Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/26/2009 12:29:46 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
On a hunch, I searched for Obama's and Holdren's names in the emails and came up with the following. Note the first how they are making fun of the FOIA.
x-flowed Dear Phil,
Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He doesn't realize that, as the length of record increases and trend confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever - they are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.
It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre's paper for review. Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!
I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn't be the same without him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.
Have fun in Switzerland!
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Ben, I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at the moment.
It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email, telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has.
With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data - laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up statements saying you've done this following Obama's statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll suggest this.
Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you reading them unless interested.
Cheers Phil
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
From: Ben Santer santer1@llnl.gov
To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:16:33 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
x-flowed
Dear Phil,
Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That’s great news. I’m really
delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head” isn’t
there to spoil the occasion...
With best regards,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Ben,
Meant to add - hope you’re better! You were missed at
IDAG. Meeting went well though.
I heard during IDAG that I’ve been made an AGU Fellow.
Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it.
I hope I don’t see a certain person there!
Have to get out of a keynote talk I’m due to give in
Finland the same day!
Cheers
Phil
Ben,
I’m at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I’m too
old to go skiing. I’ll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at
some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at
the moment.
It is good news that Rob can come. I’m still working on
Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
telling him what he’ll be missing if he doesn’t go. I think
Sarah will come, but I’ve not yet been in CRU when she has.
With free wifi in my room, I’ve just seen that M+M have
submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more
years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up
statements saying you’ve done this following Obama’s
statement about openness in government! Anyway you’ll likely
get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll
suggest this.
Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood’s
work. He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment
piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it
hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
reading them unless interested.
Cheers
Phil
—
/x-flowed
From: Michael Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu
To: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:06:20 -0400
Cc: Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov , Tim Osborn t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very
long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I’ve received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly
intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw
it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama’s health plan,
we’ll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed
congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain
Lieberman climate bill in ‘05.
we’re doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways to
exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect over
the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I’d overlooked. We’d already
asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out
he’s really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa ‘06 is also immune to this issue, as
it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was
essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith’s Yamal series was not what
we used in Mann and Jones ‘03 (we reference Briffa et al ‘01)?
thanks for the help! We’re hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much. As you’re aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode. Science
ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you’ve said all these things
before.
We’re getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other blog
sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used. Keith
had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far too much
into his off ill message.
Even though I’ve had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have been
the worst yet. I’m realizing more what those working on animal experiments must have gone
through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great—thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we’ll target for
tomorrow as well, we’ll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we’ll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we’re preparing a ‘bigger picture’ response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith’s temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He’s been off
almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he’s keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he’ll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing — other than that
I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result”
is complete crap. Having one’s integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I’m sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently
been working towards that uses these — and more — data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
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: [3]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk [4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [5] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ [6] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [7] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm [8]
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mailto:mann@psu.edu [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html [12]
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[13] http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html [14]
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: [15]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [17]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
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 [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [23]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[24]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
2. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
8. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@psu.edu
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
15. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
16. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
17. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
24. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
25. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Amazing in a bad way
From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
To: Michael Mann mann@meteo.psu.edu
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:12:54 2009
Cc: Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov , Tim Osborn t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Mike,
I realized you’d have many more bad emails!
As for MJ2003 what we used was an average of Fennoscan, Yamal and Taymir (as one of the
series).
Briffa et al (2001) was just referred to in that as a ref to RCS. The paper also talks
about N Eurasia, so the sites get a mention.
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a
very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I’ve received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and
highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack
campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat
Obama’s health plan, we’ll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap &
trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original
McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in ‘05.
we’re doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways
to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect
over the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I’d overlooked. We’d
already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you
point out he’s really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa ‘06 is also immune to
this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the
result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith’s Yamal series was not
what we used in Mann and Jones ‘03 (we reference Briffa et al ‘01)?
thanks for the help! We’re hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much. As you’re aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode.
Science ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you’ve said all these
things before.
We’re getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I’ve had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I’m realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great—thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we’ll target for
tomorrow as well, we’ll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we’ll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we’re preparing a ‘bigger picture’ response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith’s temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He’s been off
almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he’s keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he’ll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing — other than that
I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result”
is complete crap. Having one’s integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I’m sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently
been working towards that uses these — and more — data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
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: [3]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk [4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
[8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mailto:mann@psu.edu [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
[12]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[13]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
[14]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: [15]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [17]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[20]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
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 [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [23]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[24]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
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
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
2. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
8. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@psu.edu
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
13. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
14. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
15. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
16. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
17. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
20. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
24. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
25. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
26. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
27. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
28. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Great digging, Blood....great work.....
