Friday, December 30, 2011


cc: Tim Osborn <>, Jonathan Overpeck <>, Stefan Rahmstorf <>, Anders Levermann <>, Eva Bauer <>, Eystein Jansen <>, Keith Briffa <>,
date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:53:55 +0100
from: Fortunat Joos <>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations

Hi everybody,

Sorry for coming back on the issue of normalisation. We have just
discussed this again.

a) We expect the following comments in the next review:

Panel b and c are normalized to 1960-1990.
Why are the model panels d and e not normalised in the same way. Is this
to 'cheat' and to make the model results look better?

b) Another argument of normalising to the instrumental period is that we
have good data, whereas preindustrial data are uncertain.

c) It is hard for us to discern the impact of the high vs low solar
forcing in the present panel e as the simulations have an offset both on
the start and at their end.

d) Similarly, we think that the simulations with/without anthropogenic
forcing would be separated in a much clearer way by normalising to the
instrumental record.

Perhaps, we miss your point of view here? Would you mind to explain.

As far as the colors are concerned, we would suggest to use similar
colors for identical forced simulations.

Tim's idea to relable the 'WLS' curve sound good. How about 'Bard08-WLS'

With best regards,

Fortunat and Kasper

Gian-Kasper Plattner wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have one comment with regard to the EMIC figure produced by Tim. Right
> now, the colors chosen do not hold additional information for the reader
> on which model or which forcing has been applied. For example, the
> WLS-forced run for Bern2.5CC is given in red, while the CLIMBER-3a is in
> blue; for the Bard2.5 run Bern2.5CC is in light-blue, while CLIMBER-3a
> is in purple... I think that by grouping either the colors for the
> individual models or for the individual forcing timeseries the figure
> could become much more comprehensible. What about using e.g. dark red -
> orange, dark blue - light blue, dark green - light green pairs to make
> things easier to read?
> In addition, the model names in the legend need to be updated (Bern2.5c
> --> Bern2.5CC, Climbr3a --> Climber3a).
> With best regards,
> Kasper
> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>> O.k. EMIC caption noted. Can go with the 1500-1899 ref period.
>> Stefan, Anders, and Eva can you provide me the appropriate references
>> for your models and the official names.
>> Regards, Fortunat
>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>> Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice (thanks) and my slight bias is
>>> that we should include the Climber3a results. What do you think,
>>> Fortunat? I think Stefan likes it based on his email.
>>> Regarding the reference period, I would side w/ Tim and Keith on
>>> using 1500-1899. We need to use the same ref period for everything on
>>> these two figs (obs and forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC
>>> panel still convey's the main message. Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have
>>> to resolve this FAST, so please weigh in more on this issue. Thanks.
>>> Regarding captions, yes, you should do all but the EMICS, and you
>>> should make sure you send to Stefan so he can help make sure it makes
>>> sense (e.g., the red/grey shading). We have asked Fortunat to do the
>>> EMIC caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks.
>>> Best, Peck
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> please see the attached diagram (both the same, PDF or GIF) with all
>>>> three EMICs on now. Climber3a seems to lie between Climber2 and
>>>> Bern2.5CC mostly. Does it add to the message of the figure to use
>>>> all three? If so, please use this version from now on, for drafting
>>>> captions etc.
>>>> Nobody said much about the previous version, so hopefully this
>>>> indicates general agreement! I didn't show the "Bard08" runs,
>>>> because they were so close to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but of
>>>> course in those runs the pre-1610 solar forcing is Bard08 - so maybe
>>>> the labels should be altered to somehow indicate them, or this could
>>>> just be stated in the caption.
>>>> Am I right that Keith and I need to provide an updated caption for
>>>> panels (a)-(d), but that someone else will write a caption for the
>>>> EMIC panel (e)?
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Tim
>>>> At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>> Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, but this is up to Tim.
>>>>> Can you get these data onto the new EMIC panel? I think it'd be
>>>>> worth it, but only if you and Keith can get everything else done
>>>>> first. Best make sure you have all the data needed, just in case.
>>>>> thanks Anders too.
>>>>> best, peck
>>>>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100
>>>>>> From: Anders Levermann <>
>>>>>> Organization: PIK
>>>>>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>>>>> To: Fortunat Joos <>
>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <>,
>>>>>> Stefan Rahmstorf <>,
>>>>>> Anders Levermann <>,
>>>>>> Eva Bauer <>,
>>>>>> Eystein Jansen <>,
>>>>>> Keith Briffa <>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they
>>>>>> are too late, but
>>>>>> perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the
>>>>>> files is the
>>>>>> same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in
>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>> protocol.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Anders
>>>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and
>>>>>>> input data description.
>>>>>>> Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of
>>>>>>> course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The
>>>>>>> readme file has been modified accordingly adding a brief
>>>>>>> description on how the control should be done.
>>>>>>> I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything
>>>>>>> is clear.
>>>>>>> Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the
>>>>>>> Bern2.5CC.
>>>>>>> Regards, Fortunat
>>>>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>> I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol
>>>>>>>> how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense
>>>>>>>> if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with
>>>>>>>> the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3.
>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>>>>>>> I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar,
>>>>>>>> volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together.
>>>>>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>>>>> Fortunat
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things
>>>>>>>>> moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid
>>>>>>>>> out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested,
>>>>>>>>> and that going with the forcing series suggested below by
>>>>>>>>> Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for
>>>>>>>>> the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series.
>>>>>>>>> Best, peck
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Eva,
>>>>>>>>>> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready
>>>>>>>>>> by the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run
>>>>>>>>>> this within a few hours.
>>>>>>>>>> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative
>>>>>>>>>> forcing in W/m2:
>>>>>>>>>> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2,
>>>>>>>>>> CH4, N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various
>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and
>>>>>>>>>> the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and
>>>>>>>>>> TAR appendix).
>>>>>>>>>> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000
>>>>>>>>>> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al.
>>>>>>>>>> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations:
>>>>>>>>>> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already
>>>>>>>>>> c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the
>>>>>>>>>> Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4
>>>>>>>>>> c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25
>>>>>>>>>> permil, i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling
>>>>>>>>>> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen:
>>>>>>>>>> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150
>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with
>>>>>>>>>> natural forcings only.
>>>>>>>>>> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length
>>>>>>>>>> from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with
>>>>>>>>>> natural only forcing.
>>>>>>>>>> An important point in IPCC is that things are published,
>>>>>>>>>> consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are
>>>>>>>>>> tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The
