Saturday, March 31, 2012


date: Mon Jan 19 08:38:50 2009
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Fwd: Data published
to: "Peter Mayes" <>

There are a couple of links in Ben's email below.
I think you said last night you had the pdf of the paper.
Here's another pdf of a different paper just out.
Here are some email addresses!
Jean Palutikof <>
Mick Kelly <>
Mick is still doing Tiempo !
Hiya Henry
Phil passed on the message.
Here's what I've been up to on the non-academic front since moving here...
The main house, which is currently at the design stage, will have a rather
large study/library/meeting room but probably not quite big enough for a
conference! However, we have identified a great conference centre to the
north of us (near where Bill Gates was just holidaying so must be good).
With best wishes for 2008
Hi Phil
Or if you don't check the link this week...
You really must update your website photo!
With best wishes for 2009

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:35 -0800
From: Ben Santer <>
Organization: LLNL
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20081216)
To: "Thorne, Peter" <>,
Leopold Haimberger <>,
Karl Taylor <>, Tom Wigley <>,
John Lanzante <>,
Susan Solomon <>,
Melissa Free <>,
peter gleckler <>,
"'Philip D. Jones'" <>,
Thomas R Karl <>,
Steve Klein <>, carl mears <>,
Doug Nychka <>, Gavin Schmidt <>,
Steven Sherwood <>,
Frank Wentz <>
CC: "David C. Bader" <>, Bill Goldstein <>,
Pat Berge <>, Janet Tulk <>,
Kathryn Craft Rogers <>,
George Miller <>,
Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <>,
Cherry Murray <>, Doug Rotman <>,
"Bamzai, Anjuli" <>, mann <>,
Anthony Socci <>, Bud Ward <>,
"Peter U. Clark" <>,
"Michael C. MacCracken" <>,
Professor Glenn McGregor <>,
Stephen H Schneider <>,
"Stott, Peter" <>,
"'Francis W. Zwiers'" <>,
Tim Barnett <>,
"Verardo, David J." <>,
Branko Kosovic <>, Bill Fulkerson <>,
Michael Wehner <>, Hal Graboske <>,
Tom Guilderson <>,
Luca Delle Monache <>,
"Celine J. W. Bonfils" <>,
"Dean N. Williams" <>,
Charles Doutriaux <>, Anne Stark <>
Subject: Data published
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(pass,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 15820429 - c3caec9e4154 (trained as not-spam)
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [6]
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on
Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology paper (and
other interested parties),
I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower tropospheric temperatures
that were the subject of Mr. Stephen McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of
Energy/National Nuclear Security Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). I have also released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not
requested by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's
publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is:
Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a document
"Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures calculated
from CMIP-3 archive"
The link to the technical document is:
I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific research, and will
be employed for such purposes only.
I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be able to return to
full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my
opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests are for the purpose of harassing Government
scientists, and not for the purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and
causes of climate change.
I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping me complete the
process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the synthetic MSU datasets and the
technical document. And thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement over the
past two months. It is deeply appreciated.
With best regards,
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

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


cc: Eystein Jansen <>, "Piers Forster" <>
date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:55:24 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <>
subject: Chapter 2 Forcings - the latest on solar from Judith Lean
to: Keith Briffa <>, Gabi Hegerl <>,, Fortunat Joos <>, joos <>, "Ricardo Villalba" <>,

Hi gang - attached is the hot off the press view on solar and
volcanic forcing from Chap 2. The purpose of my email is to start the
process of making sure we (at least chapters 2, 6 and 9) have
compatible perspectives on the isses, particularly solar.

Keith is the chapter 6 lead (Ricardo the second) on the last 2000
years (section, and David and Fortunat on climate forcing
(sec 6.5.2). David and Keith are doing our last 2000 model eval
section (sec In order to help Keith and Ricardo get their
section down to size, we've suggested that they move discussion of
the forcing to 6.5.2 (David and Fortunat need to finish this). Keith
has not yet responded that this is ok, but let's go with it until he
gets back into the mix.

I've also sent this to Gabe (Happy New Year Gabe!).

I suggest that the likely email discussion of the solar issue
(perhaps volcanic will be a bit hot too) is cc'd to all on this
email, plus any others that we think are key. I'm not sure Judith is
on email right now, but she's on the list too for obvious reasons
(Piers is the CLA coordinating this for Chap 2, so he's on too).

My personal take is that much of what has been done wrt to solar in
the paleo literature is now more suspect, but I think Fortunat in
particular might have some sage comments on this. The main thing is
that we don't ignore the latest work that suggests that solar forcing
is more subdued than often thought.

Debate? Thanks Chap 6 authors for coordinating with the other
chapters (e.g., 2 and 9) on this issue.

Best to all, Peck

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>From: "Piers Forster" <>
>To: "'Jonathan Overpeck'" <>
>Subject: RE: Early draft: Natural Forcings
>Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:07:01 -0000
>Thread-Index: AcTyk5zrDHPy1i6XQ6OYxcStlz6FtwAgtapg
>X-Scanner: exiscan *1Cm919-00056N-00*XIzGZ/vmCRE* (The University of Reading)
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at
>Yes, please do send it...
>This is what we have at the moment

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: "c:\eudora\attach\natual.doc"


date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:17:46 +0100
from: "Ian Dwyer" <>
subject: Ministers
to: <>


Attached is a draft letter (and enclosure) to ministers, inviting
them to the opening. Could you have a look to make sure it is ok? If
you can do this today, it would be particularly helpful.

In particular, note the reference to dates. Would you be content if
ministers chose a date after COP6?

