is insufficient information to assign a
likelihood in this case. By following the guidance paper when expressing a
level of confidence we will hopefully improve the consistency between the
two reports. Incidentally, if there are instances in the WGII report where
they are able express degrees of likelihood they are going to try and use
our scale.
Thirdly, there has been a lot of discussion about the impression which the
likelihood scale, if taken out of context, could give for low likelihood,
high consequence events, such as a disintegration of the WAIS or a shutdown
of the THC in the next 100years. Please bear in mind that policymakers must
balance likelihood and consequence in deciding whether or not to take
action. Therefore please take extra care when considering text for these
types of issues as simply expressing them as "extremely unlikely" does not
give the full picture. For example, you could say an aircraft was "extremely
unlikely" to crash on its next flight but if there was a 1% chance I would
not fly on it. While it is a true statement the right balance is only
achieved when the consequence is also brought in to put the risk in context.
I apologise for this late change to our scale but I hope you all agree that
it is an improvement. If anything is not clear about any of the above please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards
Dave
<<Agreed terminology2.doc>>
-----------------------------------------
Dr David Griggs
IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit
Hadley Centre
Met. Office
London Road
Bracknell
Berks, RG12 2SY
UK
Tel +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-----------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachAgreed terminology2.doc"
Original Filename: 986486371.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: s.torok
Subject: Fwd: RE: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu Apr 5 11:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Simon,
Could you - or Vanessa - buy a THES today from the paper shop and check this out. I would
quite like to draft a short letter to THES as suggested by Steve. But I need to see how
the issue was presented in this week's issue.
Thanks,
Mike
From: "Farrar, Steve" <steve.farrar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'Mike Hulme' <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:45:33 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Dear Mike,
thanks for that. I feel terrible but despite the pain it cost to reply to the survey,
the deadline has now passed. We had such a high response rate that we decided to run the
piece in this week's paper while the issue of the US withdrawl from the protocol was
still high in everyone's mind. So I cannot include your responses. However, you make a
number of very significant points, not least your reply to question 2 on the strength of
the evidence and the political framework outlined in your final sentences. I wonder -
and I know this is pushing it - whether you might consider rearranging some of these
sentences to form a brief letter to the editor for the following week's paper? I would
like this issue to stay alive in the THES and allow the paper to play a small role in
persuading as many scientists as possible to take part in a scientific/political debate
that may contribute to influencing those people who *can* change things. Not an original
objective, I know, but the THES does have a fairly unique position within the academic
community and hence a responsibility. Anyhow, sorry for the bad news
best wishes
Steve
***********************
Steve Farrar
Science Reporter
Times Higher Education Supplement
xxx xxxx xxxxEast Smithfield
London E1W 1BX
United Kingdom
[1]www.thes.co.uk
Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hulme [[2]mailto:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 04 April 2001 19:57
To: Farrar, Steve
Subject: Re: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Steve,
I hate these sort of questionnaires since Y or N answers are barely
adequate. However, I've given it a go with some other comments .............
(by the way, Prof. Trevor Davies is Head of my School here at UEA - I am
only Director of a Centre within the School, albeit a highly relevant one!).
You can quote me if appropriate, but let me know before hand.
Mike
At 12:30 02/04/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Mike,
>
>hope you're well. I am conducting a survey of heads of UK university
>departments of environmental science for the Times Higher Education
>Supplement. I am keen to explore views concerning the United States and
>the Kyoto agreement. I wonder if you could answer the following Yes/No
>questions when you get a moment. Note, I will not identify you unless you
>specifically state that you do not mind being quoted.
>
>I do hope you can help
>
>all the bets
>
>Steve
>
>1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for
>driving global climate change?
YES
>2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start
>reducing emissions?
NO - to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are
altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks
associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised
through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for
deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions
reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work
from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing
emissions now - but I am not convinced a blind application of the
precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.
>3: Do you think the measures proposed at Kyoto were too weak, correct, or
>too strong?
The 5.2% emissions reduction by 2010 by Annex I countries were not driven
by science but by real-politik. By definition they were the best
achievable. The real issue however is not about target setting - it's
about the dynamics of change worldwide in energy technologies, investment
strategies, consumer and community behaviour and aspirations, etc. It is
*these* things that in the end will deliver a safer climate - not the
Protocol per se. More attention should be directed at the diverse and
myriad set of actions needed to decarbonise our societies.