>>>>>>>>>> arguments for these series are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible
>>>>>>>>>> (more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR
>>>>>>>>>> and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial
>>>>>>>>>> era increase. The same series will be used in the projection
>>>>>>>>>> chapter 10 for the SRES calculation
>>>>>>>>>> b) volcanic: a widely cited record
>>>>>>>>>> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the
>>>>>>>>>> same approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling
>>>>>>>>>> the Be-10 serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum
>>>>>>>>>> reduction. The impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked
>>>>>>>>>> at in the original Lean-AR4 serie.
>>>>>>>>>> I hope this help.
>>>>>>>>>> With kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Fortunat
>>>>>>>>>> Eva Bauer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat:
>>>>>>>>>>> Happy New Year!
>>>>>>>>>>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our
>>>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the
>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC WGI
>>>>>>>>>>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH
>>>>>>>>>>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing.
>>>>>>>>>>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations
>>>>>>>>>>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted
>>>>>>>>>>> with both
>>>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to
>>>>>>>>>>> extend the
>>>>>>>>>>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wang et
>>>>>>>>>>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year
>>>>>>>>>>> 1000. This
>>>>>>>>>>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by
>>>>>>>>>>> Crowley.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley
>>>>>>>>>>> (say the
>>>>>>>>>>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the
>>>>>>>>>>> amplitude
>>>>>>>>>>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in
>>>>>>>>>>> the TSI
>>>>>>>>>>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees
>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean
>>>>>>>>>>> (2000).
>>>>>>>>>>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon
>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time
>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC report.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should
>>>>>>>>>>> include,
>>>>>>>>>>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the
>>>>>>>>>>> present study
>>>>>>>>>>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but
>>>>>>>>>>> omitting
>>>>>>>>>>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from
>>>>>>>>>>> Crowley,
>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and
>>>>>>>>>>> Keeling and
>>>>>>>>>>> Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.)
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may
>>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison
>>>>>>>>>>> study!?
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>> Eva
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics,
>>>>>>>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern
>>>>>>>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>>>>>>>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631
>>>>>>>>>> 87 42
>>>>>>>>>> Internet:
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> F. Joos,
>>>>>>> 18 Januar 2006
>>>>>>> OVERVIEW
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> A total of 7 simulations is planned.
>>>>>>> A control simulation without any forcing
>>>>>>> Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard
>>>>>>> et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent
>>>>>>> in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>>>>>>> A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et
>>>>>>> al, 2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>>>>>>> Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic
>>>>>>> forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are
>>>>>>> branches from the above three simulation.
>>>>>>> A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a
>>>>>>> header with additional descriptions of the data.
>>>>>>> Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999
>>>>>>> and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005.
>>>>>>> It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by
>>>>>>> 0.08 percent
>>>>>>> relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2
>>>>>>> from the Wang et al. data.
>>>>>>> A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is
>>>>>>> calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard
>>>>>>> series appropriately.
>>>>>>> The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to
>>>>>>> bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this
>>>>>>> excercise we will utilize a Maunder
>>>>>>> Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent
>>>>>>> and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are
>>>>>>> included in the files).
>>>>>>> Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF=
>>>>>>> (IRR-1366)/4*0.7
>>>>>>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo
>>>>>>> factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of
>>>>>>> the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the
>>>>>>> Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000.
>>>>>>> NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3
>>>>>>> in the TAR).
>>>>>>> CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the
>>>>>>> Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data.
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points.
>>>>>>> A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from
>>>>>>> 850 to 2000
>>>>>>> (Tag description)
>>>>>>> solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent
>>>>>>> solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent
>>>>>>> Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual
>>>>>>> time step
>>>>>>> files:
>>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean,
>>>>>>> Shirley, 2005
>>>>>>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution
>>>>>>> Tag: WLS-05
>>>>>>> files:
>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000
>>>>>>> annual resolution
>>>>>>> Tag: CO2
>>>>>>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended
>>>>>>> by artificial
>>>>>>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to
>>>>>>> 1150 to the period 850 to 1000
>>>>>>> Tag: volcCrow
>>>>>>> annual resolution
>>>>>>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out
>>>>>>> A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents
>>>>>>> annual resolution
>>>>>>> Tag: nonco2
>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>>>>>>> Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent,
>>>>>>> volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic
>>>>>>> (non-CO2) agents.
>>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>>>>>>> as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25
>>>>>>> percent for the Maunder Minimum.
>>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from
>>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>>> With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci
>>>>>>> ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents.
>>>>>>> B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998
>>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1610 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1.
>>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>>> at year 1610
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only
>>>>>>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero
>>>>>>> (except for volcanoes and solar)
>>>>>>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value.
>>>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1.
>>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>>> at year 1765
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2.
>>>>>>> bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>>> at year 1765
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B2.
>>>>>>> WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>>> at year 1765
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998
>>>>>>> Control simulation without any forcing
>>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>>> Analysis period: 850 to 1998
>>>>>>> OUTPUT
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anders Levermann
>>>>>> phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
>>>>>> fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>>>> Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>>> University of Arizona
>>>>> Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/�IC�) (00113719)
>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (0011371A)
>>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn
>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>> e-mail:
>>>> phone: +44 1603 592089
>>>> fax: +44 1603 507784
>>>> web:
>>>> sunclock:


Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42



cc: Stefan Rahmstorf <>,, Malcolm Hughes <>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <>, Caspar Ammann <>, Gavin Schmidt <>, Keith Briffa <>, Jonathan Overpeck <>,
date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:10:47 +0100
from: Heinz Wanner <>
subject: Our article in QSR

Dear Mike,

back from the AGU in S.F. I found your comment about our short QSR article.
I tried to understand your concern, and I think I can do it. Let me tell
first that I always supported the MBH 98 and your other publications in
their general statements even I always warned my students about the problem
of a precise estimation of the amplitudes. I also often defended your work
in European newspapers and in TV interviews and always said that human
influence is crucial and greenhouse gas concentrations grow. I very often
argued with your, Jim Hansens and others stuff and fought with sceptics
directly. I always voted in the way that we will get hundreds of new
reconstructions but no change of the general structure and statements. I
also had discussions with Hans von Storch because, in my view, he pushes
the adaptation part too much (and does in fact not think about the poor
populated areas like Bangladesh who have no penny to do adaptation!).

There is a minor difference between our argumentation which is reflected in
the last sentence of our article. Let me try to explain what this
difference is:

First of all, many European colleagues have the chance to talk with
ministers, parliament members and directors of federal agencies directly.
Secondly, we often have open discussions with greenhouse gas sceptics where
we only have a chance if we are strict and precise, but also critical
against our methods and findings. Thirdly, and that is probably the most
important statement, we got a terrible warning shot across the bows in
Europe with the whole debate on forest decline in the 1980s. Almost all
forecasts were wrong. Therefore, I am very careful with my statements, and
this last sentence was a statement showing that we have to be critical with
the assessment of our methodological instruments. When talking with
ministers (and I know our president very well) I am also open minded in the
way that I show them that temperature is steadily rising, mostly induced by
daily increasing greenhouse gas emissions. But we have to take in mind that
this temperature trend, linear or not, is clearly superimposed with
possible decadal oscillators (e.g., in Europe by NAO /AMO processes). What
happens with the public opinion if we get another ten cold winters or our
temperature estimates of the past get a slight correction? I am convinced
that the way we actually go is quite successful. Also realize that we set
up a national platform on our academy of sciences which informs policy and
industry and organizes one luncheon talk on climate change issues for
ministers and parliament members given by important scientists during each
parliament session. That is quite successful.

Finally, I think our standpoints are not far away. I only believe that our
freedom to talk directly with the responsible politicians gives us the
opportunity to express our position in an extremely open way. Therefore, it
could be that I would not have supported to write such a sentence when
living in a very big country not having our chances to talk with opinion
leaders. Anyway, I do not have the feeling that we are not travelling in
the same ship or that we fight in different armies, on the contrary!

Merry Christmas, Heinz

Dr. Heinz Wanner, Prof., Director of NCCR
(National Center of Competence in Research in Climate)

Office Institute of Geography: Office NCCR Climate:

Institute of Geography NCCR Climate
Climatology and Meteorology Management Center
Hallerstrasse 12 Erlachstrasse 9a
CH-3012 Bern CH-3012 Bern

Phone +41 (0)31 631 8885 Phone +41 (0)31 631 3160
Fax +41 (0)31 631 8511 Fax +41 (0)31 631 4383



date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:37:38 -0400
from: "Wahl, Eugene R" <>
subject: RE: personal
to: "Phil Jones" <>

Hi Phil:

Glad I can help, even if quite indirectly. I know what you mean about the need for community when under duress. The individual quality of being a scientist works against us in this way. Attached are the original letter and the official UCAR response. I don't know what the lawyers might have written, other than their input to the official response letter. I do know they sought information from Caspar (and myself, but less so). I don't recall if we made available to them our correspondance with Steve Schneider about our responses to the review of WA that McIntyre did, which had a lot of information in it that debunked his claims about withholding contrary results, etc, etc.. In fact, we have never mentioned this to Steve, to make sure that he was in the situation to make editorial decisions as focused soley on the science as possible.

I was wondering if there is any way we as the scientific community can seek some kind of "cease and desist" action with these people. They are making all kinds of claims, all over the community, and we act in relatively disempowered ways. Note that UCAR did send the response letter to the presidents of the two academic institutions with which MM are associated, although this seems to have had no impact. Seeking the help of the attorneys you speak about would be useful, I should think. I know that Mike has said he looked into slander action with the attorneys with whom he spoke, but they said it is hard to do since Mike is, in effect, a "public" person -- and to do so would take a LOT of his time (assuming that the legal time could somewhow be supported financially). If I might ask, if you do get legal advice, could you inquire into the possibility of acting proactively in response via the British system? Maybe the "public" person situation does not hold there, or less so. I only ask you to consider this question on my part; obviously, please do what you deem best for your situation.