From: Ben Santer santer1@llnl.gov
To: Stephen H Schneider shs@stanford.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:32:52 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
Cc: “’Kevin E. Trenberth’” trenbert@ucar.edu , Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov , mann mann@psu.edu , Stefan Rahmstorf rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de , Tom Wigley wigley@cgd.ucar.edu , “’Philip D. Jones’” p.jones@uea.ac.uk , Thomas R Karl Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov
x-flowed
Dear Steve,
I was made aware of this yesterday (see forwarded email).
Best regards,
Ben
/x-flowed
X-Account-Key: account1
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path: santer1@llnl.gov
Received: from mail-2.llnl.gov ([unix socket])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA;
Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:44 -0700
Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81])
by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id n991Sh62016185;
Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:28:43 -0700
X-Attachments: None
Received: from dione.llnl.gov ([128.115.57.29])
by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2009 18:28:44 -0700
Message-ID: 4ACE91CA.7000006@llnl.gov
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:28:42 -0700
From: Ben Santer santer1@llnl.gov
Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick Piltz piltz@comcast.net
CC: Tom Wigley wigley@ucar.edu , Tom Karl Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov ,
Jim Hansen jeh1@columbia.edu ,
Bob Watson robert.watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk ,
Mike MacCracken mmaccrac@comcast.net ,
“’John F. B. Mitchell’” john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with
charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature
record
References: 80955b$27nkli@smtp.llnl.gov
In-Reply-To: 80955b$27nkli@smtp.llnl.gov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
x-flowed
Dear Rick,
I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
intentionally “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used
in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human
influence” conclusions.
Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
I’m sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels’ Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels’ Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I’m equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
[One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU’s claim of a pronounced increase in
global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
test of time.]
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
every utility bill we’ve received in the last 20 years.
The second argument - that “discernible human influence” findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
global-mean temperature changes.
As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP “State of Knowledge”
Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
of our professional societies.
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, “data destroying” character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the “data destruction”
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you’ve got it.
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m also copying my email to John Mitchell at
the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
issues.
With best regards,
Ben
Rick Piltz wrote:
Gentlemen—
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
a re-opening of public comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment”
finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don’t have a technical
response to their allegations.
Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
some collective coherence.
I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
perspective — either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
someone please explain this to me?
Best regrads,
Rick
*1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
‘endangerment’ proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
*
*Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
behind U.S. EPA’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
health and welfare.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute — a vocal foe of EPA’s efforts to
finalize its “endangerment finding” — *petitioned*
http://*www.*eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf
the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
*At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
when drafting its endangerment proposal.
According to the Web site for East Anglia’s research unit, “Data storage
availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
homogenized) data.”
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
endangerment finding into question. *”EPA is resting its case on
international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s
suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
date, makes that information totally unreliable,” he said.* “If EPA
doesn’t re-examine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into
the most important regulatory issue we face.”
*In a statement filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
Patrick Michaels called the development a “totally new element” in the
endangerment debate. “It violates basic scientific principles and throws
even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions endanger human welfare,” he wrote.
*Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
“The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.” He stepped
down from his post as Virginia’s state climatologist in 2007 after he
came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
http://*eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9 , Sept. 27, 2007).
Representatives of East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit were
not available to comment on the CEI petition.
EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
“But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,”
Andy added, “it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval.”
The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
endangerment proposal.
Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
although the research unit’s data are among key data sets used by the
IPCC, “it’s not the only data set that they use.” He also said EPA drew
on “multifaceted, robust” data in the technical support document
underlying the finding.
EPA’s endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC’s 2007 fourth
assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency’s
technical support document.
“You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
University in the 1980s,” Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
vets its data.
Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
finalize the endangerment finding and is “grasping at straws” by
challenging the IPCC data.
“Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology,” Piltz said. “When
they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
the mainstream science community.”
Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
scientific merit of the research data.
“It’s astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
consequential rulemaking of our time,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
of relying upon flawed data.
“Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
EPA’s assertions can’t engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
destroyed,” Inhofe said. “In order to conform to federal law and basic
standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
public can judge whether EPA’s claims are based on the best available
scientific information.”
Rick Piltz
Director, Climate Science Watch
301-807-2472
www.*climatesciencewatch.org
http://*www.*climatesciencewatch.org/ Climate Science Watch is a
sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
science and related research effectively and with integrity in
responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
any part of what one has recognized to be true.
—Albert Einstein
—
/x-flowed
Yes science, political science, that is now brought to it’s rightful place. Obama did good.
From: Ben Santer santer1@llnl.gov
To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov
x-flowed
Dear Phil,
I’ve known Rick Piltz for many years. He’s a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is. I forwarded the message
to Rick. So if you want to add anything else feel free to do so.
We have more stations going into the latest CRU data than we did in the
1980s.
In Lecce next week for 2 days at a GKSS summer school led by Hans VS!
Cheers
Phil
Dear Rick,
I am prepared to help in any way that I can.
As I see it, there are two key issues here.
First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and
colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and
intentionally “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used
in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.
Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human
influence” conclusions.
Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other
scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of
global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point
here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in
Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley
Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication
completely independently. They made different choices in the complex
process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known
inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in
instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding
procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature
changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results.