I am a little worried about the mention of abrupt climate change
(Ursula got this from speaking to you, apparently). A proposal (to
NERC) is being written for a multi-million pound programme
investigating the processes involved, and even then there is debate
about whether it can go as far as assigning probabilities. Thus, I am
concerned because I can't see how the centre will not have the
resources/remit for the amount of uni-disciplined, process modelling
required, and it may look as if NERC is funding this twice. Can we,
instead, refer to changing frequencies of extreme weather events,

Thanks for the annexes

Ian Dwyer
Global Change Coordinator
Natural Environment Research Council
Polaris House
North Star Avenue
Swindon SN2 1EU
Tel: 01793 411511
Fax: 01793 411584

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Climate centre. Opening. Invite to Ministers_1.d"


date: Fri May 22 14:20:08 2009
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: WG tests
to: C G Kilsby <>

I am not going to be in the UK June 17-20. I'll be in Boulder, CO.
So, if launch is 18th and your new friend does what he says, you'll
have to explain.
Colin is finishing off a series of plots of the WG for the 10 key sites.
All is still going well.
He will also do some extra plots which can be used to explain Fig 5 - in the WG Report
somewhat more. As you know this is the WG fitted to the base RCM run.
Users shouldn't think these plots indicate futures for LHR. The deltas are
OK, but this RCM has about 30-50% more sunshine hours in the control run
cf the observed. It took us a worried 10 minutes this morning to realise this.

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


date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:35:15 -0000
from: "Curran, James" <>
subject: RE: "Bad Scientists"
to: 'Mike Hulme' <>

Well, good luck in your discussions !

I think it is important to counter these ill-informed and prejudiced commentators but I
agree that it is wearing, time-consuming and distracting. Probably only the high profile
and potentially most damaging should be tackled. Maybe DEFRA would consider a bit of
additional funding specifically to undertake the task since these activities may gradually
undermine their entire approach and strategy?


Professor James Curran
Environmental Futures
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Corporate Office
Erskine Court, Castle Business Park
Tel 01786 457700
Fax 01786 446885

The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the use
of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any other is
not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by
return email to

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hulme []
Sent: 14 January 2004 10:21
To: Curran, James
Subject: Re: "Bad Scientists"

Thanks for this. Unfortunately Wogan isn't the only one! Melanie Phillips in the Daily
Mail (it would be!) wrote an even more vitriolic attack on climate science, and Sir
David King in particular, just this week. And then just last night on Radio4, the
Climate Wars programme drew attention to a controversy that has blown up over the warmth
of the last millennium with powerful USA vested interests. This is one where we have
taken a stand and several senior climate scientists, myself included, have resigned from
the disputed journal.
We will certainly consider your suggestion; how much energy we - Tyndall - puts into
these types of responses is a tricky Q for us; one person could almost be employed
full-time. But it is also an issue I intend to raise at the new climate science-policy
forum DEFRA are convening later in January with Hadley, Tyndall, UKCIP, etc.
Best wishes for the New Year,
At 09:30 14/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:

I'm sure you don't listen to it and it must be a pure accident that I quite often hear
it on the way to work - but do you ever come across the Terry Wogan programme on Radio 2
in the mornings ? I believe it has the biggest radio audience in the UK - several
million perhaps.
Terry Wogan doesn't have a particularly good environmental record in his personal life -
something about planting trees in Caithness as a tax avoidance measure some years ago ?
Anyway, he has a real down on climate change, especially just now, and makes repeated
disparaging remarks. Yesterday (13/1/04) he actually made some comment about it being
promoted by "bad scientists".
Rather than just complaining to the BBC, I wondered if you might consider inviting him
to the Tyndall Centre to try and persuade him how well researched and serious the issue
is and hopefully getting him to talk some sense on his show.
Best wishes, James
Professor James Curran
Environmental Futures
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Corporate Office
Erskine Court, Castle Business Park
Tel 01786 457700
Fax 01786 446885
The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the
use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any
other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately by return email to


date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:23 +0100
from: Andrew Manning <>
subject: Global warming in TIME magazine

Dear All,

perhaps of interest, there is a 30+ page article in this week's TIME
magazine on global warming. The title, splashed out over the cover
is "Be worried, be very worried".

For me the most disappointing statistic in the whole article was
this: in a poll (which I suspect was an American poll), 85% of
respondents now believe that global warming is happening, but, 64% of
respondents believe that scientists have "a lot of disgreement" about
global warming. Somewhat depressing that despite the best efforts of
IPCC and others, we scientists are still seen as a dithering,
chaotic, and disagreeing lot...




cc: Tim Osborn <>, Malcolm Hughes <>, Keith Briffa <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, Caspar Ammann <>,,,, Scott Rutherford <>, Tom Wigley <>,
date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:09:04 -0400
from: Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>
subject: Re: draft
to: "Michael E. Mann" <>


I'm fine with the last paragraph. However, the section on latitude dependence of
tree-growth data remains obscure. In particular, the sentence "In such cases, relatively
recent (i.e. post 1950) data are not used in calibrating temperature reconstructions"
leaves the impression that data is rejected because it doesn't fit expectation. For the
uninitiated, you need a few words on why this procedure is acceptable, like perhaps
"because confounding influences obscure the response to temperature" or whatever.



"Michael E. Mann" wrote:

Thanks Tim and Malcolm,

The latest round of suggestions were extremely helpful. I've accepted them w/ a few
minor tweaks (attached). We're at 765 words--I think AGU will let us get away w/ that...

So, comments from others?



At 02:11 PM 10/14/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:

SO3 argue that borehole data provide a conflicting view of past temperature histories.
To the contrary, the borehole estimates for recent centuries shown in M03 may be
consistent with other estimates, provided consideration is given to statistical
uncertainties, spatial sampling and possible influences on the ground surface [e.g.,
snow cover changes--Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. It is not meaningful to compare the
late 20th century with a much longer period 1000 years ago [Bradley et al., 2003],
especially given the acknowledged limitations [Pollack et al., 1998] of borehole data.