Finally, I have shared the MM letter and UCAR response before only with one other scientist, a now retired emminent person here in the US whom I asked to look over all the materials and give me his frank opinion if he felt we had done anything inappropriate. He came back with a solid "NO", and said that what MM were attempting was "unspeakable". Caspar has mentioned that UCAR said to him they did not want to disseminate these materials publically, and I have kept to that, other than the case mentioned. It seems clear to me that providing them to you is appropriate; I have not contacted Caspar to think about it at this point, and don't feel I need to. Anyway, this is just to give you the context on that side of things. I would imagine that sharing the doc's with legal persons you trust would be OK.

Note that I am now out of contact through July 9. I wish you all the best!!

Peace, Gene

From: Phil Jones []
Sent: Wed 6/20/2007 4:06 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Fwd: Jones et al 1990

Thanks for the email of support! I've taken up the
idea of asking someone at UEA about legal advice.
I would like to see the original letter if possible. I won't
pass this on. Did the NCAR/UCAR legal staff put anything
in writing, as this might help me decide if the advice
I might get here is reasonable? I'm sure it will be and
I know I've nothing to worry about, as I've done nothing wrong
and neither has Wei-Chyung.
It is good to share these sorts of things with a few people.
I know Ben and Mike have been through this, but wasn't
aware you and Caspar had. Thanks for your strength !


Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.

I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff.

The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team.

I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA


X-YMail-OSG: wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw--
From: "Steve McIntyre" <>
To: "Phil Jones" <>
Subject: Jones et al 1990
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Dear Phil,

Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

This data set was later published as NDP-039 , coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their 205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al 1990) were not available:

(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known.

(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data.

Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to promptly issue an appropriate correction.

Regards, Steve McIntyre

From: "D.J. Keenan" <>
To: "Steve McIntyre" <>
Cc: "Phil Jones" <>
Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO


I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
<> --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims:
There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas J. Keenan
<> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, 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
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MM_request_to_UCAR.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\UCAR_response_to_MM V6.doc"


cc: "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, 'IPCC Geneva' <>
date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:48:31 +0100
from: "Murrill, Anne" <>
to: 'Tech Sum team ' <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "'M.HULMEatXYZxyz.AC.UK'" <M.HULMEatXYZxyz.AC.UK>, "Gregory, Jonathan" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>


CLA: D Albritton (USA)
G Meira Filho (Brazil)

LA: M Oppenheimer (USA)
J Mitchell (UK)
B Hewitson (South Africa)
T Stocker (Switzerland)
T Karl (USA)
J Penner (USA)
V Meleshko (Russia)
M McFarland (USA)
I Isaksen (Norway)
B Nyenzi (Tanzania)
S Pollonais (Trinidad)
U Cubasch (Germany)
K Trenberth (USA)

J Houghton (Co-chair)
Ding Yihui (Co-chair)
D Griggs (TSU)
P van der Linden (TSU)
N Sundararaman (IPCC Secretary, Geneva)

Review Editors : F Joos (Switzerland), H Nassarallah (Kuwait-
through N Sundararaman), A Ramirez (Venezuela - by fax), J Stone (Canada), J
Zillman (Australia).
Colin Prentice - represented by Haroon Khesgi (USA)
Venkatchala Ramaswamy(USA) represented by Jim Heywood (UK)
Bryant McAvaney (Australia)
John Church(Austalia) or Jonathan Gregory(UK)
Linda Mearns(USA) or Mike Hulme(UK)
Berrien Moore (USA)

1. Date of meeting: 13/15 October 2000

2. Local host: Michael Oppenheimer

3. Venue: Environmental Defense, 257 Park Avenue South, 17th floor
(between 20th and 21st streets) New York, NY 10010

Tel: 212/616-1226
FAX: 212/505-2375

4. Local contacts: Roberta Desmond and Georgia Pease. They can provide you
with a formal letter of invitation for visa application purposes.

5. Hotel:
Southgate Tower Hotel
371 Seventh Avenue (at 31st Street)
New York, NY 10001
Tel:: 212/563-1800
FAX: 212/643-8028

A block of rooms is being held until September 22 under the name of
Defense/IPCC" at a rate of $229 per night. Unfortunately, this was the
cheapest that could be found. The rooms are "studio suites" (the smallest
rooms they have) and are exceptionally well equipped, including data ports
for computers and full kitchens. The hotel offers room service from 7:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There is also a full-service restaurant. There is a
fully equipped gym available for use at no extra charge.

The hotel has a full list of possible attendees. All you have to do is phone
or fax and make a credit card booking. They are aware that some of you from
developing countries my not be able to this. Therefore, please advise them
at time of booking. They know that you will pay in full upon departure.

6. Transportation:
>From JFK International Airport: Gray Line Buses go to the hotel from the
airport; the cost is $14 one way. They run from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tell
the driver "Manhattan, Southgate Tower Hotel."

A taxi (maximum of 4 passengers) from JFK to anywhere in Manhattan is $30
plus tolls and tip. If the driver uses the Queens-Midtown tunnel, the toll
will be $3.50. An adequate tip would be in the $3 to $5 range.