I’m sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels’ Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels’ Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I’m equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
[One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere
had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career
out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU’s claim of a pronounced increase in
global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the
test of time.]
The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make
available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about
every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some
vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens
understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and
every utility bill we’ve received in the last 20 years.
The second argument - that “discernible human influence” findings are
like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is
also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE
observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature
changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately
obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS
global-mean temperature changes.
As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR
and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP “State of Knowledge”
Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been
performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface
temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content,
atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river
runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and
Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is
that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes
we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an
internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and
reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational
dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is
being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to
influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner
publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked
out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community
as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks
on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked
Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous
others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member
of our professional societies.
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, “data destroying” character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley
have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the
construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT
dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and
transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding
algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of
various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in
spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and
comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices.
They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to
the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available
for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not
the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the “data destruction”
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you’ve got it.
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m also copying my email to John Mitchell at
the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these
issues.
With best regards,
Ben
Rick Piltz wrote:
Gentlemen—
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
a re-opening of public comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment”
finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as
someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation
campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don’t have a technical
response to their allegations.
Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
some collective coherence.
I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website
as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in
what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in
perspective — either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will
someone please explain this to me?
Best regrads,
Rick
*1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA
‘endangerment’ proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009)
*
*Robin Bravender, E&E reporter*
A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science
behind U.S. EPA’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
health and welfare.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute — a vocal foe of EPA’s efforts to
finalize its “endangerment finding” — *petitioned*
http://**www.**eenews.net/features/documents/2009/10/07/document_pm_02.pdf
the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the
proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have
been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable.
*At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface
temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According
to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used
when drafting its endangerment proposal.
According to the Web site for East Anglia’s research unit, “Data storage
availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the
multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
homogenized) data.”
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the
endangerment finding into question. *”EPA is resting its case on
international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s
suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late
date, makes that information totally unreliable,” he said.* “If EPA
doesn’t re-examine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into
the most important regulatory issue we face.”
*In a statement filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute senior fellow
Patrick Michaels called the development a “totally new element” in the
endangerment debate. “It violates basic scientific principles and throws
even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions endanger human welfare,” he wrote.
*Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book,
“The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.” He stepped
down from his post as Virginia’s state climatologist in 2007 after he
came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money
from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/
http://**eenews.net/Greenwire/2007/09/27/archive/9 , Sept. 27, 2007).
Representatives of East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit were
not available to comment on the CEI petition.
EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition.
“But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon,”
Andy added, “it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval.”
The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the
proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama
administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue
the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal
cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the
group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA
environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the
endangerment proposal.
Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a
former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that
although the research unit’s data are among key data sets used by the
IPCC, “it’s not the only data set that they use.” He also said EPA drew
on “multifaceted, robust” data in the technical support document
underlying the finding.
EPA’s endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC’s 2007 fourth
assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse
gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of
global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency’s
technical support document.
“You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support
document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to
do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia
University in the 1980s,” Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully
vets its data.
Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to
finalize the endangerment finding and is “grasping at straws” by
challenging the IPCC data.
“Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology,” Piltz said. “When
they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with
the mainstream science community.”
Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the
public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the
scientific merit of the research data.
“It’s astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of
its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most
consequential rulemaking of our time,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe
sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA
of relying upon flawed data.
“Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of
EPA’s assertions can’t engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring
reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been
destroyed,” Inhofe said. “In order to conform to federal law and basic
standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the
public can judge whether EPA’s claims are based on the best available
scientific information.”
Rick Piltz
Director, Climate Science Watch
301-807-2472
www.**climatesciencewatch.org
http://**www.**climatesciencewatch.org/ Climate Science Watch is a
sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington,
DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
science and related research effectively and with integrity in
responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption.
The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
any part of what one has recognized to be true.
—Albert Einstein
—
—
/x-flowed
From: “Graham F Haughton” G.F.Haughton@hull.ac.uk
To: “Phil Jones” p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=”iso-8859-1”
I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we’ve had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!’
Graham
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 28 October 2009 16:39
To: Graham F Haughton
Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Dear Graham,
Thanks for the speedy reply. Just like you
are, we are trying here to do bits of research
mostly related to the current set of contracts we
have. Trying to respond to blogs is just not part
of the deadlines we have entered into with the
Research Councils, the EU and DEFRA.
You are probably aware of this, but the
journal Sonja edits is at the very bottom of
almost all climate scientists lists of journals
to read. It is the journal of choice of climate
change skeptics and even here they don’t seem to
be bothering with journals at all recently.