>4: Are you disappointed that George Bush has abandoned the Kyoto agreement?
YES - but it is too early to say that Kyoto is dead. The USA does not have
the power of veto - and Bush will have to propose some climate management
strategy of his own. We wait and see.
>5: Should the rest of the world press on with the agreement without the
>United States?
Probably YES. This can be achieved and should provide valuable lessons in
global climate management which we can learn from in the long-term.
>6: Do you feel the US should be allowed to count carbon sequestration
>measures such as planting new forests towards any carbon emissions
>reduction target?
YES. The UK are doing it in their national climate change programme so why
not the USA?
>7: Are you optimistic that there will be a new emissions control agreement
>within the next 12 months?
A 'new' one? We haven't got one yet. I would think maybe not in the next
12 months, but the critical issues about global climate management will be
clearer.
>8: Should the Kyoto preliminary targets be watered down to gain the
>Americans' support?
NO. If the USA don't like them, let them not ratify or propose a strategy
of their own.
>If you would like to add any comments to this survey as to the
>implications of the US's rejection of Kyoto for the planet, what UK can do
>about it or what role scientists can play in this debacle, please do so.
In a literal sense the implications for global climate are trivial - what
will affect the course of global climate (and only then climate beyond
about 2030 - up until then climate is pretty much pre-determined by inertia
in the system) in the long-run are the effects of cumulative decisions
taken by many, many people/governments/businesses over the next 10-20
years. Let's not kid ourselves that the USA President is more powerful
than he would like to think. The planetary system is much bigger than one
4-year term of a US president.
The UK is playing a key role both within the negotiating machinery of the
FCCC, in pioneering new scientific analyses, and in working out new forms
of adapting to climate change. This momentum in the UK is not going to be
halted by Bush.
Scientists need to be there to point out the long-term nature of the
problem - it is not a classic political issue where a one-term government
can solve or worsen the problem. Scientists need to point out that for
long-term planetary management we need new analytical tools, new criteria
for investment decisions, a new appreciation of the concept of global
citizenship. What climate change forces us to do is to think about the
influence we are having on the quality of life for the next generation but
one - not our own generation or even our children's
generation. Conventional politics is not a system geared up for this
challenge.
>***********************
>Steve Farrar
>Science Reporter
>Times Higher Education Supplement
>xxx xxxx xxxxEast Smithfield
>London E1W 1BX
>United Kingdom
>[3]www.thes.co.uk
>Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the
>intended recipient. It may contain confidential and/or privileged
>information. If you are not the intended recipient, any reliance on, use,
>disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or
>attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>error, please notify the sender by telephone xxx xxxx xxxxand delete
>the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
>
>If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this
>email are endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI
>Group), or wish to rely on them, please request written confirmation from
>Corporate Affairs. In the absence of such confirmation NI Group accepts no
>responsibility or liability.
>
>NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the
>Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of
>Communications) Regulations 2000.
>
>[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this
>e-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus
>checking software.]
>
>News International plc is the holding company for the News International
>group of companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address
>at 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY
*****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Executive Director
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK
tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx(or 593900)
fax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
mobile: 07xxx xxxx xxxx
email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
web site: [4]www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk
************************************************************************************
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
.... integrated research for sustainable responses ....
The Tyndall Centre is a new research initiative funded by three UK
Research Councils - NERC, ESRC, EPSRC - with support from the DTI.
************************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the intended recipient.
It may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender by telephone xxx xxxx xxxxand delete the e-mail and
all attachments immediately.
If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this email are
endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI Group), or wish to rely
on them, please request written confirmation from Corporate Affairs. In the absence of
such confirmation NI Group accepts no responsibility or liability.
NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the Telecommunications
(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this e-mail or any
attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software.]
News International plc is the holding company for the News International group of
companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address at 1 Virginia St,
London E98 1XY
References
1. http://www.thes.co.uk/
2. mailto:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.thes.co.uk/
4. http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/
Original Filename: 998926751.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Rob Swart <Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: TGCIA scenario recommendations
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:39:11 +0200
Cc: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob Swart <Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, steve smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tsuneyuki MORITA <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your message and papers. The problem is clearly one of the
science-policy interface. If science cannot demonstrate that it makes a
difference in terms of avoided climate change and impacts if GHG
concentrations are stabilised, why bother? Currently a Danish guy, Bj
Original Filename: 1051156418.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear friends,
[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
to which I add ....