Between the Hotel and Environmental Defense: The hotel is a 2-stop subway
ride from our offices with a short walk on each end. From the hotel, walk
north to the N & R subway station at 34th Street and Seventh Avenue. Take
the train downtown to 23rd Street, riding the front of the train so you
can exit near 22nd Street. Walk south on Broadway to 21st Street; walk two
blocks east to Park Avenue South. (Reverse the process to return to the
hotel from Environmental Defense.) You will have to purchase a Metro Card
in the subway station; each ride is $1.50; ask for a "ride & pay" card; you
can put any amount on the card.

For those who want exercise before and/or after sitting in the meeting all
day, it is a 15 to 20 minute walk. The most direct way is to walk over to
Broadway and following it to the appropriate cross street.

A taxi will cost approximately $5.00 depending on the traffic.

7. Food During The Meeting:
Breakfast, lunch, and afternoon snack will be provided at the Environmental
Defense offices. The price per person will be $21 per day.
(Participants should be prepared to pay the total amount of $63 on the first
day.) A receipt will be provided. Meeting participants will be responsible
for their own dinner plans.

8.Visas and funding : Please ensure you have the appropriate visas for this
trip. Please advise local contacts if you need an invitation letter. A copy
of this email will be sent to them for their information. Copies will aslo
go to the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva and to Dave Dokken inthe USA so that
they are aware with regad to funding issues.

Please let me know if you anything further. Don't forget that the deadline
for the hotel booking is 22 September 2000. I hope you have a safe and
pleasant journey and a successful meeting.

Regards and best wishes.



date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:03:32 +0100
from: Ian Harris <>
subject: CRU TS Secondaries Strategy
to: Phil Jones <>, Tim Osborn <>


I've been mulling over a strategy issue.

CRU TS Secondary parameters are currently derived from:

1. One or more Primary parameters, gridded (to 2.5�, for some reason)
2. Normals for the Primary parameter(s)
3. Normals for the Secondary parameter

The IDL routines do not allow for genuine observations of the
secondary parameter to be incorporated.

The problem is that we should be moving towards using secondary
observations where available. If we just pick a changeover point,
there are likely to be noticeable discontinuities - also we probably
don't have enough observations to do that yet!

So, what I propose is this:

1. Produce Secondaries as Secondaries (using synthetically-generated
data from Primaries)
2. Produce Secondaries as if they were Primaries (ie using direct
observations of Secondary values)
3. Let the output from 2 overwrite the output from 1 WHERE the actual
station count is >=1.

In other words, the synthetic data is replaced with 'genuine' data if
there is at least one station reporting within the cell at that

How does that sound? Any better ideas? It has the advantage that it
doesn't require a great deal of coding ;-)

Ian "Harry" Harris
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom



cc: "McEwen, Lynda" <mcewl2atXYZxyzcom>
date: Wed May 5 11:11:27 2004
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: Public Support for action on Climate Change
to: "Mottershead, Chris J" <MotterCJatXYZxyzcom>, <>

Thank you very much for this invitation. John and I have just compared diaries and
although John will be abroad in Mexico on the 21st, I will be able to attend and indeed
very pleased to do so. I will aim to get there around 12.30pm or so.
Lynda - please note this for arrangements, etc.
At 12:45 04/05/2004 +0100, Mottershead, Chris J wrote:

Mike and John,
The next level of political and business action on climate will depend on a greater
level of public and consumer support. I would like to invite you to a small gathering
of key stakeholders to discuss the potential for a collaborative campaign in the UK.
Bringing together government, business and NGOs to raise awareness about the cause,
severity, uncertainty and solutions to climate change.
We are proposing a short meeting to exchange views and discuss possibilities on Friday
21^st May, to be held at our London office 1 St James Square, London - from 1:00 to
3:00pm. As a modest inducement a buffet lunch will be available from 12.30.
Could you let Lynda McEwen ([1]mcewl2atXYZxyzcom) know if you are able to join us, so that
we can make the necessary lunch and security arrangements.
Chris Mottershead
Distinguished Advisor
BP p.l.c.
1 St James Square
Direct: +44(0) 2089430365
Mobile: +44 (0) 7867904484
E-mail: mottercjatXYZxyzcom


date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:05:14 -0000
from: "Prof B.E. Launder" <>
subject: (Fwd) Re: INQUIRY INTO "THE FUTURE OF AVIATION" From: Richard

<x-rich><color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>The Royal Academy of Engineering requested my input on "The
future of Aviation". I provided the response that follows. I realize
that most of it wasn't really in the area or from the point of view
they were seeking input but I don't think that matters.


------- Forwarded message follows -------

</color>From: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Prof B.E. Launder <<></color>

To: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>"Hearn Sylvia (Miss)" <<></color>

<bold>Subject: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Re: INQUIRY INTO "THE FUTURE OF AVIATION" From: Richard Ploszek</bold></color>

Copies to: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param></color>

Send reply to: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param></color>

Date sent: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:35:16 -0000</color>

<bold><italic>Dear Mr Ploszek:

I'm replying in my role as regional director of the Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research. My concern is here
exclusively concerned with reducing the CO2 emission from
aircraft. While at present the proportion of CO2 associated
directly with aircraft movement is small, because air traffic is
growing and there is at least a vision for reducing CO2 from
automobiles, it is likely that releases from aircraft will become
a substantial contributor in the next decade if nothing is done.

* A major "driver" of the present pattern of evolution is that
there is no tax levied on aviation fuel. This is a problem that
MUST be tackled, desirably at a world level but at least within
a European framework.

* Moreover, if the Government introduces a carbon tax, that
should also be applied to aircraft movements. [Again
international agreements are required]

* The above development would provide a stimulus to the
development of fail-safe designs for hydrogen-fuelled aircraft.