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\omichael8.vcf"


date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:41:12 +0100
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong

>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:29:15 -0400
>From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
>Subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong
>This guys email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn't
>include any "splicing of two different datasets"-this is a myth perptuated
>by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven't bothered to read our
>papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent...
>Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes dispelled much of the mythology
>expressed below years ago.
>This is intentional misrepresentation. For his sake, I hope does not go
>public w/ such comments!
>>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:38:35 +0100 (BST)
>>To: Chick Keller <>
>>From: COURTNEY <>
>>Subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong
>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
> id DAA27832
>>Dear Chick:
>>Your past performance demonstrates that your recent piece to Peter Dietze is
>>unworthy of you. Smears and inuendoes are not adequate substitutes for
>>evidence and reasoned argument. You say;
>>"As to Michael Mann's "hocky stick" paleo-temperature graph, I realize why
>>many attack it for it puts the nail in the coffen of the argument that
>>recent natural variability is as large as what has been observed in the 20th
>>No ! People attack the 'hockey stick' because it is uses an improper
>>procedure to assess inadequate data as a method to provide a desired result.
>>I have defended Mann et al. from accusations of scientific "fraud" because I
>>am willing to accept that this was done in naive stupidity, but I am not
>>willing to accept that is good science. As you say, "people like Mann,
>>Briffa, Jones, etc." have conducted "careful work", but doing the wrong
>>thing carefully does not make it right.
>>The 'hockey stick' is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar
>>data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could
>>have been spliced on, but this would not show the 'hockey stick' and was not
>>Also, it is not true to say, as you have;
>>"But, it's going to take more than rhetoric about Europe's Little Ice Age
>>and Medieval Warming to get around the careful work of people like Mann,
>>Briffa, Jones, etc."
>>Nobody in their right mind is going to place more trust in the proxy data of
>>"Mann, Briffa, Jones, etc." than in the careful - and taxed - tabulations in
>>the Doomesday Book. The Medieval Warm Period is documented from places
>>distributed around the globe, and it is not adequate to assert that it was
>>"not global" because it did not happen everywhere at exactly the same time:
>>the claimed present day global warming is not happening everywhere at the
>>exactly the same time. Indeed, you say;
>>"recent temperature anomalies show that, while the tropics is cooler than
>>usual due to La Ni�a, the rest of the world is pretty much still as warm as
>>in 1998."
>>It is historical revisionism to assert that the Little Ice Age and Medieval
>>Warming did not happen or were not globally significant. It will take much,
>>much more than analyses of sparse and debatable proxy data to achieve such a
>>dramatic overturning of all the historical and archaelogical evidence for
>>the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Those who wish to make
>>such assertions should explain why all the historical and archaelogical
>>evidence is wrong or - failing that - they should expect to be ridiculed.
>>All the best
>>>Dear Peter,
>>>In a recent message to Tom Wigley you wrote:
>>>>"Nowadays, what is measured is mostly quite correct. This holds for the
>>>>counts of frogs, butterflies and for the MSU measurements as well as for
>>>>the ground station readings. What is seriously flawed, are the biased
>>>>*interpretations*. So the surface record may be not wrong at all and
>>>>part of the warming is indeed anthropogenic. Wrong is only the paradigm
>>>>that ground warming is mostly caused by CO2 - and that this warming has
>>>>to show up in the lower troposphere as well. It is striking how the
>>>>ground warming grid pattern coincides with winter heating (Vincent Gray)
>>>>- if the warming was caused by CO2 it should rather be evenly
>>>>distributed over the globe, MSU-detected and only being modified by
>>>>meteorological conditions. Note that this energy caused warming only
>>>>depends on our energy demand and does hardly increase with CO2
>>>>concentration. So this warming should neither be allocated to the CO2
>>>>increment nor be misused with future CO2 projections."
>>>I have been looking at NCDC plots of global temperature anomalis divided
>>>into three regions- tropics (20N--20S) and the rest of the
>>>globe--(20N--90N) and (20S--90S). When looked at that way, recent
>>>temperature anomalies show that, while the tropics is cooler than usual due
>>>to La Ni�a, the rest of the world is pretty much still as warm as in 1998.
>>>This is particularly true of northern subtropics and southern subtropical
>>>oceans. The most recent data in fact show the following: for the period
>>>March-May 2000, the northern subtropics are the warmest march-may ever, and
>>>the southern subtropics are essentially as warm as in 1998. Note that this
>>>is not in the winter for either hemisphere. Thus, it would seem to be
>>>important not to make too much of the winter-only observations.
>>>As to Michael Mann's "hocky stick" paleo-temperature graph, I realize why
>>>many attack it for it puts the nail in the coffen of the argument that
>>>recent natural variability is as large as what has been observed in the
>>>20th century. Gene Parker in the most recent Physics Today just pushed
>>>that point of view citing 20 year-old work as his only support. But, it's
>>>going to take more than rhetoric about Europe's Little Ice Age and Medieval
>>>Warming to get around the careful work of people like Mann, Briffa, Jones,
>>>etc. And more recently , Tom Crowley's article in last week's Science!!!
>>>Their work includes those acknowledged regional events (LIA and MWP) and
>>>still shows the 20th cent. to be anomalous. (I might add here that it also
>>>calls into question suggestions that solar variability has an additional
>>>indirect forcing amplification since that should have come out of the data.
>>>Instead most published studies show a significant solar influence but a
>>>moderate one.) And so the only way around recent thousand year paleo
>>>studies is for more comprehensive hemispheric and global studies that fill
>>>in acknowledged gaps and in addition show that climate variability is
>>>larger than recent studies show.
>>> Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to ask what the magnitude
>>>of regional variations has been in the past 150 years. If there are no
>>>regions whose temperature variations were very far from the global average,
>>>then one could legitimately ask how clear anomalies such as the little ice
>>>age could have been sustained in the face of the larger hemispheric
>>>climate. As one example I might cite the eastern United States and perhaps
>>>a large region to the north east since 1940. It clearly has not
>>>participated in the global trend, so much so that urban heat island fans
>>>cite it as an example of how good records (the US) don't show as much
>>>warming as bad records (the rest of the world).
>>>Charles. "Chick" F. Keller,
>>>Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics/University of California
>>>Mail Stop MS C-305
>>>Los Alamos National Laboratory
>>>Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545
>>>Phone: (505) 667-0920
>>>FAX: (505) 665-3107
>>>Every thoughtful man who hopes for the creation of a contemporary culture
>>>knows that this hinges on one central problem: to find a coherent relation
>>>between science and the humanities. --Jacob Bronowski
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>e-mail: Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137
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



date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:15 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
to: Phil Jones <>,, tom crowley <>, tom crowley <>,,, Keith Briffa <>