(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
____________________
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
than a direct
and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
_____________________________
There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
this?
_______________________________
There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
involved in writing a response.
The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
(vol. 23, pp. 1
Original Filename: 1051202354.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: My turn
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
HI Mark,
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive
these correspondances...
Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as
he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments
from other individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is
in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any
case, I'd be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.
I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and
I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would
tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed
peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review
articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz
(Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at
least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and
co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well...
cheers,
mike
p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original
distribution list.
At 09:27 AM 4/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, Mark Eakin wrote:
>At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
>paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and
>appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be
>best to direct such a response. Some options are:
>
>1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
>2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
>3) A letter to OSTP
>
>The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the
>current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
>Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is
>not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would
>probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention
>to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a
>widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for
>Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the
>best published approach.
>
>A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has
>shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured,
>critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with
>Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as
>Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a
>letter. Many others of us could sign on in support.
>This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
>the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss
>this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be
>developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
>
>I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am
>rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark
>
>
>
>Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>Dear Tom et al,
>>
>>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list
>>here!
>>
>>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
>>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
>>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
>>in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and
>>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
>>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
>>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
>>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
>>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
>>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
>>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
>>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
>>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period".
>>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
>>scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For
>>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
>>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular
>>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD xxx xxxx xxxx
>>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th
>>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like
>>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
>>"MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from
>>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
>>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
>>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
>>don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
>>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
>>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
>>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
>>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
>>
>>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
>>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
>>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
>>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
>>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
>>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
>>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
>>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
>>the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
>>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
>>Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a
>>server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer
>>viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly
>>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?)
>>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g.
>>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of
>>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
>>
>>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
>>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
>>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
>>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
>>nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
>>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
>>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
>>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
>>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the
>>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
>>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done
>>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
>>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>
>>>Dear friends,
>>>
>>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
>>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>>>
>>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
>>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>>>
>>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
>>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>>>
>>>to which I add ....
>>>
>>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>>>
>>>____________________
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
>>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
>>>than a direct
>>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
>>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
>>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
>>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
>>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
>>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
>>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
>>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
>>>in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
>>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
>>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
>>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
>>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
>>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
>>>this?
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
>>>involved in writing a response.
>>>
>>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
>>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
>>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
>>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
>>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
>>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
>>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
>>>
>>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
>>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
>>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying .....
>>>
>>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
>>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
>>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
>>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>>>
>>>On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who
>>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
>>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>>>
>>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper --
>>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
>>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
>>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
>>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
>>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
>>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
>>>Soon, and so on).
>>>
>>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
>>>difficult.
>>>
>>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
>>>does get through.
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
>>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>>>
>>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
>>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>>>
>>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
>>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels'
>>>PhD is at the same level).
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>Best wishes to all,
>>>Tom.
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>
>--
>C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
>Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
>Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
>
>NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
>325 Broadway E/CC23
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Internet: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1051230500.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200
Dear friends and colleagues
This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.
Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.
Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?
I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Warm wishes to all
Jim
On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>
> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
> unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>
> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>
> to which I add ....
>
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>
> ____________________
>
> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
> Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was
> nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
> Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
> complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
> editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
> 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
> it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
> this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
> paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
> ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>
> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
> in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>
> _____________________________
>
> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
> of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
> the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
> Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
> time on this?
>
> _______________________________
>
> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
> involved in writing a response.
>
> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
> for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
> recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow
> it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
> I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
> Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
> response is necessary.
>
> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
> Research (vol. 23, pp. 1
Original Filename: 1051915601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: belated thanks for review and questions
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
HI Keith,
No problem, I know how hectic the past couple months have been for you, so no apologizes
necessary whatsoever!
Call me old fashioned, but I still tend to prefer the "blind" reviewer convention, so I'd
prefer to remain anonymous unless you think that revealing my identity would be help in any
particular way.