I don’t think there is anything more you can
do. I have vented my frustration and have had a considered reply from you.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:45 27/10/2009, you wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=”iso-8859-1”
Dear Phil, sorry to hear this. I don’t see much
of her these days, but when I do see Sonja next
I’ll try and have a quiet word with her about
the way the affiliation to us is used, but at
the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it
in the way she does. Fortunately I don’t get to
see many of these email exchanges but I do
occasionally hear about them or see them and
frankly am rarely convinced by what I read. But
as with all academics, I’d want to protect
another academic’s freedom to be contrary and
critical, even if I personally believe she is
probably wrong. I agree with you that it’d be
better for these exchanges to be conducted
through the peer review process but these forms
of e-communication are now part of the public
debate and its difficult to do much about it
other than to defend your position in this and
other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.
I can understand your frustration and I am
pretty sure I’d be feeling exactly the same in
your shoes, but I am not sure at the moment that
I can do much more. If you think I can and
should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter.
Graham
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 27 October 2009 17:05
To: Graham F Haughton
Subject: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
Dear Professor Haughton,
The email below was brought to my attention
by the help desk of UKCP09 - the new set of UK
climate scenarios developed for DEFRA. It was
sent by the person named in the header of this
email. I regard this email as very malicious. Dr
Boehmer-Christiansen states that it is beyond her
expertise to assess the claims made. If this is
the case then she shouldn’t be sending malicious
emails like this. The two Canadians she refers
to have never developed a tree-ring chronology in
their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
on his blog site that he has no aim to write up
his results for publication in the peer-review literature.
I’m sure you will be of the same opinion as
me that science should be undertaken through the
peer-review literature as it has been for over
300 years. The peer-review system is the
safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published.
In case you want to read more about the
subject my colleague Keith Briffa has just put this up on his web site.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
It has taken him some time, partly as he has
been off after a serious operation in June. He
has had to return early to respond to this. He
has also had some difficulty contacting our Russian colleagues.
The claims on the Climate Audit site are
exaggerated, but get taken completely out of
context by the other blog sites that get referred
to in Dr Boehmer-Christiansen’s email. I will
draw your attention to two things
1. The Yamal chronology is only used in 3 of
the 12 millennial temperature reconstructions in Ch 6 of the 2007 IPCC Report.
2. McIntyre was sent the data for Yamal by our
Russian colleagues on Feb 2, 2004.
I realize Dr Boehmer-Christensen no longer
works for you, but she is still using your affiliation.
Best Regards
Phil Jones
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson stephanie.ferguson@ukcip.org.uk
Cc: “Peiser, Benny”
B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk , Patrick David Henderson
pdhenderson18@googlemail.com , Christopher Monckton monckton@mail.com
Subject: RE: Please take note of
potetially serious allegations of scientific ‘fraud’ by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work
is based on the data provided by CRU (as does the
work of the IPCC and of course UK climate
policy). Some of this, very fundamentally, would
now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and
may even face future legal enquiries. It may be
in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good
time and become a little more ‘uncertain’ about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following
and pass the allegations made on to the relevant people.
It is beyond my expertise to assess the
claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole ‘man-made global warming’
cum energy policy debate. I know several of
the people involved personally and have no
reason to doubt their sincerity and honour as
scientists, though I am also aware of their
highly critical (of IPCC science) policy positions.
I could also let you have statements by
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross McKitrick
currently teaches at Westminister Business School
and who is fully informed about the relevant
issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Best wishes
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU’S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
” Jennifer Marohasy jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must
Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-
must-explain-or-resign/
MOST scientific sceptics have been
dismissive of the various reconstructions of
temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest
year of the past millennium. Our case has been
significantly bolstered over the last week with
statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting
access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn
and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has
been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures
over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data -
which he had been asking for since
2003 - suggests that scientists at the
Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s
Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a
small subset of the available data to make their
claims that recent years have been the hottest of
the last millennium. When the entire data set is
used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed
problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey
stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research
Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have
continuously republished claiming the upswing in
temperatures over the last 100 years is real and
not an artifact of the methodology used - as
claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same
scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all
the data. Recently they were forced to make more
data available to Mr McIntyre after they
published in the Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature
and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it
enforces.
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that
scientists associated with the UK Meteorology
Bureau have been less than diligent are serious
and suggest some of the most defended building
blocks of the case for anthropogenic global
warming are based on the indefensible when the
methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues
associated with how data is archived at the UK
Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets
that spuriously support the case for global
warming being promoted while complete data sets
are kept hidden from the public - including from
scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at
the Climate Research Centre associated with the
UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
[1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by
Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM= By
Patrick J. Michaels
Imagine if there were no reliable
records of global surface temperature. Raucous
policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point
be little more than a historical footnote, and
President Obama would not be spending this U.N.
session talking up a (likely unattainable)
international climate deal in Copenhagen in
December. Steel yourself for the new reality,
because the data needed to verify the
gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
either lost or purged from some discarded
computer. Only a very few people know what really
happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what
little they are saying makes no sense.