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500
To: Andy Revkin <>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
and also:
The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with
it (you'll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion).
While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also
finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions
using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al,
Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was
rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature
is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:
Their method for combining frequencies is problematic and untested:
A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the
bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot
simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies
have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some
records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up
therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real
age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years
in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale
variability is likely to be nonsense.
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such
reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in
Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental
records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to
believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It
is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric
mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any
sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available
instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction
completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold
between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation
against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes.
We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a model (where I believe it would
likely fail). We have done so w/ our own "hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines
information separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in:
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., [3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal
of Climate, in press (2005).
In work that is provisionally accepted in "Journal of Climate" (draft attached), we show
that our method gives the correct history using noisy "pseudoproxy" records derived from
a climate model simulation with large past changes in radiative forcing. Moberg et al
have not tested their method in such a manner.
F. They argue selectively for favorable comparison w/ other work:
(1) Esper et al: when authors rescaled the reconstruction using the full instrumental
record (Cook et al, 2004), they found it to be far more similar to Mann et al, Crowley
and Lowery, Jones et al, and the roughly dozen or so other empirical and model estimates
consistent w/ it. Several studies, moreover [see e.g.: Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A.,
Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., [4]Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic
eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.] show that extratropical, land-only summer temperatures,
which Esper et al emphasises, are likely to biased towards greater variability--so its
an apples and oranges comparison anyway.
(2) von Storch et al: There are some well known problems here: (a) their forcing is way
too large (Foukal at al in Science a couple months back indicates maybe 5 times too
large), DKMI uses same model, more conventional forcings, and get half the amplitude and
another paper submitted recently by the Belgium modeling group suggests that some severe
spin-up/initialization problems give the large century-scale swings in the model--these
are not reproducible.
(3) Boreholes: They argue that Boreholes are "physical measurements" but many papers in
the published literature have detailed the various biases in using continental ground
surface temperature to estimate past surface air temperature changes--changing snow
cover gives rise to a potentially huge bias (see e.g. : Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A.,
[5]Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface
Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003).
Methods that try to correct for this give smaller amplitude changes from borehole
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [6]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003]
[[7]Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Most reconstructions and model estimates still *sandwich" the Mann et al reconstruction.
See e.g. figure 5 in: Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [8]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews
of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Ironically, MM say our 15th century is too cold, while Moberg et al say its too warm.
To recap, I hope you don't mention MM at all. It really doesn't deserve any additional
publicity. Moberg et al is more deserving of discussion, but, as outlined above, there
are some real problems w/ it. I have reason to believe that Nature's own commentary by
Schiermeier will actually be somewhat critical of it.
I'm travelling and largely unavailable until monday. If you need to talk, you can
possibly reach me at 434-227-6969 over the weekend.
I hope this is of some help. Literally got to run now...
At 02:14 PM 2/4/2005, Andy Revkin wrote:

Hi all,
There is a fascinating paper coming in Nature next week (Moberg of Stockholm Univ., et
al) that uses mix of sediment and tree ring data to get a new view of last 2,000 years.
Very warped hockeystick shaft (centuries-scale variability very large) but still
pronounced 'unusual' 1990's blade.
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the
embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137


cc: <>, "'Tim O'Riordan'" <>
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:54:53 +0100
from: "Rosie Cullington" <>
subject: Governance for Sustainability
to: <>, <>, <>, "Kate Brown" <>, "Neil Adger" <>, <>, "Mike Hulme" <>, "Tim O'Riordan" <>, "Andy Jordan" <>, "Andrew Lovett" <>, "Andy Jones" <>, "Adrian Martin" <>, "Alan Bond" <>, "Chris Foxall" <>, "Dick Cobb" <>, "Elaine Colk" <>, "Ian Bateman" <>, "Iain Lake" <>, "Matt Cashmore" <>, "Nick Pidgeon" <>, "Peter Simmons" <>, "Robin Haynes" <>, "Kerry Turner" <>, "Simon Gerrard" <>, "Trevor Davies" <>

Dear Friends

You may recall I put in a bid under the University's New Professional
Initiative, for a possible Chair and Programme in Governance for

The aim was not just to establish UEA as a lead institution in this area. It
was also designed to create a core of joint research support amongst social
scientists in the wider arena of governance.

I have just hear from the Vice-Chancellor that there is no money in the NPI
for this position, and that it is unlikely that there will be any new move
in the NPI direction for at least 18 months. This is a setback. But I hope
we can still be positive about establishing a network of interested
researchers in this theme.

So I hope that it may be possible to maintain a dialogue on this general
topic. As many of you know, I am organising a workshop on this theme as part
of the Zuckerman week on Friday 5 September. Many of you have been invited
to that. If anyone else would like to come, please let me know. The workshop
will be held in the ZICER Seminar Room at 10.00 on Friday 5 September. A
copy of the programme is attached.

In addition, Brian Salter and I would like to establish a governance network
across the university. To this end he has suggested a regular seminar on the
topic. The first one is scheduled for Monday 24 November at 17.00 (in a room
to be agreed). Ted Tapper of the University of Sussex will talk of the
politics of governance and the RAE. I will also summarise the main findings
of the 5 September workshop.

We would be grateful if you would keep this date in your diaries. We will
give you more details in due course. If you know of any colleague who also
might be interested, please also let me know.

Best wishes
Tim O'Riordan

Rosie Cullington
Faculty Secretary
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ UK
Tel. +44 1603 592560
Fax. +44 1603 591327/507714
Office Hours - 0830-1630 GMT/BST

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


date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:56:07 -0700
from: Ben Santer <>
subject: Next version of paper and response to Reviewers
to: "Thorne, Peter" <>, Leopold Haimberger <>, Karl Taylor <>, Tom Wigley <>, John Lanzante <>,, Melissa Free <>, peter gleckler <>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <>, Thomas R Karl <>, Steve Klein <>, carl mears <>, Doug Nychka <>, Gavin Schmidt <>, Steven Sherwood <>, Frank Wentz <>

Dear folks,

Here is the next version of our IJoC paper, together with the Supporting
Online Material and the detailed response to the comments of Reviewers 1
and 2.

There is one small issue I'd like to discuss. As I mentioned in a
previous email, I have now applied the "new" d1* test suggested by
Francis [see equation (12) in the revised manuscript] to synthetic data.
Results are shown in Figure 5B. I've also applied the "new" d1* test to
observed and simulated T2 and T2LT data (see Table 3 in revised
manuscript). I have not yet applied the new d1* to the modelled and
observed surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The d1* results in Table
6 are the OLD d1* results - not the new d1* results.