I agree w/ your take on this--a journal like GRL is probably more appropriate, or even
"Climatic Change" because a number of similar papers have been published there in the past
(by folks like Nychka, Bloomfield, and others). I'm not sure if Steve Schneider is sick and
tired of those papers though...
Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any additional help w/ this.
Looking forward to seeing you one of these days,
mike
At 02:36 PM 5/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike
in hassling another reviewer , I realised that I did not thank you properly for the
review you did of the manuscript by Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques used
to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century). So this is
by way of thanks and to ask whether you wish me to reveal your name to the reviewer
(considering you make some very helpful suggestions for further analysis)? I would
otherwise assume no. As it happens I can not get a response from the other reviewer -
but rather than prolong the wait for the submitter , I am tempted (on the basis of my
reading also) to just send your comments and reject the manuscript as it is - I suppose
they could resubmit a major rework following your suggestions - but I tend to the
opinion that it would be better suited to another journal anyway - GRL comes to mind.
What do you think
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1059005592.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: letter to Senate
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar M Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Folks,
Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking
to Ben.
What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.
So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold,
and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that
the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The
second is that the work is being used quite openly for political purposes.
As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to
concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in
as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak
as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a
group, we will not be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard stamp of
approval.
What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU
and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves
from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as
experts, pointing out clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we
can certainly win this battle.
I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo record
for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the past 1000
years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable to NAS. This
is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue of climate
sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year (report
still in preparation).
I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
better than I do and can make some suggestions here.
The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
(even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
pursue this path.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step back and
> think about a more considered approach. My view is that scientists are fully
> justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its relevance in
> the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be heard
> instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
>
> In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may be that
> neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much at this time.
> But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from individuals
> or groups of scientists will be important.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time
>>could lead to something with much more impact?
>>
>>Tom.
>>_____________________________
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign -
>>>at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the
>>>issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
>>>
>>>My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
>>>
>>>I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other
>>>scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement
>>>(or whatever it's called) on global climate change.
>>>
>>>Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the
>>>Senators, then we respond, then...
>>>
>>>I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for
>>>the AGU etc to do it.
>>>
>>>What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a
>>>special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other
>>>political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
>>>
>>>Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing
>>>anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of
>>>co-authors in support.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Peck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
>>>>
>>>>Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some
>>>>on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send
>>>>this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a
>>>>copy of our Eos article.
>>>>
>>>>Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
>>>>your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>>Michael M and Michael O
>>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>> University of Virginia
>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>>>
>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc
>>>>(WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>
>>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>University of Arizona
>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html
>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1061300885.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: POLL ON SOON-BALIUNAS
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:48:05 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
I once met Soon at a meeting organised by the ESA in Tenerife. I think he gave a talk
-
but only think, so it wasn't memorable in any way. As you say they don't come to the
regular meetings like EGU/S, AGU, AMS etc. I only went to Tenerife as the organisers paid
for me to go.
Citation ratings vary (there are several different scales/indicators as well) a lot
from year to year for most journals. I've never figured out how the counting is done wrt
the highly cited lists that Tom. W., Kevin and I are on. Do only first authorships count
for
example? Even with a common name like mine people still get it wrong and mistakes
persist.
Surprisingly Jim Hansen doesn't make the above list ([1]http://www.highlycited.com), but
then
he normally drops his E.
There are few more journals (QSR, Climate Change, IJC, AAR to give a few) where
paleo papers also appear.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:43 13/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I checked this out prior to my senate hearing. Their science citations in the climate
literature are poor, as one would hope and expect.
Interestingly, they both drop their second initials when publishing in the climate
literature so that their names don't turn in up in ISI if you do a search on their
publications in the astronomy literature (which use the full initials)--apparently,
they don't want their astronomy colleagues to be aware that they're moonlighting as
supposed climatologists...
Their numbers are better in the astronomy literature, though Soon's numbers even here
are mediocre.
Baliunas had some well-cited publications more than a decade ago. This is her work on
the use of sun-like stars as a model for solar variability, etc., which is well
referenced in the astrophysics community. However, most of these appear to be her Ph.D.
work, and appear to have been published w/ her Ph.D adviser.
Not much evidence however that she has made any useful, independent contribution since
then. There are some additional papers she's published on time series analysis of solar
signals--looks like the kind of stuff you might expect to see from a graduate student
first-year research project....