In the early 1980s, with funding from
the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia
established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to
produce the world’s first comprehensive history
of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade
as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors,
Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the
primary reference standard for the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
until 2007. It was this record that prompted the
IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
Putting together such a record isn’t at
all easy. Weather stations weren’t really
designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing
ones were usually established at points of
commerce, which tend to grow into cities that
induce spurious warming trends in their records.
Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the
afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by
the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr.,
many of the stations themselves are placed in
locations, such as in parking lots or near heat
vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the
historical climate records that are required to
verify models of global warming aren’t the
original records at all. Jones and Wigley,
however, weren’t specific about what was done to
which station in order to produce their record,
which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of
0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an
Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-”
came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in
early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s
response to a fellow scientist attempting to
replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so
invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is
breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In
fact, the entire purpose of replication is to
“try and find something wrong.” The ultimate
objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
Then the story changed. In June 2009,
Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian
researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested
raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So
McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information
Act request for the same data. Despite having
been invited by the National Academy of Sciences
to present his analyses of millennial
temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t
have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So
his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the
University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
Faced with a growing number of such
requests, Jones refused them all, saying that
there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding
the data between CRU and nations that supplied
the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested
those agreements, country by country, but only a
handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third
World countries and written in very vague language.
It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I
had published papers demonstrating that the
quality of land-based records is so poor that the
warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first
year for which we could compare those records to
independent data from satellites) may have been
overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who
received the CRU data, published studies linking
changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).
Enter the dog that ate global warming.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor
of environmental studies at the University of
Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data
we have received into existing series or begun
new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
stations within a particular country or if all of
an individual record should be freely available.
Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that
we were not able to keep the multiple sources for
some sites, only the station series after
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore,
do not hold the original raw data but only the
value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about “data storage” is
balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
The files went onto a computer. All of the
original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape
drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the
world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
If we are to believe Jones’s note to the
younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been
an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster
received some of the data this year. So the
question remains: What was destroyed or lost,
when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
All of this is much more than an
academic spat. It now appears likely that the
U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon
the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
going to step in and issue regulations on
carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a
regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no
science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
studies at the Cato Institute and author of
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.) “
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email
is distributed, please go to
http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************
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
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is
distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************
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
A whole lot of people using tax dollars to push a political agenda.
From: “Michael E. Mann” mann@virginia.edu
To: Malcolm Hughes mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu , Tim Osborn t.osborn@uea.ac.uk , Keith Briffa k.briffa@uea.ac.uk , Kevin Trenberth trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu , Caspar Ammann ammann@ucar.edu , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, tcrowley@duke.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford srutherford@rwu.edu , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu, Tom Wigley wigley@ucar.edu
Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:41 -0400
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been
kind enough to pass along...
mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@virginia.edu
X-Sender: jholdren@camail2.harvard.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
To: “Michael Mann” mem6u@virginia.edu , “Tom Wigley” wigley@ucar.edu
From: “John P. Holdren” john_holdren@harvard.edu
Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
views on climate
Michael and Tom —
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
“Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
less self-explanatory.
Best regards,
John
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400
To: schrag@eps.harvard.edu, oconnell@eps.harvard.edu, holland@eps.harvard.edu,
pearson@eps.harvard.edu, eli@eps.harvard.edu, ingalls@eps.harvard.edu,
mlm@eps.harvard.edu, avan@fas.harvard.edu, moyer@huarp.harvard.edu,
poussart@fas.harvard.edu, jshaman@fas.harvard.edu, sivan@fas.harvard.edu,
bec@io.harvard.edu, saleska@fas.harvard.edu
From: “John P. Holdren” john_holdren@harvard.edu
Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Cc: jeremy_bloxham@harvard.edu, william_clark@harvard.edu,
patricia_mclaughlin@harvard.edu,
Bcc:
Colleagues—
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying
to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think
that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me,
correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which
he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one’s interlocutor
turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context
in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy’s formulations that
made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple
of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its
content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our “environmental
science and policy breakfast” list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
breakfast discussion.
The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it
can be read straight through, top to bottom.
Best,
John
At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my
website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is
paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the
political climate in Washington.
Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Best,
Nick
Nick Schulz
Editor
TCS
1-800-619-5258
From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz —
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have
been swamped with other commitments.
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with
Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might arrive at what I
regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments,
the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from
reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
years”, Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M.
Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, “On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth”, EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8
July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking
somebody who does possess these characteristics — preferably somebody outside the
handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
climate-change skeptics — to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could
poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of
earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any
number of major universities.
(3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the
time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications
(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most
published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’ reputation in this field suffered
considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was
circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to
assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out
that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to
penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in
cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things — and where one is
able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the
issue is as lopsided as here — one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one
were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being
true would be foolhardy.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as
fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that
you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey
my response in its entirety.