* It seems to me that more should be done to develop modes
of aerial transport that consumed much less fuel per passenger
mile than existing schemes (whether or not one is adopting
hydrogen as a fuel). Perhaps there is scope for the return of the
airship ...or perhaps some hybrid, intermediate version
between an airship and a conventional aeroplane. Of course,
this would also greatly reduce the problem from the other
main pollutant source with aircraft: noise! No long runways
would be needed either.

* In connection with the above, with leisure transport,
especially high speed is not of great advantage since at
present, for European flights, actual flying time is less than
(often MUCH less than) one-fifth of the total journey time from
home to hotel. So a comfortable airship flight at just 400km/hr
might be very attractive, especially if the fuel savings were
properly factored into the ticket price.

* Although the photographs released of the NASA solar-
powered aircraft are both intriguing and impressive, it seems
likely that the commercial implementaion of such a scheme is
a long way off. Nevertheless, it's surely a goal to be pursued.

* Finally, more need to be done to ELIMINATE short internal
flights in this country by providing <underline>highspeed</underline></italic></bold> <bold><italic>rail links,
including direct links between airport terminals.

</italic></bold>> House of Commons Transport Select Committee

> Inquiry into "The Future of Aviation"


> The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has been
holding an inquiry

> into "The Future of Aviation" since November last year, the terms

> reference for which can be found at

221102.cmf via

> the Parliament website.

> The Committee has decided that it should deal with the problem
of aircraft

> noise and environmental pollution separately from the
mainstream of the

> inquiry and has asked The Academy to submit evidence on the

> In particular, the Committee would like to hear what Fellows
consider the

> future trends in aircraft design are and how these might impact
on forecasts

> of environmental damage. This is in particular reference to noise

> take-off and approach, and fuel consumption. It would be helpful if

> could indicate what you believe the key drivers are for
improvements and

> whether these conflict with commercial goals. The Committee
would also be

> interested on your views on likely timescales for new
technologies to be

> introduced and to achieve significant market penetration. Local
air quality

> around airports is also a consideration and the Committee would
also be

> interested to hear you views on this subject.

> I would be pleased to receive your comments by Friday 28th
March, or sooner

> if possible via e-mail to Should you be
unable to

> respond, for whatever reason, I would like to thank you for
considering this

> request.


> Richard Ploszek

> Assistant Manager, Enginering Policy

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>------- End of forwarded message -------

Professor B. E. Launder, FRS, FREng
MAME Department,
UMIST, PO Box 88,
Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Telephone: 0161-200-3701
Fax : 0161-200-3723


cc: Keith
date: Fri Aug 18 13:01:50 2006
from: Tom Melvin <>
subject: Leverhulme Proposal
to: Ed

The outline case to Leverhulme for Keith to hire me to continue research into Process-Based
Standardisation was approved. We are now submitting the Full Application. Are you still
happy (and available) to be a referee for this proposal?
The closing date is 1st September 2006 and Leverhulme will contact you and require a
response before 20th September.
I attach a copy of the Summary Description (1000 words) and the Full proposal (5000) words.
I will give your details to Leverhulme as below. Are these correct?
Details of two independent referees (they MUST be from different institutions and not from
that of the applicant(s)); they should be able to reply to the Trust, within 3 weeks of
having been so consulted.
Name: Doctor E.R. Cook
Position: Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Full address:
Dr. ER Cook
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
61 Route 9W
Palisades, NY 10964

Tel. No.: (845) 365 8618
Fax No.: (845) 365 8152
E-mail: [1]

Thanking you in anticipation.

Tom Melvin
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784


cc: "Keith Briffa" <>, <>
date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:49:52 -0000
from: "Rob Wilson" <>
subject: Re: e-mail problem?
to: "Tim Osborn" <>

Hi Tim,

here are some updated correlations of the 'mean' generated coral reconstruction with
the Hadley and Echo models.

The correlations are substantially higher with the Echo all model (nb. air temp and not SST
at the moment).
Although I have been in contact with Philip and Simon, I have not sent them these
results just yet.
I have restricted the analyses to the post 1750 period as this is where we have some
confidence in the reconstruction. As you say, the recent period correlations are likely
driven by the long term increasing trend. If the series are 1st differenced, then
correlations are generally non-significant and the sign changes in some cases.
You mentioned that there might be data from your MAGICC model. When will these data be

anyway, I hope to cobble together the beginnings of a paper before Christmas


----- Original Message -----

From: [1]Tim Osborn

To: [2]Rob Wilson

Cc: [3]Keith Briffa ; [4]

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:37 AM

Subject: Re: e-mail problem?