In my opinion, its would be a mistake to evaluate these on their citations numbers in
astronomy. We should focus on their numbers in the climate literature, which are the
only ones relevant when discussing the issue of how their work on climate is received by
their fellow scientists,
mike
At 08:15 AM 8/13/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited
(as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields?
Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as ... 'oops, just a
typo')
Tom.
++++++++++++++++
Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi there,
we need some data on Soon and Baliunas. one of my concerns is that they only publish in
low impact journals and completely bypass the normal give and take of presentations at
open scientific meetings (for example, I think I have probably heard 100 presentations
overall from the people on this mailing list).
it is therefore very important to inquire for the sake or our exchanges with
reporters/legislators etc as to how often any of you may have heard Soon or Baliunas
give a talk in an open meeting, where they could defend their analyses.
please respond to me as to whether you have heard either of them present something on
their paleo-analyses (I think I heard Baliunas speak once on her solar-type star work,
but that doesn't count).
I will let you know the results of the poll so that we may all be on the same grounds
with respect to the data and reporting such information to press inquiries/legislators
etc.
further fyi I list below the journal impact for six geophysical/climate/paleoclimate
journals:
Paleoceanography 3.821
J. Climate 3.250
J. Geophysical Res. (Climate) 2.245
Geophysical Research Letters 2.150
The Holocene 1.852
Climate Research 1.016
Science and Nature are much higher (26-30) but there citation numbers are I believe
inflated with respect to our field because their citation ranking also includes many
very widely cited biology publications.
hope to hear from you soon, Tom
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]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.highlycited.com/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1067194064.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
"Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research" without
even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,
mike
two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's being unveiled tomoro
(monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann
arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
century.
Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann's
methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past...."
______________________________________________________________
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
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1067450707.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: some info you'll want to have...
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "raymond s.bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gavin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Thomas, Fortunat, Reto:
You might have wanted to check w/ us first, but thanks anyway for responding to this. We've
uncovered the error in what they did. They didn't use the proxy data available on our
public ftp site, which I had pointed them too--instead they used a spreadsheet file that my
associate Scott Rutherford had prepared. In this file, most of the early series were
overprinted at later years. This resulted in the reconstruction becoming increasingly
spurious as one goes further back in time--the estimates prior to 1700 or so were rendered
meaningless. There were also some other methodological errors that will be detailed
shortly, but this was the big one.
So they will probably have to retract the paper. You can find out more about this here, on
journalist David Appell's "blog":
[1]http://www.davidappell.com/
We also have an op-ed piece going out this afternoon, further detailing the problems. Will
send that as soon as its available. I've attached a few other relevant documents, and I'm
forwarding another email I sent out to colleagues yesterday, just after I had discovered
the main problem in what they've done...
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachJournalists.re.EandEfin-revised.doc"
References
1. http://www.davidappell.com/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1068239573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000
<x-flowed>
>From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
>To: Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
>Cc: L.A.Love@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Ross McKitrick <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
>
>Dear Steve
>Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
>would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
>'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
>seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
>such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
>Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
>egos??
>As you know ,the contact is Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> and I take
>the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
>is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
>concerning your paper.
>
>We shall get the printed proof, as a single electronic file today, and
>shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
>your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
>between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
>something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
>that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
>deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
>litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
>
>Sonja
>PS .By the way The Economist has taken up a previous paper from E&E
>(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission
>scenarios), and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved.
>I have not seen it yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real
>'driver' of teh IPCC deception, if that is the right word, has been on
>teh social /technology forcing side, with focus of WG III.
>
>In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might make ratification of
>Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was speaker
>from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
>Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the
>European Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World
>Bank.)
>Sonja
>
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sonja,
> >
> > > > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is
> that it
> > > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
> > > > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If
> this is
> > > > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be
> some
> > > > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that
> these
> > > > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results -
> the main
> > > > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that
> > > > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
> > > > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little
> difference to
> > > > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
> > >
> > > (1) IMHO the data issues rise above "some problems". When you're
> doing a prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there
> is a concerted effort to eliminate every error. I have never seen such
> sloppy data as MBH98. Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to
> a more demanding approach to data integrity than the above comment
> suggests about academic studies. Even the MBH response criticizes us for
> failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that. Bradley has also said
> that an "audit" should use original data and should not verify against
> source data and says that I should know better. I think that my
> experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than
> Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to
> say. After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was
> the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false
> data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any
> verification being carried out by the engineers.
