Email 1 (1228922050) Re: A quick question

Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: santer1@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: A quick question
Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008
Ben,
Haven t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I m not
entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be
to look on CA, but I m not doing that. I did get an email
from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn t be deleting emails
-
unless
this was normal deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn t
paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email
.
Anyway requests have been of three types observational data, paleo data
and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter and
there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these all came from
David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner s Office, IPCC is an
international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds
anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything
to do with our core business and it doesn t! I m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responses
all get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them.
On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a couple from
McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan.
The latter relate to Wei-Chyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated by
SUNY, Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY!
[1]http://www.informath.org/
The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Keith reply.
The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two
others from Holland.
So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for putting
things up only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads o
n
CA.
I got this email over the weekend see end of this email. This relates to
what Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as well a chatty
one saying why didn t I respond to keep these people on CA quiet. I ve
ignored both.
Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to
answer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how much
money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that they
don t give money they award grants based on open competition. DEFRA s system
also told them there were no awards to CRU, as when we do get something it is
down as UEA!
I ve occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests all from Holland.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Mr Jones
What are you frightened of?
Is it that suddenly mugs like me who pay our taxes suddenly realise we are payin
g your
wages.
Please respond to Climate Audit s valid queries otherwise I will contact my MP. Pl
ease see
below.
Quote From CA
As it happens, I have experience in mining exploration programs and I can assure
Phil Jones
that, contray to this experience enabling me to understand why some samples are e
xcluded ,
it gives me exactly the opposite perspective. It makes it virtually impossible f
or me to
think up valid explanations for excluding some samples. It s illegal in the business
es
that I know.
Anyhow, CRU answered as follows:
We have checked our files and no manuals, computer code, documents or correspond
ence
are available. We can confirm, however, that we did not use a different Omoloyla
data set and therefore there is no further data to provide.
Your behaviour is absoulutely outrageous.
Best regards
Stuart Harmon
At 01:48 09/12/2008, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of FOIA requests that y
ou ve
received from Steven McIntyre?
With best regards,
Ben
-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
-
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
-
References
1. http://www.informath.org/
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Question
Email 2 (0839858862) Re: Your help, please?
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 1996, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.ucar.edu>
To: dgm@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: Your help, please?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:07:42 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, boville@ucar.edu, branst@ucar.edu, kiehl@ucar.edu, franci
sb@ssec.wisc.edu, rjcicero@uci.edu, covey@triton.llnl.gov, tom@astra.tamu.edu, c
urry@cloud.colorado.edu, pdadd@nassgiss.giss.nasa.gov, gates5@llnl.gov, graumlic
h@ccit.arizona.edu, dennis@atmos.washington.edu, barafu@mace.wisc.edu, tkarl@ncd
c.noaa.gov, lindzen@wind.mit.edu, liu@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov, sloman@wind.mit.edu,
jm@gfdl.gov, rcm@lanl.gov, meehl@ucar.edu, berrien@global.sr.unh.edu, dickm@atm
os.washington.edu, neelin@nino.atmos.ucla.edu, newell@newell1.mit.edu, north@csr
p.tamu.edu, obrien@masig.fsu.edu, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rtp1@midwi
y.uchicago.edu, ram@ucsd.edu, randall@redfish.atmos.colostate.edu, erasmu@atmos.
umd.edu, cddhr@nasagiss.giss.nasa.gov, alan@atmos.umd.edu, njrosenberg@pnl.gov,
sarachik@atmos.washington.edu, schlesin@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu, schneide@cola.ige
s.org, shukla@cola.iges.org, esmith@metsat.met.fsu.edu, rsomervi@icsd.edu, turco
@yosemite.atmos.ucla.edu, waliser@terra.msrc.sunysb.edu, wallace@atmos.washingto
n.edu, walsh@wx.atmos.uiuc.edu, wang@climate.asrc.albany.edu, P.D. Jones <p.jones@
uea.ac.uk>, drdendro@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mhughes@vms.c
cit.arizona.edu, rbradley@climate1.geo.umass.edu, Tim Barnett <tbarnett@ucsd.edu
>, jfein@nsf.gov, Ben Santer <bsanter@rainbow.llnl.gov>, dgm@ldgo.columbia.edu
Dear Doug,
In response to Jay Fein s e-mail re den-cen, here are some points (which
may merely echo where you are already).
