Replies

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

—

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: 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”