In practice, because the first term under the square root sign in
equation (12) is small relative to the second term, the new d1* results
are very similar to the old d1* results (which only involved the
standard error of the observed trend in the denominator). So the "old"
d1* results currently shown in Table 6 will probably not change by much
when I complete the "new" d1* tests with the modelled and observed
surface-minus-T2LT difference series. I should have those calculations
completed on Monday morning, and will revise Table 6 then.

I'd very much like to resubmit our manuscript on Tuesday of next week,
so that I can enjoy my birthday untroubled by thoughts of sigma{SE},
further sensitivity tests, etc. Please let me know if you think Tuesday
is an unrealistic target for resubmission.

We owe Francis a big debt of gratitude. I think that his review comments
(and his help over the past few days) have led to substantial
improvements in our paper.

With best regards,

Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675


Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_maintext_30may08.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_Supporting_30may08.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_Response_30may08.pdf"


date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:31:39 +0100
from: "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>
subject: 'The Day After Tomorrow' - Young person initiative on climate ch
to: "Geoff Jenkins (E-mail)" <>, "Mike Hulme (E-mail)" <>


Please see the email exchange below about an educational initiative on the Day After
Tomorrow. I spoke to David Warrilow about it and he wondered if either of you might be
interested in fielding some Hadley/Tyndall scientists to help with the events? If you could
have a think about it and let me know that would be great- phone number below.

Kind Regards

Kathryn Humphrey

-----Original Message-----
From: Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)
Sent: 15 June 2004 15:41
To: ''
Subject: FAO David Warrilow/Sarah Hendry: 'The Day After Tomorrow' - Young person
initiative on climate change


Please see the exchange below on an idea for an initiative involving the Day After Tomorrow
and Film Education which is part of the Film Council (DCMS' remit). After a conversation
with David King they want to show screenings of TDAT to school kids and them get them to
debate it afterwards. From a Defra point of view, they're looking for an expert who can go
along and help with the debates. Also mentioned funding, as a matter of course, but it
looks like Fox is footing the bill.

From an education/Article 6 point of view seems like a very good idea to me; do you have
any thoughts on whether we could field anyone or if you want to get involved in any other
way? There is a meeting on Thursday so if you have any pressing comments you can send
them to me before then if you have any free time. DTI seems to be leading.

Hope all is well in Bonn!

Kind Regards


-----Original Message-----
From: Chambers, Paul (SEP)
Sent: 15 June 2004 14:45
To: Porter, Mike A (CD)
Cc: Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)
Subject: RE: 'The Day After Tomorrow' - Young person initiative on climate cha nge


It does look very good to me. I'm sure we and GA will want to be involved - let me know how
you get on after Thursday and we can circulate details to Henry and others.


-----Original Message-----
From: Porter, Mike A (CD)
Sent: 15 June 2004 14:30
To: Chambers, Paul (SEP)
Subject: FW: 'The Day After Tomorrow' - Young person initiative on climate cha nge
Importance: High


Thought you should be aware of this one . First impressions are v.favourable.

Would have thought we could usefully ( for corporate profile, if nothing else) supply an
expert at the screenings alongside someone from DTi.

Paul Richards talks about funding - but I'm not yet clear what for - as most of the
elements he mentions are being covered by Fox.

I'm attending a meeting on this Thursady a.m at DTi - if you have any views gratfeul if I
could have them asap.



-----Original Message-----
From: Richards Paul (Mr PA) []
Sent: 11 June 2004 15:02
To: Grout Nick (Mr ND); Hernandez Tino (Mr AF); ''; Porter,
Mike A (CD)
Cc: Kass Gary (Mr GS)
Subject: 'The Day After Tomorrow' - Young person initiative on climate cha nge
Importance: High





For Mike's benefit, the background to this is: Dave King met Lord Puttnam for lunch and
the 20th Century Fox film 'The Day After Tomorrow' came into the conversation. They agreed
that the film could be a useful vehicle for raising awareness about climate change amongst
young people. A call from Lord Puttnam to Fox led to a call from Fox to Dave. Fox,
needless to say, were keen to take something forward. This led to a meeting between Fox
and Dave and to us then receiving the proposal below from Fox.

I have been asked to lead on our initial response to the proposal and I am seeking your
help in doing so.

On the face of it, the proposal looks very good. In our initial response, I would like to
give an indication of interested parties within Government, who might provide funding, how
this initiative dovetails with our other activities and, in practical terms, who will be
doing what. So that we can begin to explore these issues I wonder if you would be free to
attend a short (no more than hour) meeting next week. My preference would be Wednesday
16th. Could I thus ask you to let me know by midday on Monday whether you are willing to
help in developing our initial response and, if so, whether you or a colleague are free to
attend a meeting here in 1 Vic Street on Wednesday (timing to be dependent on most
convenient time for everyone).

Happy to discuss. Many thanks.


Paul Richards
Public Engagement with Science and Technology Team
Office of Science and Technology
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 4136
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Tel: 020-7215-6146
Fax: 020-7215-3830

Dear Gary and Antony,

Good to meet you last week. We have since spoke to our colleagues in Home Entertainment
and Film Education and we have come up with the following proposal.

Film Education ([1] is a body supported by the film industry through
the Film Council, charged with bringing film to children through the National Curriculum.
One of their key initiatives is National Schools Film Week, which runs from October 11 - 15
(October 25 - 29 in Scotland). We propose to screen the film to secondary school children
in the locations listed below on Thursday . Each screening would be followed by a panel
discussion featuring experts in the fields of science, technology and the environment. The
screenings would target students of geography, science and citizenship. (Others tbc ?)

Film Education will facilitate the cinema bookings and recruitment. This service will be
free of charge. Fox will provide the print and supporting publicity content free of
charge. DTI will provide the experts and cover their expenses. Also, we may need a host
or moderator at each event which ideally should be covered by the DTI.

Film Education will use Fox publicity materials and DTI content to produce a downloadable
pdf study guide to accompany the programme.

Film Education will also look to do separate screenings for the "Young and Gifted"
programme on this date. Ian Wall will come back with further detail on this.

Film Education publicists will work with local newspapers on the project. Again, this is
an area where the DTI can be very involved.