> > > (2) There was not a "simple error" of simply not using many of the
> early tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal
> components of North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also
> North American) tree ring sites . MBH98 states that they used
> conventional principal components methods for temperature. They do not
> explicitly say that they used conventional principal components methods
> for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of disclosure otherwise, this
> is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of the public disclosure
> (leaving aside Mann's refusal to provide clarification in response to our
> inquiries on methods.) A "conventional" principal component calculation
> requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator became
> unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component
> calculations - it was not "left out". MBH now disclose for the very
> first time that they used a "stepwise principal components approach",
> although this is nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They
> have still not disclosed the rosters of principal components involved. If
> this method is material to their results, as they now state, then it was
> a material omission in their prior disclosure. It seems like a very
> strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you're at fault because we made a
> material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If I were in MBH's
> shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and mitigating the
> situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a prospectus, you
> have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions. I have
> approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level
> disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter,
> assuming that this level of disclosure would be exceeded.
> >
> > (3) I've redone calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get
> results similar to those in E&E, rather than the MBH response. This is
> not a guarantee that I have fully replicated still undisclosed MBH
> methodology. However, MBH disclosure of their methodology is very
> inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their methods, it is
> possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective disclosure is
> entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately through
> FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
> methodology.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the opinion of these three people
> from the
> > > > >>UK University of East Anglia concerning publication of teh M&M paper
> > > > >>had been sought and taken, there would not have been no publication.
> > > >
> > > > Then I suggest you read our commentary again, which does not state
> this at all.
> >
> >
> > Part 2 has been drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on
> it from UEA/CRU. Indeed, I think that it would be very constructive,
> since Part 2 is significantly more hard-edged than Part 1. Because we
> have stated that we would post up a reply to the MBH response, we would
> have to disclose something on our websites, but I'd be prepared to deal
> with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure would be to state
> that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
> comments. I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to
> UEA/CRU; we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the
> material non-disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are
> prepared to comment, this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we
> are very close to finalizing our repy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
>----------------------
>Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
>Reader,Department of Geography,
>Editor, Energy & Environment
>(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
>Faculty of Science
>University of Hull
>Hull HU6 7RX, UK
>Tel: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx/6341/5385
>Fax: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1068652882.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: MBH98
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:01:22 +0000
<x-flowed>
Keith and Phil,
you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us. We need to talk about
it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with
carefully worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to
make our input at the peer-review stage.
In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from
McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do
wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early
responses - the waters are really muddied now. He would have done better
to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before
publicising this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early or
now deleted is really confusing things!
Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre's request to Mann has been
dropped (I would have said "no" anyway).
So it's just the second bit, that we review part 2 of this response, that
needs to be answered.
Cheers
Tim
>From: "Steve McIntyre" <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: MBH98
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>November 11, 2003
>
>
>
>Professor Michael E. Mann
>
>School of Earth Sciences
>
>University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Professor Mann,
>
>
>
>We apologize for not sending you a copy of our recent paper ("MM") in
>Energy and Environment for comment, as we understood from your email of
>September 25, 2003 that time constraints prevented you from considering
>our material. We notice that you seem to have subsequently changed your
>mind and hope that you will both be able to clarify some points for us and
>to rectify the public record on other points.
>
>
>
>1) You have claimed that we used the wrong data and the wrong
>computational methodology. We would like to reconcile our results to
>actual data and methodology used in MBH98. We would therefore appreciate
>copies of the computer programs you actually used to read in data (the 159
>data series referred to in your recent comments) and construct the
>temperature index shown in Nature (1998) ("MBH98"), either through email
>or, preferably through public FTP or web posting.