(1) Why study den-cen? Reason is: improve understanding of climate
system to aid in detection and prediction. You should read Ch. 8
(detection) of IPCC WGI SAR in this regard.
(2) How to study den-cen? Models and observed data are equally
important. Models (coupled O/AGCMs) can only give the internal component
of variability, instrumental and paleodata give internal-plus-external.
(3) How useful are paleodata? I support the continued collection of
such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community
try to oversell their product. A specific example is the ice core
isotope record, which correlates very poorly with temperature on the
annual to decadal timescale (and possibly also on the century
timescale) question, how do we ever demonstrate the usefulness or
otherwise of ice core isotopes on this timescale?
There are other well known proxy data issues that need careful thought
(a) Sedimentary records dating. Are 14C-dated records of any value at
all (unless wiggle matched)?
(b) Seasonal specificity how useful is a proxy record that tells us
about a single season (or only part of the year)?
(c) Climate variance explained by the proxy variable close to zero for
ice core isotopes, up to 50% for tree rings, somewhere in between for
most other indicators. How valuable are such partially explained records
in helping explain the past?
(d) Signal-to-noise problems a key issue is, what role has external
forcing had on climate over the past 10,000 years. There is a tendency
to interpret observed changes as evidence of external forcing usually
unjustifiably. Few workers in the area realize that paleo interpretation
has a detection aspect, just like interpreting the past 100+ years only
much more difficult. More work is needed on this.
(e) Frequency dependence of explained variance the classic example
here is tree rings, where it is exceedingly difficult to get out a
credible low frequency (50+ year time scale) message. Work in this area
could reap useful rewards.
(f) Coverage what about den-cen data from the oceans? We need much
more of this, especially in regions that might provide insights into
mechanisms (like NADW changes).
(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic
aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more
work is required to improve the paleo solar forcing record and to
understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally
to solar forcing.
I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful
Cheers,
Tom
P.S. I ve added Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Ed Cook, Keith Briffa, Malcolm
Hughes, Ray Bradley and Phil Jones to your mailing list.
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, it was written:
> Dear Colleague:
>
> Doug Martinson is the Chair of the NAS, Climate Research
> Committee s Dec-Cen panel. He and his Panelists are drafting a
> Decadal-Century Climate Variability Science Plan (a US CLIVAR
> contribution). Doug and his Panel are trying to get the broadest
> possible scientific input for this Plan. Doug s approach is one
> that I strongly endorse. In this reagrd he asked me to solicite
> your comments on highest priority science questions and asks also
> for some help regarding examples of published work that would be
> useful for the Plan.
>
> I know you are busy, but urge you to think about this and comment.
> Doug s committee meet in mid-September, so to be of most use to
> him, your comments should be received by the end of August.
>
> Please email to Doug with a cc to me.
>
> Doug Martinson: dgm@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
> Jay Fein: jfein@nsf.gov
>
> Thanks very much. Jay
>
Technorati Tags: Doug Martinson, Help, Tom Wigley
Email 3 (1229468467) FOIA request
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: santer1@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: FOIA request
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0700
Cc: Thorne, Peter <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.hai
mberger@univie.ac.at>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@llnl.gov>, Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.u
car.edu>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@noaa.gov>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@frii.c
om>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@noaa.gov>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@llnl.gov>, Ph
ilip D. Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Steve K
lein <klein21@mail.llnl.gov>, carl mears <mears@remss.com>, Doug Nychka <nychka@
ucar.edu>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherw
ood@yale.edu>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@remss.com>, David C. Bader <bader2@llnl.go
v>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@llnl.gov>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@llnl
.gov>, Hal Graboske <graboske1@llnl.gov>, Cherry Murray <murray38@llnl.gov>, man
n <mann@psu.edu>, Michael C. MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>, Bill Fulkerson <wf
ulk@utk.edu>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz>, Luca Delle M
onache <ldm@llnl.gov>, Hack, James J. <jhack@ornl.gov>, Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.