At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose
it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what
lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given
the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
Best,
Nick
From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick—
Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong
and sweeping proposition (such as that “the current period is the warmest in the last
1000 years”) must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing
counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing —
it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Both of these are “empirical” laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
observation; neither one can be “proven” from more fundamental laws. Both are very
sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The
second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of
proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who
claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the
burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the
two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has
ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so
strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court,
that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected
summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter
only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state
of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question — not simply on whether a
proposition is sweeping or narrow.
In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim.
They write along the lines of “A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature
changes support the conclusion” that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are “inconsistent with
the preponderance of scientific evidence”. They are not saying that no shred of
evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
This is often the case in science. That is, there are often “outlier” data points or
apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given
much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it
to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way
that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that
the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent
contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement
error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
indicates.
A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed
in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in
itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
proposition.
In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an “outlier” point or other seeming
contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why
the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind,
the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann
et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their
basic research.
You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation
by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider
the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers
and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his
research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m
willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you
could clear up a thing or two.
Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research
itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write
along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes
support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium.
And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
preponderance of scientific evidence .
That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based
on his research.
But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our
conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to
emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.” Does that
seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
responded at the time by saying “I think there’s a limit to how far you can ever go.” As
for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, “I don’t think
we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.” These
are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make
different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim.
Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate
what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I
don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be
punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much
hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of
millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
definition beyond the reach of those people?
All best,
Nick
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400
To: “Nick Schulz” nschulz@techcentralstation.com
From: “John P. Holdren” john_holdren@harvard.edu
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick—
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress
I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your
final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there’s any hope of
reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to
those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science
and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don’t think the
difficulties are insurmountable. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in, which is
teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate
works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists
about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by
new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to
understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what
factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste
repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved
and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though
most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are
made, “You don’t have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg.” In other words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In
those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the
science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in
ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function
and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists
and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant
to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in
policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to
explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I
could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that
improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific
literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to
distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of
who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of
burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling
experts can illuminate issues even for those who don’t understand everything that the
experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of
where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra
Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of
this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this
at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
published in that year, as saying
“Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.”
and you ask “Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?” My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
did NOT say “Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
and not any of the natural factors.” They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a carefully
specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
what they found. And it is appropriately contingent —”APPEARS to be closely tied” —
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen.
That is why I’m an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist “Tom Quigley” as holding a contrary view to
that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don’t know of any Tom Quigley
working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom
Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to “Quiqley” do not directly contradict the
careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his
study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to
say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without
either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding
Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other
things.
Best,
John Holdren
JOHN P. HOLDREN
JOHN P. HOLDREN
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.techcentralstation.com/
2. mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu
3. mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
From: Tim Johns tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk
To: “Folland, Chris” chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:34:49 +0000
Cc: “Smith, Doug” doug.smith@metoffice.gov.uk , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Tim Johns tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational
uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it
is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen
by different integrated assessment models shows a range of
possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES
project, since we have been running models with a new
mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has large emissions
reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM)
and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a
different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B
scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the
secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say for sure which is most likely
to be “realistic”.
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few
decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in
GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much
cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4
for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs
show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which
I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See
the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any
further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other
ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short
term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2
emissions trajectories.
So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar
kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be
different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2
emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment fine
print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
Tim and Doug
Please see McCrackens email.
We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
Any guidance welcome
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009
Dear Phil and Chris—
Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)—and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization—but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades—go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, “dilution is the solution to pollution”. While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution—most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface—something also that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo—and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming—I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading—or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.
Would be an interesting issue to do research on—see what could be done.
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability—that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us—the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate. ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office Hadley Center.
³Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
For additional information see:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c
older-than-in-Iceland.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html
—
Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday Thursday-Friday
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\wave.gif”
From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
To: Tim Johns tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk , “Folland, Chris” chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009
Cc: “Smith, Doug” doug.smith@metoffice.gov.uk , Tim Johns tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts.
Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems
a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk)
it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
I’ve just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg C for the LWC.
It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights. The paper
shows the UHI hasn’t got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil
At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational
uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it
is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen
by different integrated assessment models shows a range of
possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES
project, since we have been running models with a new
mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has large emissions
reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM)
and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a
different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B
scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the
secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say for sure which is most likely
to be “realistic”.
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few
decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in
GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much
cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4
for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs
show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which
I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See
the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any
further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other
ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short
term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2
emissions trajectories.
So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar
kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be
different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2
emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment fine
print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
Tim and Doug
Please see McCrackens email.
We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is
the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are
there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the
2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability
of the last decade. However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods
we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be
told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a
bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4. However
having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony
about the temperature of 2009.
Any guidance welcome
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Mike MacCracken [[2]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009
Dear Phil and Chris—
Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went
around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)—and I would expect the
analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how
much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know
that at least some plants are using desulfurization—but that antidotes are not an
inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going
to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades—go to tall stacks so that,
for the near-term, “dilution is the solution to pollution”. While I understand there are
efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked
a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions
(amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific
uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would
really help to know what is being emitted).