Fox HE will look at providing some sort of bounce back mechanic for the DVD launch. For
example, an "�X off" voucher redeemable against the DVD at a retailer tbc.

Suggested locations (300 seaters):


The first stage of such an exercise would be to forewarn teachers via an e-mail alert
before the summer holidays begin.

Please let us know if this is the sort of activity that you are happy to support.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. Its
unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have
received it in error, please destroy all copies and inform the sender. Whilst this
email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses
whilst within Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our
systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored
and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes.


date: Thu Mar 27 14:47:08 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: a figure on the CRU web page
to: David Parker <>

I might not have got it or deleted it by mistake at home last night.
At 14:35 27/03/2008, you wrote:

I informed Mike cc Tom Karl yesterday.
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 14:28 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> David,
> I assume you will be sending this to Mike Mann and the rest on
> those emails.
> Cheers
> Phil
> At 14:09 27/03/2008, David Parker wrote:
> >Phil, Tom
> >
> >We have changed our plots on [1] and
> >on [2] and
> >added a warning note regarding what was there before!
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >David
> >
> >On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:34 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > Yes, we can create annuals from just one month. There has been
> > > some other
> > > correspondence about this with a number of people. The Hadley Centre
> > > are doing it also.
> > > It seems as though there are a number of people out there who are
> > > forgetting
> > > to read the small print!
> > > The HC will be changing theirs, so perhaps David can cc you on
> > > that when ready.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > At 14:30 26/03/2008, you wrote:
> > > > Hi, Phil,
> > > >
> > > > I was trying to answer a friend's question about the solar
> > > > impact article in Physics Today (March issue). As they use your
> > > > data I thought I'd see why yours shows something different than
> > > > ours. It turned out, in my opinion, to be caused by some odd data
> > > > processing they were doing to remove the effect of volcanoes and
> > > > also thereby el Ninos. But I thought I'd point out to you that, as
> > > > the figure below shows, you apparently are able to create annual
> > > > values and put them in a plot with only 2 months of the year
> > > > available. (At first I checked to see why our 2007 value disagreed
> > > > so much with ours, but then found out it was your 2008 value
> > > > instead.)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
> > > > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
> > > > 151 Patton Avenue
> > > > Asheville, NC 28801
> > > > Voice: +1-828-271-4287
> > > > Fax: +1-828-271-4328
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > NR4 7TJ
> > > UK
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> >--
> >David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
> >E-mail:
> >Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681
> 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
> NR4 7TJ
> UK

David Parker Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681

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


date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
subject: Re: preprint request

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your response. I'll look forward to you, Keith, Ray, and
Malcolm corresponding re the Science piece in my absence.

I'll instruct Rob Allan to send you out preprints of the two Allan
et al papers, and Ed Cook/Heidi Cullen to keep you abreast of the
Cullen et al manuscript (which has been in preparation, forever it

THe Delworth and Mann paper can be downloaded off the web in postscript
pieces here:

( is the manuscript, the other files the figures).
It is likely to change significantly after review (we've already had
some important comments by Suki Manabe and Isaac Held which we plan
to take into account), so will keep you posted on any updates in the
status of the paper.

Looking forward to staying in touch.



p.s. We should think about the possibility, sometime in the next year
or so, of you coming out to U.Va for a week or two to work on stuff
of mutual interest. Let me know how you feel about this, and we could
keep it on the backburner. I had mentioned this possibility to Phil,
and he seemed to think it would be a great idea...
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003 | Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail:; (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573 FAX: (413) 545-1200


cc:,, Keith Briffa <>, Phil Jones <>, Bradley Raymond <>, Hughes Malcolm <>
date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:01:44 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
to: Tim Osborn <>

Dear Tim,
Here is a draft of my response to the congressional inquiry. Please let me know if you have
any comments (in particular, if the way I have cited your submitted paper is ok??).
thanks again for your help,
At 08:35 AM 6/27/2005, Tim Osborn wrote:

At 17:00 25/06/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below,
it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a
formal response.
Thanks in advance for any help,

Dear Mike, Malcolm and Ray
I was shocked to see how blatantly this committee has been subverted by the
anti-greenhouse lobby.
It is an outrageous request in many ways, not least in the amount of effort that it will
take to gather together all the information and respond; e.g. point 4 -- provide all
data, and (it seems) computer code, documentation, etc., related to any paper that you
authored or co-authored! It would take me months to organize and document the
100s-1000s programs and 10s-100s of GB of data which have been used in papers with my
name on! Even if the committee's review doesn't come to a conclusion that the
anti-greenhouse lobby likes, they will still consider it a victory if they tie up your
time for a number of months.
Is there any way of reducing the efforts involved -- perhaps by requesting the committee
to say which papers they wish to focus on?
I haven't spoken to Keith or Phil yet, but I'm sure we will help where we can. Here are
two specific things:
Tom mentioned a paper that we've submitted that has relevance to von Storch et al.
(2004). It's still under review so I don't want it distributed far, but in case a copy
hasn't found its way to you yet, the submitted manuscript is attached.
The focus is not, in fact, on the von Storch et al. study, but is instead on the ECHO-G
simulation that they used. We use MAGICC to show that the atypical ECHO-G behaviour can
be mainly attributed to relatively large disequilibrium in the initial conditions and to
the omission of any anthropogenic tropospheric sulphate cooling towards the end of the
Our final conclusion on page 15 might be useful for you: we do not discount the bias in
climate reconstructions suggested by von Storch, but we do show that the size of the
bias would likely have been much smaller if ECHO-G didn't have the unrealistic behaviour
that we identified.
To emphasize again: we don't invalide von Storch's results, we just cast doubt on the
magnitude of the bias.
Tom also suggests that you raise questions regarding the reviewing of papers that attack
your work. This is a good idea. I can help with some insight into the "review process"
(in the loosest sense!) that was used for M&M's first paper in Energy & Environment.
I've attached an edited response from that "journal's" editor, Sonja
Boehmer-Christiansen, to some questions I raised.
The editor clearly indicates that there was very little peer-review. Publication was
speeded up for purely political reasons, with scientific review losing in the trade off
with policy. The limited review that apparently took place used reviewers who were
selected because they were not "part of the anti-skeptics bandwagon" rather than for
having the necessary expertise. From which I read that she only selected skeptics.
I haven't forwarded this before, though I have alluded to these admissions from the
editor to some of you, because the editor implied that she was responding in
confidence. But in light of the challenge that you are now facing, I thought it would
be fair to give you this information.
Best wishes