C.Peterson@noaa.gov>, vladeckd@law.georgetown.edu, miller21@llnl.gov, Michael We
hner <mfwehner@lbl.gov>, Bamzai, Anjuli <Anjuli.Bamzai@science.doe.gov>
<x-flowed>
Dear Ben,
This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical
(20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zones
as well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S,
20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers on
line would be of great benefit to the community. In other
words, although prompted by McIntyre s request, you will
actually be giving something to everyone.
Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would be
an additional huge boon to the community.
For the data, what period will you cover. Although for our
paper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data for
the full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all.
This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979
to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory we
did not account for this in our paper but it is an
important issue.
This is a lot of work but the benefits to the community
would be truly immense.
Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list
the 47 models that he wants the data for. The current request
is ambiguous or, at least, ill defined. I think it is
crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.
Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not good
enough FOIA requests must be clear, complete and
unambiguous. This, after all, is a legal issue, and no court
of law would accept anything less.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear co-authors,
>
> I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
> a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA). McIntyre asked for Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
> climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere . I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.
>
> McIntyre s request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
> Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested
> records are to be provided to the FOIA Point of Contact (presumably at
> NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.
>
> McIntyre s request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the
> Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined a set of 49
> simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19
> different models . McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century
> realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of
> climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic
> mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre s
> understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful
> analysis of climate model results.
>
> Over the past several weeks, I ve had a number of discussions about the
> FOIA issue with PCMDI s Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL
> colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these
> discussions, I have decided to publish all of the climate model
> surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the
> tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to
> upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of
> Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets
> through an internal Review and Release procedure, and then placing the
> datasets on PCMDI s publicly-accessible website. The website will also
> provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
> temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc.
>
> After publication of the model data, we will inform the FOIA Point of
> Contact that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
> available for bona fide scientific research.
>
> Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional
> misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.
>
> By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be
> providing far more than the Monthly average T2LT values mentioned in
> McIntyre s FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre
> to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the
> climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.
> All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available
> to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the
> algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw
> model temperature data.
>
> I hope that publication of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves
> this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
> -
>
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (925) 422-3840
> FAX: (925) 422-7675
> email: santer1@llnl.gov
> -
>
</x-flowed>
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, FOIA, FOIA Request, Request, Tom Wigley
Email 4 (1200010023) Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, something
like this?
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails, Climategate Emails 1 - 10
0 | No Comment
From: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
To: Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@univie.ac.at>
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, something like this?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:07:03 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
Cc: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>, Dian Seidel <dian.seidel@noaa
.gov>, Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@llnl.gov>, Thoma
s R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@noaa.gov>, Carl
Mears <mears@remss.com>, David C. Bader <bader2@llnl.gov>, Francis W. Zwiers <franci
.zwiers@ec.gc.ca>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@remss.com>, Melissa Free <melissa.f
ree@noaa.gov>, Michael C. MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>, Phil Jones <p.jones@
uea.ac.uk>, Steve Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu>, Steve Klein <klein21@mai
l.llnl.gov>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Hack, James J. <jhack@ornl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Dear Leo,
Thanks very much for your email. I can easily make the observations a
bit more prominent in Figure 1. As you can see from today s
(voluminous!) email traffic, I ve received lots of helpful suggestions
regarding improvements to the Figures. I ll try to produce revised
versions of the Figures tomorrow.
On the autocorrelation issue: The models have a much larger range of
lag-1 autocorrelation coefficients (0.66 to 0.95 for T2LT, and 0.69 to
0.95 for T2) than the UAH or RSS data (which range from 0.87 to 0.89). I
was concerned that if we used the model lag-1 autocorrelations to guide
the choice of AR-1 parameter in the synthetic data analysis, Douglass
and colleagues would have an easy opening for criticising us ( Aha!
Santer et al. are using model results to guide them in their selection
of the coefficients for their AR-1 model! ) I felt that it was much more
difficult for Douglass et al. to criticize what we ve done if we used
UAH data to dictate our choice of the AR-1 parameter and the scaling
factor for the amplitude of the temporal variability.
As you know, my personal preference would be to include in our response
to Douglass et al. something like the Figure 4 that Peter has produced.
While inclusion of a Figure 4 is not essential for the purpose of
illuminating the statistical flaws in the Douglass et al. consistency
test , such a Figure would clearly show the (currently large) structural
uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of the vertical profile of
atmospheric temperature changes. I think this is an important point,
particularly in view of the fact that Douglass et al. failed to discuss
versions 1.3 and 1.4 of your RAOBCORE data even though they had
information from those datasets in their possession.