>
>
>
>2) In some recent comments, you are reported as stating that we requested
>an Excel file and that you instead directed us to an FTP site for the
>MBH98 data. You are also reported as saying that despite having pointed us
>to the FTP site, you and your colleague took trouble to prepare an Excel
>spreadsheet, but inadvertently introduced some collation errors at that
>time. In fact, as you no doubt recall, we did not request an Excel
>spreadsheet, but specifically asked for an FTP location, which you were
>unable or unwilling to provide. Nor was an Excel spreadsheet ever supplied
>to us; instead we were given a text file, pcproxy.txt. Nor was this file
>created in April 2003. After we learned on October 29, 2003 that the
>pertinent data was reported to be located on your FTP site
><ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub>ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub
>(and that we were being faulted for not getting it from there), we
>examined this site and found it contains the exact same file (pcproxy.txt)
>as the one we received, bearing a date of creation of August 8, 2002. On
>October 29, 2003, your FTP site also contained the file pcproxy.mat, a
>Matlab file, the header to which read: "MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform:
>SOL2, Created on: Thu Aug 8 10:18:xxx xxxx xxxx." Both files contain identical
>data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
>2003, including all collation errors, fills and other problems identified
>in MM. It is therefore clear that the file pcproxy.txt as sent to us was
>not prepared in April 2003 in response to our requests, nor was it
>prepared as an Excel spreadsheet, but in fact it was prepared many months
>earlier with Matlab. It is also clear that, had we gone to your FTP site
>earlier, we would simply have found the same data collation as we received
>from Scott Rutherford. Would you please forthwith issue a statement
>withdrawing and correcting your earlier comments.
>
>
>
>3) In reported comments, you also claimed that we overlooked the collation
>errors in pcproxy.txt and "slid" the incorrect data into our calculations,
>a statement which is untrue and made without a reasonable basis. In MM, we
>described numerous errors including, but not limited to, the collation
>errors, indicating quite obviously that we noticed the data problems. We
>then describe how we "firewalled" our data from the errors contained in
>the data you provided us, by re-collating tree ring proxy data from
>original sources and carrying out fresh principal component calculations.
>We request that you forthwith withdraw the claim that we deliberately used
>data we knew to be in error.
>
>
>
>4) On November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP site, we noticed the
>following changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had
>been deleted from your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was
>displayed under the /sdr directory, where it had previously been located,
>although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one
>previously knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file
>named "mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003 had been inserted into
>the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and pcproxy.txt are
>pertinent to the comments referred to above and we view the deletion of
>pcproxy.mat from the archival record under the current circumstances as
>unjustifiable. Would you please restore these files to your FTP site,
>together with an annotated text file documenting the dates of their
>deletion and restoration.
>
>
>
>5) We note that the new file mbhfilled.mat is an array of dimension
>381x2016. Could you state whether this file has any connection to MBH98,
>and, if so, please explain the purpose of this file, why it has been
>posted now and why it was not previously available at the FTP site.
>
>
>
>6) Can you advise us whether the directory MBH98 has been a subdirectory
>within the folder "pub" since July 30, 2002 or whether it was transferred
>from another (possibly private) directory at a date after July 30, 2002?
>If the latter, could you advise on the date of such transfer.
>
>
>
>
>
>We have prepared a 3-part response to your reply to MM. The first, which
>we have released publicly, goes over some of the matters raised in points
>#2-#5 above. The second is undergoing review. It deals with additional
>issues of data quality and disclosure, resulting from inspection of your
>FTP site since October 29, 2003. The third part will consider the points
>made in your response, both in terms of data and methodology, and will
>attempt a careful reconciliation of our calculation methods, hence the
>necessity of our request in point #1. Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yours truly,
>
>
>
>Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick
>
>
>
>
>cc: Timothy Osborn
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1074277559.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar <christian.azar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'" <dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Katarina Kivel' <kivel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don't get bombarded by MM. Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn't give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
G
Original Filename: 1076336623.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Tas van Ommen" <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won't. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
I've cc'd Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent to some other paleo
people asking for
datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they have
also been in contact with
some of Keith's Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series we've used.
In the Russian case,
issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same series
Keith used (for the
Yamal Peninsula). Series are different for two reasons. One Keith used the RCS
standardization method
and secondly Rashit has added some series since Keith got the data a couple of years ago.
I'll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we'll
expect another publication in
the nearish future.