From: "Sonja.B-C" <>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:52:12 +0000
To: Tim Osborn <>
Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Dear Tim
Thanks for your considered reponse from Norwich....
I respond in CAPITALS IN TEXT.
Please consider this for UEA eyes only; I am very honest...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:44:23 Tim Osborn <> wrote:
> Dear Sonja,
> Below are some responses to your message that was forwarded from the
> climatsceptics mailing list...
> The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is that it
> indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
> simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If this is
> confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be some
> problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that these
> problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results - the main
> difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that
> identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
> still be interesting, but if these problems made very little difference to
> the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
> I will finish by asking a few questions about Energy and Environment and
> the peer-reviewing of this paper, which I hope you will be able and willing
> to answer.
> (1) Mann et al. assert that they were not given the opportunity to review
> the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. It would be nice if you could confirm
> that assertion, to ensure that we don't propagate any inaccuracies. You
> might also want to comment on whether this is reasonable or not, for a
> paper that is a direct response to their original paper.
> (2) The McIntyre and McKitrick paper does not seem to have submission,
> acceptance or publication dates on it. Does E&E not normally do this? If
> you do, then I'd be interested to know what these dates are.
WHO ONLY had a few days to respond TO THE AUTHORS DIRECT, BUT ALL DID
Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader,Department of Geography,
Editor, Energy & Environment
Faculty of Science
University of Hull
Hull HU6 7RX, UK
Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
Fax: (0)1482 466340

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]
sunclock: [3]

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\BartonWhitfield-Responses.doc"


date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:50:28 +0100
from: Clare Goodess <>
subject: Re: Notes from meeting on CRU website 2005-05-19
to: Mike Salmon <>,

Hi Mike

Thanks a lot for this.

In terms of new information sheets, we also agreed to have one on impacts -
to be led by Mick with inputs from Tom and Clare.

And on a slightly separate issue, I said I would ask the new UEA science
communications officer (Nicky Barrell) to come and talk to CRU.


At 12:20 20/05/2005, Mike Salmon wrote:
>Attending: Clare, Mick, Nathan, Dimitrios, Malcolm, Gerard, Harry, DavidL,
>Mike, Carol, MattS, Kate
>(I think that's all, but I forgot to take a list at the time - apologies
>if I missed you out)
>Apologies: Keith, Tim, DavidV, Craig
>--- Front page
>There should be a "press release" for every paper CRU produces - authors
>These will be linked from the News section as they appear.
>Mick suggested they could also be submitted to
>Changes to website (eg. dataset updates) should go into News section too.
>Consider providing RSS feed of News section.
>--- About CRU
>Needs tweaking? Clare
>--- Data
>Referred to the Data Comittee. Craig
>--- Information sheets
>Many need updating:
>3: UK weather and climate - Phil
>4: UK Climate indicators - Clare
>5: The millenial temperature record - Gerard/Phil
>6: The Holocene - Keith
>7: Thermohaline circulation - Tim
>8: Modelling climate change - Clare/DavidV
>9: Climate change scenarios - Clare
>10: Sea level rise - Sarah/Mick
>11: North Atlantic Oscillation - Tim
>12: El Ni�o and the Southern Oscillation and their influence - Malcolm
>13: Volcanoes and their effect on climate - DavidV
>14: Applied climatology - remove
>15: Changing intensity of rainfall over Britain - Tim
>New ones to be written:
>Extremes - Amanda/Clare/Ben/TomH
>Abrupt Climate Change - Tim
>? - Nathan
>Global Dimming and Brightening - Mick
>Seasonal Climate Prediction - MattS/Clare
>Drought in the Sahel - AndyM/Nick/Mick
>Should also produce PDF versions for better handouts.
>Do the stats include search engines?
>--- Research Projects
>Deferred to subsequent meeting
>--- Staff & Students
>Encourage home pages more.
>Provide boilerplate homepage for new users.
>--- Academic Programmes
>Carol will co-ordinate PhD pages particularly aimed towards prospective
>--- Publications
>Database has not been updated since December. Julie/Mike to fix.
>--- Climate Monitor Online
>Is gridded visualisation in step with Data page? Mike to check/fix.
>News from new Tiempo Cyberclimate NewsWatch?
>Next meeting will be to discuss the Research Projects section over a
>bring-and-share lunch, date TBD.

Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia

Tel: +44 -1603 592875
Fax: +44 -1603 507784



date: Mon Nov 17 17:04:27 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: GHCN
to: Gavin Schmidt <>

First the figures are just for you - don't pass on!!! I don't normally see
these. I just asked my MOHC contact - and he's seen the furore on the blogs.
Why did the Daily Telegraph run with the story - it's all back to their readers
thinking the UK is run by another country!
These 3 paras (below) are from the GHCN web site. They appear to be the only mention
I can see of the WMO CLIMAT network on a web site. The rigorous QC that is being talked
about is
done in retrospect. They don't do much in real time - except an outlier check.
Anyway - the CLIMAT network is part of the GTS. The members (NMSs) send
their monthly averages/total around the other NMSs on the 4th and the 18-20th
of the month afterwards. Few seem to adhere to these dates much these days, but
the aim is to send the data around twice in the following month. Data comes in
code like everything else on the GTS, so a few centres (probably a handful, NOAA/CPC,
MOHC, MeteoFrance, DWD, Roshydromet, CMA, JMA and the Australians)
that are doing analyses for weather forecasts have the software to pick out
the CLIMAT data and put it somewhere.
At the same time these same centres are taking the synop data off the system
and summing it to months - producing flags of how much was missing. At the
MOHC they compare the CLIMAT message with the monthly calculated average/total.
If they are close they accept the CLIMAT. Some countries don't use the mean of
max and min (which the synops provide) to calculate the mean, so it is important
to use the CLIMAT as this is likely to ensure continuity. If they don't agree they
check the flags and there needs to be a bit of human intervention. The figures
are examples for this October.
What often happens is that countries send out the same data for the following month.
This happens mostly in developing countries, as a few haven't yet got software to
produce the CLIMAT data in the correct format. There is WMO software to
produce these from a wide variety of possible formats the countries might be using.
Some seem to do this by overwriting the files from the previous month. They
add in the correct data, but then forget to save the revised file. Canada did
this a few years ago - but they sent the correct data around a day later and again
the second time, after they got told by someone at MOHC.
My guess here is that NOAA didn't screw up, but that Russia did. For all countries
except Russia, all data for that country comes out together. For Russia it comes
out in regions - well it is a big place! Trying to prove this would need some Russian
help - Pasha Groisman? - but there isn't much point. The fact that all the affected
data were from one Russian region suggests to me it was that region.
Probably not of much use to an FAQ!