Hi Rob,
thanks for the reports which I've just read. The recons look very
promising! A few comments below, but first an answer to your request:
At 09:00 30/11/2004, you wrote:
>if you have the data, could you send me the ECHO-G 'NAT' and 'ALL' runs
>for tropical (30N-30S?) annual SSTs.
>They are not available on the SOAP website.
Julie Jones is still working on sending the SST for the ECHO-G "Erik" run
(which has "ALL" forcings for 1000-1990) so I can't send them yet.
Irina Fast has, however, sent SST from the ECHO-G "Enat" run (which has
"NATURAL" forcings only for 1750-1990). I've computed the tropical means
which are available for "Enat" here:
I'm not sure when Julie will finish the "Erik" SST data - they are causing
her many problems. In the meantime, however, you might consider looking at
the 2m air temperature over the oceans. For the tropical mean and with
30-year smoothing, this looks almost identical to the SST for HadCM3:
compare with
and it is ready computed for ECHO-G "Erik" here:
Now to some brief comments:
(1) The calibration and verification statistics appear to improve for
1635-1702 for the simple means method. I first thought that this was
because of the Palmyra data, but then I couldn't think how it could improve
the stats when it doesn't overlap with the instrumental data against which
the skill is measured. Also, in your simple means method, do you average
the O18 data themselves, or do you normalise/anomalise each series first
and then average them. If the latter, what did you use for a reference
period, and how did you cope with the difficulty of different record
lengths - especially the Palmyra data?
(2) I don't have the corrections yet for removing the artificial step
between the HadCM3 "all" and "nat" runs. I hope to have it soon from
Simon. But I guess it won't be large in the tropics, since it arose from
an incorrect surface roughness in regions where there had been an
anthropogenic change in land use (cropland, deforesting, pasture etc.)
between 1750 and 1990 - hence mainly the mid latitude land areas. Still, I
guess there could be a response of the oceans.
(3) The comparison with HadCM3 seems excellent - r(ALL,RECON)=0.54
!!! This seems a very publishable result. I guess much of it is related
to the warming trend, though? Both the model and recon will contain forced
variability and internally-generated variability (plus model will contain
errors in forcing, and recon will contain errors), but ONLY the forced
variability should be in common, r=0.54 is very high - this supports
Simon's analysis that the relative contribution of forcing is greatest in
the tropical oceans! It would be interesting to correlate the
reconstructions with a combination of NAT for pre-1750 with ALL for
post-1750, because this is (supposedly) the best representation of reality.
(4) As well as the correlation, a comparison of the magnitudes of
variability and trends is important. Allowing for the different vertical
scales, these seem qualitatively similar, with perhaps stronger variations
in the model - but wouldn't you expect that, given the recons don't capture
all the variability (or have you subsequently scaled them to have the same
variance as the actual data?).
(5) It would be nice to see the comparison and correlations with the ECHO-G
runs. Also, Sarah Raper and I are making runs with the simple MAGICC model
driven by the same forcings - we could provide those time series when
they're ready and compare with those too.
(6) Keith and I will talk a bit more, but Keith's already made some good
comments about whether some sub-regions of the SST might be more skilfully
reconstructed, especially with fewer corals early on.
Sorry to go on!
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: [9]
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [10]
sunclock: [11]

Embedded Content: matrix.gif: 00000001,00c4291a,00000000,00000000


date: Fri May 5 10:40:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: Christian Aid


I'm not looking for controversy - in my Guardian article I did say that there is now no longer a purely natural weather event, which I am happy to defend in debate, although the nuance of that argument I admit can be mis-interpreted.

Anyway, I'm not going to volunteer on this one - the context is too 'cold' without knowing the people involved.

Thanks for the notification,


p.s. on the MSc question, could you arrange a get-together with Declan and I? Had a brief chat with Dec. and I think we need to explore options together. My starting point is:

- I cannot fulfil my current obligation for 2000/01 course (Trevor has agreed to that)
- I could probably contribute 2000/01 1-2 lectures as negotiated
- I would quite like Tyndall Centre to make a contribution in the future though, more through the global warming policy type course (maybe this could be upped to 20 credits). We may even be able to think about 1-2 Tyndall MSc scholarships each year (and maybe some MSc dissertation topics).
- Dec is interested in exploring options for greater ENV/DEV links

At 08:39 05/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>CA are lookign for someone to say more extreme events likely in future due
>to global warming at lanuch of new campaign. I've said I won't do it but
>did say I'd ask around. Frankly, I'd advise against as the impression I
>have is that this really does amount to 'rent a quote'. I'm not into
>peddling doom and gloom anyway. Oh, date is May 15th. Let me know asap if
>you are interested as they are getting desparate.
>Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
>United Kingdom
>Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784


date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:00:30 +0200
from: Timothy Carter <>
subject: Re: Vapour pressure scenarios
to: Phil Jones <>

Dear Phil,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am copying this to Dave Wilson and the ATEAM
co-ordinators. I suspect there may be some others in ATEAM who are using
Penman and haven't looked into the humidity changes in this detail. It's
probably too late to expect them to do new runs. One recommendation might
be simply to assume no change in VP, but this would introduce internal
inconsistency in the scenarios (though that's been the practice in many
applications before humidity scenarios were being provided to impact

Apart from the weaknesses in the GCMs themselves, I wonder if the empirical
conversion methods used to derive VP from temperature/SLP have contributed
to some of the rather odd results. Let's see what Tim has to say.



At 15:26 11/03/04, you wrote:

> Tim and Mike,
> I've sent an email to Tim Mitchell for his thoughts (and asked him
> what the new job is like).
> I'm not surprised by what you've found - i.e. the large inter-model
> differences. In the EU-project
> SWURVE, we've gone back to calculating PET (assuming this is why you
> want a humidity
> type variable) with Thornthwaite and Blaney/Criddle as they only depend
> on temperature.
> This is being written into project final report and the special
> issue of HESS (Hyd. and Earth
> System Science). Project run by Chris Kilsby and he's arranged this
> issue. Even with HadCM3
> with small changes in vapour pressure (well in HadAM3P/HadRM3P - same
> there also), the
> increasing temperature means that vapour pressure deficit becomes very
> large, so PET
> calculated with Penman formula is ridiculous.
> If this is why you want vapour pressure I would suggest you go down
> this route also.
> Happy for you to forward this to Nigel as he'll understand what I'm on
> about. Hydrologists
> know that Penman should be best, but not with models. Even for 1961-90
> the problem can
> be seen in the warmer summers.
> Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle
> and low level clouds.
> Problem will be with us for years, according to Richard Jones. Chris has
> talked to him about
> it at length. It looks as though CSIRO2 may be the best one. CGCM2 looks
> most odd.
> The HC think their variable tile parameterization may help. This can
> keep some small
> portion of open water in each box, so the whole thing doesn't dry out.
> There was a paper in Science a year or so ago, that showed PET (from
> evaporimeters)
> going down recently in many regions !
> I'll let you know what Tim thinks. Omitted the two pdfs as they were
> large. The ppt plot
> gives the essence of the message.
> I'm assuming here that Tim hasn't made a mistake - the HadCM3 plots
> look like the
> ones Declan produced for SWURVE a while ago and similar to ones Marie
> has produced
> for RM3P and AM3P.
> Cheers
> Phil