However, I fully agree with Tom s comment that we don t want to do
anything to steal the thunder from ongoing efforts to improve
sonde-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change, and to better
quantify structural uncertainties in those estimates. Your group,
together with the groups at the Hadley Centre, Yale, NOAA ARL and NOAA
GFDL, deserve great credit for making significant progress on a
difficult, time-consuming, yet important problem.
I guess the best solution is to leave this decision up to all of you
(the radiosonde dataset developers). I m perfectly happy to include a
version of Figure 4 in our response to Douglass et al. If we do go with
inclusion of a Figure 4, you, Peter, Dian, Melissa, Steve Sherwood and
John should decide whether you feel comfortable providing radiosonde
data for such a Figure. I will gladly abide by your decisions. As you
note in your email, our use of a Figure 4 would not preclude a more
detailed and thorough comparison of simulated and observed amplification
in some later publication.
Once again, thanks for all your help with this project, Leo.
With best regards,
Ben
Leopold Haimberger wrote:
> All,
>
> These three figures are really very clear and leave no doubts that the
> Douglass et al analysis is flawed. This is true especially for Fig. 1.
> In Fig. 1 one has to look carefully to find the RSS and UAH observed
> trends to the right of all the model trends. Maybe one can make their
> symbols more prominent.
>
> Concerning Fig. 3 I wonder whether the UAH autocorrelation is the lowest
> of all available data. .86 is quite substantial autocorrelation. Maybe
> it is a good idea to be on the safe side and use the lowest
> autocorrelation of all datasets (models, RSS, UAH) for this analysis.
>
> Concerning Fig. 4, I like Peter s and Dian s idea to include RAOBCORE,
> HadAT2, RATPAC and Steve s data and compare it in one plot with model
> output. While I agree that the first three figures and the corresponding
> text are already sufficient for the reply, they target mainly to the
> right panel of Fig. 1 in Douglass et al s paper. The trend profile plot
> of Fig. 4 is complementary as a counterpart to the left panel of their
> plot. To see the trend amplification in in some of the vertical profiles
> is much more suggestive than seeing the LT trends being larger than
> surface trends, at least for me. Showing all available profiles adds
> value beyond the RAOBCORE v1.2 vs RAOBCORE v1.4 issue. Yes, it is work
> in progress and such a plot as drafted by Peter makes that very clear.
> In this paper it is sufficient to show that the uncertainty of
> radiosonde trends is much larger than suggested by Douglass et al. and
> we do not need to have the final answer yet. I have nothing against
> Peter doing the drawing of the figure, since he has most of the
> necessary data. The plot would be needed for 1979-1999, however. Peter,
> I will send you the trend profiles for this period a bit later.
>
> Publishing the reply in either IJC or GRL including Fig. 4 is fine for me.
> When we first discussed a follow up of the Santer et al paper in
> October, we had in mind to publish post-FAR climate model data up to
> present (not just 1999) and also new radiosonde data up to present in a
> highest ranking journal. I am confident that this is still possible even
> if some of the new material planned for such a paper is submitted
> already now. What do you think?
>
> With best Regards,
>
> Leo
>
> Peter Thorne wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This
>> has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,
>> but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for
>> where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to
>> use it. To do this I ve taken every single scrap of info I have in my
>> possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have
>> considered the common period of 1979-2004. So, assuming you are all
>> sitting comfortably:
>>
>> Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.
>> See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling
>> factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to
>> HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if
>> we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or
>> not depending upon one s pre-conceived notion as to whether the models
>> are correct.
>>
>> Red is HadAT2 dataset.
>>
>> black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all
>> tropical stations with a 81-2000 climatology)
>>
>> Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from
>> Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world
>> assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here
>> and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.
>>
>> Bright green is RATPAC
>>
>> Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here
>> and not me so any final version I d want to get the raw gridded data and
>> do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided
>> as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at
>> height) difference:
>>
>> Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment
>> estimates)
>>
>> Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2
>> Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3
>> Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4
>>
>> I am also in possession of Steve s submitted IUK dataset and will be
>> adding this trend line shortly.