The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical
temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide. The
period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to
1950 and several hundred being updated monthly via CLIMAT reports. The data are available
without charge through NCDCs anonymous FTP service.
Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews.
These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify
spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of
the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers
from both a serial and a spatial perspective.
GHCN-Monthly is used operationally by NCDC to monitor long-term trends in temperature and
precipitation. It has also been employed in several international climate assessments,
including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment, and the "State of the Climate" report published annually by the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
At 12:56 17/11/2008, you wrote:

Actually, I don't think that many people have any idea how the NWS's
send out data, what data they send out, what they don't and how these
things are collated. Perhaps you'd like to send me some notes on this
that I could write up as a FAQ? Won't change anything much, but it would
be a handy reference....
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 07:53, Phil Jones wrote:
> > Gavin,
> I may be getting touchy but the CA thread on the HadCRUt October 08
> data seems full of snidey comments. Nice to see that they have very little
> right. Where have they got the idea that the data each month come
> from GHCN? There are the daily synops and the CLIMAT messages -
> nothing to do with GHCN. All they have to do is read Brohan et al (2006)
> and they can see this - and how we merge the land and marine! They
> seem to have no idea about the Global Telecommunications System.
> Anyway - expecting the proofs of the Wengen paper any day now.
> Have already sent back loads of updated references and sorted out almost all
> of the other reference problems.
> When the paper comes out - not sure if The Holocene do online first -
> happy for you to point out the publication dates (date first
> received etc) when
> they scream that they sorted out that diagram from the first IPCC Report.
> Don't know how you find the time to do all this responding- keep it up!
> Cheers
> Phil
> 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
> 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


date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:18:18 +0300
from: Timothy Carter <>
subject: SRES and stabilisation scenarios for GCM runs

Dear Dr. Dix,

Barrie Pittock has passed on a query about priorities concerning SRES and
stabilisation scenario runs:


"....3. I should clarify responsibilities at CAR for the new SRES runs with
the CSIRO GCM. Martin Dix here is the key person, and is already in
negotiation with Joyce Penner to get sulfate forcing scenarios based on
the SRES scenarios. Would you please clarify with Martin exactly which
SRES and stabilisation scenarios should have priority in any runs done
here, and faciliate this as far as possible. Martin is ready to start
the runs as soon as the necessary input data is available. We are really
very keen to do this, partly because I have such strong reservations
about linear scaling without aerosol effects. ..."


I have to say that I don't know of any IPCC "policy" on this. On SRES, I
only know that some modelling groups are proceeding with a subset of the 4
SRES marker scenario forcings. For details of these, you really have to
consult the modelling groups themselves. Any co-ordination should really
come from among these groups.

>From the impacts perspective, clearly we are happy to obtain runs for as
many SRES storylines as possible. However, we do appreciate that the
climatic outcomes of some runs might be very similar: e.g. an A1 forcing
versus a B2 forcing (at least this may be the case for GHG forcing, though
estimates of the global sulphate loading by 2050s for A1 are almost twice
that for B2). It would certainly be useful to have a grasp of the range of
climatic outcomes from the different SRES forcings (implying the use of A2
and B1 - the two SRES "extremes"). Perhaps this is where some co-ordination
between different GCM groups would be useful, as time is limited for TAR.

In any case, there is little that the impacts community can do with these
outputs for TAR except for a few "fast track" impact assessments with
"ready" models. Rather, these simulations can contribute to WG I Chapters 9
(global model projections), 10 (regional projections) and 13 (climate
scenarios), allowing a GCM-based interpretation of the SRES scenarios, GCM
intercomparisons, and comparison with linear scaling methods based on
previous 1% forced GCM simulations in conjunction with simple global
models. These comparisons will also feature in Chapter 3 of WG II on
scenarios for impact assessment.

On stabilisation, the time horizons are even more tight as the emissions
scenarios are not even finalised yet! I only know what I learnt at the
Copenhagen (WG III) meeting on that theme, following discussions between
Morita, Mitchell, Hulme and myself for the IPCC Task Group on Scenarios
(summarised in the note I sent to Barrie). A recommendation of that note is
that IPCC should provide some guidance about what would be preferred from
the climate modellers, but I really don't know how this will be taken
forward. In the absence of guidance, you might contact John Mitchell
( to find out his views. He is in the same quandary
as you are. I think there is some discrepancy between what the energy
modellers are producing (CO2 stabilisation scenarios) and what the UNFCCC
people are asking for (CO2-equivalent stabilisation). If you are
considering CO2 and other gases separately in your GCM, then this
distinction is probably important. Also, from the impacts point of view
(i.e. CO2 concentration and socio-economic storyline), a stabilised 550
ppmv (or any other CO2 level) world by 2100 may be quite different from an
equivalent-550 ppmv world over the same time frame.

I am copying this to Mike Hulme, so that he can communicate the concerns of
your group (and I suspect others) to the Scenarios Task Group about how to
handle these new forcing scenarios.

I'm sorry if I appear to be passing the buck, but I don't have a mandate to
advise you on which runs to conduct - I can only suggest that you
co-ordinate your activities with other modelling groups who are in a
similar position, so that the most productive use is made of research and
CPU time.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Tim Carter


Dr. Timothy Carter
Finnish Environment Institute
Box 140, Kes�katu 6, FIN-00251 Helsinki, FINLAND

Tel: +358-9-40300-315
Fax: +358-9-40300-390