cc: Caspar Ammann <>, William M Connolley <>, Tom Crowley <>, "Michael E. Mann" <>, "raymond s. bradley" <>, Eric Steig <>,,,, David Archer <>, "Raymond P." <>,,, "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" <>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <>, "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" <>, Tom Wigley <>,, "Folland, Chris" <>
date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:03 +0100
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <>
subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
to: Phil Jones <>

Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least
my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the
skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old
graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in teaching!
And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes the IPCC
process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a
diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as
we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue fodder
for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics can't
really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting themselves in
the foot.

Cheers, Stefan

Stefan Rahmstorf



cc: Eystein Jansen <>, Keith Briffa <>
date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:33:01 -0600
from: Jonathan Overpeck <>
subject: Re: MWP box figure
to: Tim Osborn <>

Hi again Tim et al - looks good to me. Obviously,
you and Keith need to nail the divergence issue
in the text, and also refer to it in the caption
for this fig, but otherwise, it's looking good.
Thanks, Peck

>Hi again,
>attached is the new MWP box figure.
>We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD
>because the decision to drop the panel from
>Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able
>to show a different selection of curves in the
>remaining panel from those we used in our paper.
>This allowed us to drop the shorter series that
>didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the
>figure and also dealing with a number of review
>comments that had been made about those series.
>The only differences from the FOD figure are
>that the font is now consistent with the others
>figures, the composite mean series has been
>removed, and the figure has been shrunk
>vertically to save space.
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_box6.4_f1.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (00143489)
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>phone: +44 1603 592089
>fax: +44 1603 507784
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


cc:, Jonathan Overpeck <>, Eystein Jansen <>
date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:33 +0200
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <>
subject: Last Millennium section 6.5 - comments by SR
to: Keith Briffa <>

Hi Keith and all, (please everyone have a look at point (4))
I think section 6.5 is in remarkably good shape (certainly compared to my own..).
There are some comments from me:
(1) About the new proxy reconstructions, the section says: "Most of these are shown..." in
the Figure. This immediately raises the question: why not all? Which one is not shown? This
section will be scrutinised with great suspicion by some people, so we need to be careful.
Can you clarify which one you left out, and why? Or can we just write: "These are shown..."
That would be much nicer.
(2) Several times you say "simply scaled" - would "scaled" do as well? The "simply" in this
context sounds a bit like we criticise that.
(3) Is "predictand" a word that everybody knows? I'd never seen it before.
(4) Now here is my biggest question, that I think we need to discuss in the whole group.
Figure 6.5.2-1 shows simulations of the past millennium, relative to 1500-1899 means. Is
this really the best reference period?
Contra: it differs from how we show the data reconstructions, i.e., relative to 1961-1990.
Everyone knows what that climate actually was, since there are good instrumental data for
1961-1990, so that it makes sense to look at changes relative to that period. Nobody knows
what the real 1500-1899 mean was, so this is a fictitious baseline.
Pro: it gets rid of "end effects", i.e. model initialisation problems at the beginning (as
in Von Storch 04), and different anthropogenic forcings used at the end (e.g. some ignore
aerosols); the simulations look closer together in this way (right?)
I have not formed a clear opinion on what is best.
(5) Also on the figures: I like the grey bands, but here's a suggestion for improvement:
instead of leaving the core region between those two bands white, I think they should also
be shaded - either the same grey, or a darker shade of grey. This makes it more clear that
we are talking about one, wide uncertainty band here, not about two seperate things. It had
me confused at first when I saw it, even though I was there when we discussed this in
Final point: we need to keep an eye on developments concerning the model tests of the proxy
method, there seem to be several important things in the pipeline there.
Cheers, Stefan
To reach me directly please use: [1]
(My former addresses are read by my assistant Brigitta.)

Stefan Rahmstorf


date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:49:26 +0100
from: "O'Neill Saffron Dr \(ENV\)" <>
subject: we're online at JAE early view
to: "Watkinson Andrew Prof \(ENV\)" <>, "Hulme Michael Prof \(ENV\)" <>, "Lorenzoni Irene Dr \(ENV\)" <>, "Tim Osborn" <>

Hello all

Just to let you know the polar bear paper is available on the Journal of Applied Ecology
earlyview: [1] . I'm
sure this isn't quite as exciting for you all as for me, as it's my first paper!!

The JAE want to run some publicity stuff on the paper when it comes out (whether online or
in print I'm not sure). I'll keep you updated.



MSc Climate Change Tutor

Climatic Research Unit

School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia



Research Fellow
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

w: [2]

e: [3]

t: +44 (0)1603 59 3044