That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC
figure about the present sulfate distribution—most is right over China, for example,
suggesting that the emissions are near the surface—something also that is, so to speak,
‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick,
fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo—and
right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor
feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as
it would limit warming—I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and
quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate
loading—or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset
while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage
things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but
it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out
over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
(will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to
stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during
periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for
10 days or so.
Would be an interesting issue to do research on—see what could be done.
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might
end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
past decade as a result of variability—that explanation is wearing thin. I would just
suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate
issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us—the world is really cooling, the models are
no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East
Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average
global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990 average of 14
º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of
global temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of
record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records
does not mean that global warming has gone away . . . . What matters is the underlying
rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil Jones, the director of climate research at the
University of East Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially
masked this underlying rate. ³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant
influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met Office
Hadley Center.
³Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops.² The
transition from a La Nina effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
For additional information see:
[3]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
[4]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c
older-than-in-Iceland.html
[5]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
[6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html
—
Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday Thursday-Friday
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth
[8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
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.metoffice.gov.uk/
2. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net
3. http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set-to-be-c
5. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
6. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html
7. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
8. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
From: “Folland, Chris” chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
To: “Phil Jones” p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:57 -0000
Phil
Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more general studies show relationships between the population or size of cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there any evidence from other studies of a “saturation effect” on urban warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
Didn’t take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn’t
see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I’d thought.
Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
Phil
Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here as
well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been better,
allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office
continually monitor the weather forecasts.
Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems
a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20
days (in Norfolk)
it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
I’ve just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg
C for the LWC.
It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
The paper
shows the UHI hasn’t got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil
At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario
(for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models
shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us
in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a
new mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has large emissions
reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE
IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by
a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2
emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1
scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The
A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than
the secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say for sure which is most
likely to be “realistic”.
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite
marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first
few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations,
reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence
in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although
much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than
A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in
the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please
don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress,
not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We
think the different short term warming responses are largely
attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing
similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a
multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes
similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might
well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their
SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment
fine print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
Tim and Doug
Please see McCrackens email.
We are now using the average of 4 AR4
scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In
a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net
warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the
method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent
warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless
perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys
are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
Any guidance welcome
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
Professor of School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009
Dear Phil and Chris—
Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
(see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot
of US Congressional staff)—and I would expect the analysis you have
done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how
much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from
China and India (I know that at least some plants are using
desulfurization—but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry
that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going
to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades—go to
tall stacks so that, for the near-term, “dilution is the solution to
pollution”. While I understand there are efforts to get much better
inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US
EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory
SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were
not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not
having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated
in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but
it would really help to know what is being emitted).
That there is a large potential for a cooling
influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
sulfate distribution—most is right over China, for example,
suggesting that the emissions are near the surface—something also
that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air
quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put
the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems
quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low
albedo—and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe
one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies
the sulfate cooling influence.
Now, I am not at all sure that having more
tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
warming—I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and
quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to
enhance the sulfate loading—or at the very least we need to
maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage
things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
(will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.
Would be an interesting issue to do research on—see what could be done.
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past
decade as a result of variability—that explanation is wearing thin.
I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also
do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a
quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise,
the Skeptics will be all over us—the world is really cooling, the
models are no good, etc.
And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
On December 30, climate scientists from the
UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will
be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global
temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the 1961-1990
average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate
model indicates a ³rapid return of global temperature to the
long-term warming trend,² with an increasing probability of record
temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not
break records does not mean that global warming has gone away . . .
. What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil
Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East
Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the last year partially masked this underlying rate.
³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence
on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland of the Met
Office Hadley Center.
³Further warming to record levels is likely
once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina
effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
For additional information see:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-set
-t
o-be-c
older-than-in-Iceland.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.
ht
ml
—
Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday
Thursday-Friday
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
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
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
From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
To: “Folland, Chris” chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Wed Jan 7 12:51:51 2009
Chris,
Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them)
you should appeal.
In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication.
If you do go to GRL I wouldn’t raise the issue with them. Happy to
be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Chris,
Worth pursuing - even if only GRL.
Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate
to say what Nature have used as a refusal!
Cheers
Phil
At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote:
Phil
Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate
Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed
the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I
have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water
bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th
century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!
The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can’t see it cutting any ice with the
skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can’t get to grips with natural variability!
Thanks for the CV. I see I’m on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
Phil
Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more
general studies show relationships between the population or size of
cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there
any evidence from other studies of a “saturation effect” on urban
warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
[3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
Didn’t take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn’t
see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I’d thought.
Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
Phil
Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here
as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been
better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
[5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather
forecasts.
Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the
language used in the forecasts seems
a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20
days (in Norfolk)
it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
I’ve just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
deg C for the LWC.