>>
>> I ll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.
>>
>> My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that
>> this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer
>> et al. Figure 3.B.
>>
>> I ll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for
>> it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for
>> Leo s to be used. Whatever people prefer.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
-
</x-flowed>
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Leopold Haimberger, Response, Updat
e
Email 5 (1254108338) 1940s
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2009, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean but
we d still have to explain the land blip.
I ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with why the blip .
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) but not really enough.
So why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS
Technorati Tags: 1940s, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley
Email 6 (1216753979) Re: A long and rocky road
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: santer1@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: A long and rocky road
Date: Tue Jul 22 15:12:59 2008
Dear Ben,
well, thanks for your thanks. I m not sure that I did all that much, but glad tha
t the
small amount is appreciated. It s a shame that the process couldn t have been quick
er
still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly.
Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I ve skim read already looks very carefull
y done
and therefore convincing (I m sure you already heard that from others).
I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision o
f SOM is a
relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething
problems.
A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February st
ill has its
SOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I ll now email Glenn to re
mind him
of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I t
hink this
is a problem on the publisher s side of things rather than an editorial problem.
Because of our absent SOM, we ve temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our perso
nal
website. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain
if the
paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your
own website
when the paper appears online. But hopefully there ll be no problem with it!
I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom s wedding hope that was fun!
Best regards
Tim
At 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote:
Dear Tim,
Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, a
nd is
in press at IJoC. I ve appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It s
been a long and rocky road, and I ll be quite glad if I never have to write anothe
r MSU
paper again ever!
I d be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC now
has
online publication, we re hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks.
Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokerin
g the
submission of the paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben
-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
-
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, Road, Tim Osborn
Email 7 (1224005421) Response
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
To: David Douglass <douglass@pas.rochester.edu>
Subject: Response
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:30:21 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
Cc: Peter W. Thorne <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>, Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopol
d Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@univie.ac.at>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@llnl.gov>,
Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@noaa.gov>, ssolo
mon@frii.com, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@noaa.gov>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@ll
nl.gov>, Philip D. Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
, Steve Klein <klein21@mail.llnl.gov>, carl mears <mears@remss.com>, Doug Nychka
<nychka@ucar.edu>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Steven Sherwood <Ste
ven.Sherwood@yale.edu>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@remss.com>, Professor Glenn McG
regor <g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz>, David C. Bader <bader2@llnl.gov>
<x-flowed>
Prof. Douglass,
You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in our
recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology
(IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the calculations
we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome to do so.
We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to
calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric
levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those displayed
in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our numerical quantities in
order to determine whether we have correctly calculated zonal-mean
trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric amplification of
surface temperature changes.
Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation of
synthetic MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for
calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselves
and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already
demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of
computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output.
Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already
successfully replicated our model average synthetic MSU temperature
trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report).
In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data
that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that
you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our
IJoC paper are sound or unsound.
You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against
me with the journal and other scientific bodies . If I were you, Dr.
Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious
error in the robust statistical test that you applied to compare
modeled and observed temperature trends.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC
paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They deserve to
be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
Ben Santer
David Douglass wrote:
> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and
> should not be a personal matter.
> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with conclusions
> based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As another scientist,
> I challenge the value of those quantities. These values can not be
> authenticated by my calculating them because I have nothing to compare
> them to.
>
> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I
> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other
> scientific bodies.
>
> David Douglass
-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
-
</x-flowed>
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Response
Email 8 (1197507092) Re: Douglass paper
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2007, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Douglass paper
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:51:32 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Tom Wigl
ey <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>
<x-flowed>
Dear Tim,
Thanks for the heads up . As Phil mentioned, I was already aware of
this. The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finally
accepted by IJC. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC.
It has serious scientific flaws. I m already working on a response.
Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass et
al. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did not
support their models are wrong argument (even though they had these
datasets in their possession). Pretty deplorable behaviour
Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the
temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative
sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy
sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators
With best regards,
Ben
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I guess it s likely that you re aware of the Douglass paper that s just
> come out in IJC, but in case you aren t then a reprint is attached.
> They are somewhat critical of your 2005 paper, though I recall that some
> (most?) of Douglass previous papers and papers that he s tried to
> get through the review process appear to have serious problems.