As for the series for LD you sent us, we used it in the paper for Reviews of
Geophysics. This paper has
had 4 good reviews and we've just sent back a revised version. This will likely get
reviewed by 1 or 2 of
the same reviewers of the editor, but I think it will come out this year some time. When
it does, we
will put all the series onto a web site. Hope this is OK with you. It will unlikely be
before our summer
months.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:56 09/02/2004 +1100, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
What you will find below is (in reverse chronological order) an email interchange
between Steve McIntyre and myself. He has been asking for LD data for a while (since
your GRL paper came out) and to my chagrin, I have put him off once already, for reasons
I spell out below. For your information, I am close to submitting the full LD isotope
record, which I hope to present at SCAR Bremen, along with some interesting spectral
analyses and comparison to EPICA Dome C.
Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre's controversial history and am trying to handle things in
a non-inflammatory way. He seems not to be troubling me over my own delay, but has
asked for data that was used in your Holocene paper of 1998. For this, I have referred
him to you. I expect he wants to replicate your synthesis, and so he should use the
identical data set, and I give you permission to pass on whatever it was I gave you for
that work - with the caveat that it is representative of where the LD proxy record was
in 1997, not 2004. I leave it to you to decide how to deal with this - you may prefer
to ignore the issue, and I would understand.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist.
Cheers,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx| Hobart
[1]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[2]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Tas van Ommen [[3]mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 17:46
To: 'Steve McIntyre'
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,
I suggest you ask Phil Jones for a copy of that older data set. Jones et al cite Morgan
and van Ommen 1997, although that data set was heavily smoothed (gaussian of rms=13
years from memory), so the one they show is not a direct version of Morgan and van Ommen
1997. I think that I provided them with a high resolution version, and from their
notation, it seems that they are using a November-April subset, but you would have to
ask Phil - especially if what you seek is to replicate their analyses. Apart from
anything else, our set has been continually in a state of development, which is why I
have not wanted to widely circulate it until now. Over this period we have had made new
measurements (which improved our layer counted dating and filled the gap that you see in
Jones et al.), retreived more cores using better technology and derived a robust
gas-tied flow-model that dates the core to 90ky. Now that the new development has
ceased, we will soon be releasing the full data set, as I have indicated to you. This is
the set I would want to see in wider use, and it is worth noting that it is essentially
the same as the portion used by Mann and Jones in their GRL paper in 2003.
All the best,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx| Hobart
[4]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[5]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 09:46
To: Tas van Ommen
Subject: Re: Law Dome O18
There is a Law Dome O18 data set which was used in Jones et al (Holocene 1998) and
printed as a graphic. Is this one available? Regards, Steve McIntyre
----- Original Message -----
From: [7]Tas van Ommen
To: [8]'Steve McIntyre'
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,
The 18O data used in Mann and Jones 2003 was provided as an advance copy in 2003,
and you are welcome to have access to it and it will certainly be placed in public
archives.
The data in question is part of the full 90 ky isotope record from Law Dome, for
which a peer-reviewed dating scale has only recently been published (actually it is
in press see van Ommen et al, in press Annals of Glaciology 39 at
[9]http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1). Now this
job is done, I am finalizing a paper that will allow me to release the isotope
record more widely.
It is this next paper that controls the timeframe for release to you and archives.
While I should await peer review for a release to the archives, I am happy to pass
on a copy of the data set to you on an advance basis as soon as the paper is
submitted I expect in a couple of months. You will appreciate that at this time of
the year, we in the south are in our vacation season, not to mention dealing with
our Antarctic Summer field program, so I thank you for your patience. Do check back
with me in a while if you dont hear more.
Regards,
Tas
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 6:29 AM
To: Tas Van Ommen
Subject: Law Dome O18
Dear Dr van Ommen,
some time ago I inquired as to the availability of the O18 data set which was used
in Mann and Jones 2003. Is this the same data as was used in Jones et al 1998
(Holocene) . Do you plan to archive this data? Otherwise, I would appreciate an
email copy of the data.
Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre
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.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
2. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
5. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1
10. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1076359809.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: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 15:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess
these
are the ones that aren't available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I'll baulk at
that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve's going to find it
very
hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the
code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:19 09/02/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be
sure it falls into the "no good" category.
There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest
Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it
publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't
be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL
paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of
their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
so at our own peril!
talk to you later,
mike
At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
FYI. Sent him the two series - the as received versions. Wonder what he's up to?
Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn't want the Alerce
series.
Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we
used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID
<nmcintyre77@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in
Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy
of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre
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