It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
The paper
shows the UHI hasn’t got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil
At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
Dear Chris, cc: Doug
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B
scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment
models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an
issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running
models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has
large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated
using the IMAGE
IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated
by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic
secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in
the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions
from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a
decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say
for sure which is most likely to be “realistic”.
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is
quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the
first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO
simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus
some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario
runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are
considerably warmer than
A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated
in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but
please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in
progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone
published). We think the different short term warming responses are
largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are
doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be
analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5)
prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation
details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt
scenarios and their
SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment
fine print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
Tim and Doug
Please see McCrackens email.
We are now using the average of 4 AR4
scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models.
In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced
net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other
words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method
nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the
absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and
DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
Any guidance welcome
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
2008)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
[7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
Professor of School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia
-——Original Message-——
From: Mike MacCracken [[8]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009
Dear Phil and Chris—
Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
(see note below for notice that went around to email list for a
lot of US Congressional staff)—and I would expect the analysis
you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and
that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising
emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants
are using desulfurization—but that antidotes are not an
inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid
20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the
next few decades—go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term,
“dilution is the solution to pollution”. While I understand there
are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from
these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their
efforts were going to also inventory
SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they
were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by
not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical
depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
That there is a large potential for a cooling
influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
sulfate distribution—most is right over China, for example,
suggesting that the emissions are near the surface—something also
that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and
air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is
to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with
its low albedo—and right where a lot of water vapor is
evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a
little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
Now, I am not at all sure that having more
tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
warming—I even have started suggesting that the least expensive
and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would
be to enhance the sulfate loading—or at the very least we need to
maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we
manage
things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
(will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.
Would be an interesting issue to do
research on—see what could be done.
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
past decade as a result of variability—that explanation is wearing thin.
I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you
also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have
a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us—the world is really
cooling, the models are no good, etc.
And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
On December 30, climate scientists from the
UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009
will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average
global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4°C above the
1961-1990 average of 14 º C. A multiyear forecast using a Met
Office climate model indicates a ³rapid return of global
temperature to the long-term warming trend,² with an increasing
probability of record temperatures after 2009. ³The fact that
2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone
away . . .
. What matters is the underlying rate of warming,² said Dr. Phil
Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East
Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the
last year partially masked this underlying rate.
³Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant
influence on global surface temperature,² said Dr. Chris Folland
of the Met Office Hadley Center.
³Further warming to record levels is likely
once a moderate El Nino develops.² The transition from a La Nina
effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
For additional information see:
[9]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
[10]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s
et
-t
o-be-c
older-than-in-Iceland.html
[11]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
[12]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.
ht
ml
—
Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [13]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday
Thursday-Friday
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
Earth [14]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
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
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
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
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.metoffice.gov.uk/
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
6. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
7. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
8. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net
9. http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s
11. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
12. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230
13. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
14. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
From: “Jonathan T. Overpeck” jto@ngdc.noaa.gov
To: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:17:24 -0700
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ray bradley rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mann@snow.geo.umass.edu
Hi Phil - thanks for your detailed reply to my email. I look forward to
working with you and the rest of the gang to really improve the state of
paleo contributions to the detection/attribution issue. The earlier we get
a small group together, the better, so I suggest we try to take you up on
the AMS add-on idea. It would be ideal to have a 1 to 1.5day mtg in Boulder
since we have many of the needed perspectives (ice core, coral, seds, data,
etc) here. What would be the best dates for you (and Keith - I’m hoping
he’ll be up for this too). We can find the extra $$ to get folks to Boulder
and have a quality time (do you ski?).
Once we set the dates with you (PLEASE SEND FAVORED DATES), Mike and Ray,
we can set the agenda. The main thing is that it would set the stage for
the extra degree of data sharing we’ll need before the planned Santorini
mtg (still no dates - please bug Jean-Claude!!). Sound ok?
As for the data from your paper, I’d like to get them up with the data from
the other studies on the WDC www site asap. (JUST LET ME KNOW HOW!) The
White House is interested in knowing the state-of-the-art, and if we can
get everything together at one www site (including data and figs), I think
I can get some needed visibility for the paleo perspective. You probably
know this, but Henry Pollack’s Borehole view of things (similar conclusions
to the other recent papers) is about to appear in Science. Although each
proxy and method does have it’s limitations and biases, the multiproxy view
is compelling with regard to the patterns of temp change over the past
several centuries. The IPCC next time around should be much stronger than
last on the paleo side of things (although still not as good as it can
get!).
Of course, I’ll continue to work with Mike and Ray to get the rest of the
individual series out into the public domain. Santorini should be the goal
- not alowwed on the island without coughing up data first!
Aloha and thanks again! Peck
Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck
Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: 303-497-6172
fax: 303-497-6513
jto@ngdc.noaa.gov
For OVERNIGHT (e.g., Fedex) deliveries,
PLEASE USE:
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
3100 Marine Street, RL3, Rm A136
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: 303-497-6160
Bump for non turkey day dissemination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.