>
> cc Phil & Keith for your interest too!
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
> phone: +44 1603 592089
> fax: +44 1603 507784
> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>

-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
-
</x-flowed>
Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Douglass Paper, Paper, Tim Osborn
Email 9 (1098472400) Re: MBH
Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2004, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 | No Comment
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: MBH
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
Cc: santer1@llnl.gov
Tom,
Just got the Science attachments for the von Storch et al. paper for Tim and Kei
th, so
I thought you might like to see them. I ve just sent a reply to von Storch as he
claims
his model is a better representation of reality than MBH. How a model that is on
ly given
past forcing histories can be better than some proxy data is beyond me, but Hans
seems
to believe this. The ERA-40 report and JGR paper are relevant here. ERA-40 is n
ot of
climate quality. There are differences and trends with CRU data before the late
1970s
and again around the mid-1960s that should include other variables that are calc
ulated.
It is so bad in the Antarctic that ERA-40 rejects most of the surface obs (becau
se they
get little weight) and they don t begin to get accepted until the late 1970s. Conc
lusion
is that
you can t consider ERA-40 for climate purposes. Maybe the next generation, with a
considerable
efforts in getting all the missing back data in and changes to weights given to
surface
data might
mean the 3rd generation is better.
I shouldn t rabbit on about this as I have to go home to drive with Ruth to Gatwic
k
for
our week in Florence. A lot of people criticise MBH and other papers Mike has be
en
involved in, but how many people read them fully or just read bits like the atta
ched.
The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in
virtually
everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used
in the
Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing
this -
only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wr
ong
year/decade.
I wasted a few hours checking what I d done and got no thanks for pointing their m
istake
out
to them.
If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site
[1]http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/
It will take a while to get around these web pages and you ve got to be a bit of n
erd and
know
the jargon, but it lists all the mistakes McKittrick has made in various papers.
I bet
there isn t
a link to this on his web site. The final attachment is a comment on a truly aw
ful paper
by
McKittirck and Michaels. I can t find the original, but it s reference is in this. T
he
paper didn t
consider spatial autocorrelation at all. Fortunately a longer version of the pap
er did get
rejected by IJC it seems a few papers are rejected !
Point I m trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as go
od a
way of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the wo
rk in the
Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith s
reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike s may hav
e
slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper
et al),
but
he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a lit
tle to the
summer
and none are truly annual I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as th
e
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more th
an 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no sci
ence, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:
Phil,
I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work an opinion I have held
for some time.
Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? or is it?
I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
-
References
1. http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/
Technorati Tags: MBH, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley
« Previous Entries
Red Hot Lies
Red Hot Lies
An exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alar
mists and the compliant media that support them.
Categories
* 1996
* 1997
* 1998
* 1999
* 2000
* 2001
* 2002
* 2003
* 2004
* 2005
* 2006
* 2007
* 2008
* 2009
* Climategate Emails
* Climategate Emails 1 100
* Climategate Emails 1001 1073
* Climategate Emails 101 200
 * Climategate Emails 201 300
* Climategate Emails 301 400
* Climategate Emails 401 500
* Climategate Emails 501 600
* Climategate Emails 601 700
* Climategate Emails 701 800
* Climategate Emails 801 900
* Climategate Emails 901 1000
* Extra
Pages
* Contact us
Tags
BBC BBC on Climate Ben Santer Carl Mears Caspar Ammann Clare Goodess Climate Cli
mategate Emails Data David Douglass Edward Cook ENSO Eystein Jansen Fred Singer
Gabi Hegerl Gavin Schmidt Grant Foster IJoC IPCC ITRDB ITRDB FOR John Christy Jo
hn Lanzante Jonathan Overpeck Karl Taylor Keith Briffa Kevin Trenberth Leopold H
aimberger Malcolm Hughes Melissa Free Michael E. Mann Mike Hulme Paper Peter Tho
rne Phil Jones Rashit Hantemirov Raymond Bradley Stepan Shiyatov Stephen Schneid
er Susan Solomon Thomas R. Karl Tim Osborn Tom Crowley Tom Wigley Yamal
Search for:
Archives
* December 2009
Meta
* Log in
* Entries RSS
* Comments RSS
* WordPress.org
Tony Haryanto