Monday, April 30, 2012


cc: Eystein Jansen <>
date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:17:13 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <>
subject: ps
to: Keith Briffa <>

Keith - ps, pls don't circulate the paper from Konrad and Peter -
it's still for internal use only, thx, Peck
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


date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:34:11 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Re: verification results
to: Tim Osborn <>

HIi Tim,

That all sounds great, and indeed, the 19th century will be a *hot* topic
(pun intended) as we try to rectify Tom's model response w/ the
instrumental record and proxy reconstructions. Ironically, the 19th century
is one in most dispute over the past millennium, it seems!

You accurately summarize what my understanding is of the breakdown of lead
roles. I don't see any reason for changing that. I think Scott and I will
have our hands full w/ the other items, so if you can take the lead role on
the MXD paper (comparing the two methods, etc.) that would be great.

My intention is to give you and Scott full credit for anything I show at
meetings that is a result of mutual collaboration. Of course, both of your
are co-authors of my EGS talk.

So all sounds great! Scott: when Tim sends revised plots, can you prepare
some revised ppt files and let me know when they are available to download?
Hope to get all this straightened away next week after I return from the
frozen north (Michigan)...


That soundsAt 07:05 PM 3/14/01 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
> >Thanks alot, these look good. I think we're really making some good
> >progress now.
> >
> >Just to confirm, my understanding is that you're next working on a similar
> >plot showing the
> >comparison of the REG-EM results w/ the straight gridbox age-banded
> >estimates you and Keith have produced over the longer period (ie, back to
> >1600 or so?). It would be great to be able to show those at EGS.
>Mike, you're welcome to show these results at EGS. I had to leave early
>today (Wednesday) as my wife was ill, but I'll be back at work tomorrow.
>What I'll do first is just to modify the figures I've already sent to you,
>comparing the verification REG-EM run with instrumental data over the
>1856-1900 period. What I want to do is to modify the final map so that the
>grid boxes that actually have tree-ring sites in them are highlighted in
>some way. Then we can visualise more clearly whether the 'local'
>information is much better than the 'non-local' information. I was in a bit
>of a hurry with my e-mail earlier, I didn't mention that the map is based on
>all those grid boxes with at least 20 years of instrumental data during the
>1856-1900 period. I found the year-by-year pattern correlations quite
>informative too, and was particularly impressed by the fact that there were
>no really poor years! (at least that's my recollection, not having the plots
>in front of me at home).
>Having modified the map as described, I'll repeat the analysis but comparing
>the 1404-1855 period of the full reconstruction from REG-EM with our
>existing year-by-year maps and quasi-hemispheric averages. I shall compare
>them against our "traditionally-standardised" version, since it would be
>unfair to compare them with the age-banded version. The year-by-year maps
>we have already got are calibrated on a grid-box by grid-box basis
>(individually) using simple linear regression between the density series and
>the instrumental temperature. This gives us coverage for those grid boxes
>with density data in them. We throw away those that do not correlate
>significantly with their local grid box temperature. That leaves around 100
>boxes, with fewer further back in time. We then try to reconstruct all
>remaining northern hemisphere grid boxes, using principal component
>regression (PCs of the calibrated density used as predictors on a grid box
>by grid box basis), but only actually retain those that have significant
>correlations during an independent verification period. So we gain quite a
>few more grid boxes, again time-varying. So we have this (perhaps rather
>odd!) combination of local regression plus principal component regression
>producing our maps. I shall use this set of year-by-year maps for the
>comparison with REG-EM, though as with the instrumental temperatures, I'll
>sometimes highlight or subsample just those with trees in (i.e. those
>Our original plan for carving up the analysis/papers was for me to take the
>lead on the comparison of methods with the same data set, Scott on the
>comparison of data sets with the same method, and Mike to concentrate on the
>19th century stuff including verification against the instrumental data etc.
> I saw Tom Crowley last week and he showed some results indicating how
>critical the 19th century is for getting a good match between his forced
>model results and the various proxy reconstructions - so the 19th century
>could certainly be a hot topic. Phil Jones would be useful here as he may
>know of more early instrumental data from Europe that might help (depending
>upon homogeneity!). Anyway, I'm refreshing our minds about the 3-way split
>of work because: (i) this might be an appropriate point to confirm that such
>a split is still the best way to go (I'm still happy with it); and (ii) to
>point out that the REG-EM comparisons with our existing density-based maps
>falls into the bit that I'm to take the lead on - so while I'm completely
>happy for you to show these at EGS or other meetings, I'd still like to
>write the comparisons up for a journal paper.
> >p.s. Tim: are you going to be at EGS? I know Phil will...Also, I'm hoping
> >that one of the 3 of you can make it to the Charlottesville workshop in
> >April. You and Phil have both indicated you can't go, I think? At present,
> >Keith hasn't yet confirmed. It would be a shame not to have him, you, or
> >Phil present. Can you suggest some sort of "alternate" (Schweingruber?) the
> >Europeans might invite if Keith can't make it. Thanks...
>I can't make it to EGS, as I have work to prepare for my 3 talks I'm giving
>at NCAR in the first week in April! For the Charlottesville workshop, I
>spoke to Keith yesterday and I think he has now booked his flights - so I'd
>take that as confirmation. He's in touch with Julie Jones at GKSS about it.
> I put in a good word about how pleasant Charlottesville was!
>Best regards to you both,
>Dr. Timothy J. Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
>Telephone: 01603 592089
>Fax: 01603 507784

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


date: Fri, 3 May 2002 18:31:29 +0100
from: "Simon Torok" <>
subject: In Tyndall 37
to: <>

In Tyndall 37: The fortnightly Tyndall Centre internal newsletter

This newsletter is intended for internal use only. Please check with the
External Communications Manager ( before forwarding any
information within.

1. New climate scenarios for the UK
The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) 2002 climate change scenarios have
now been launched. They are based on new GCM results from the Hadley Centre,
and were prepared by Tyndall researchers under contract to DEFRA for UKCIP
( They provide the
latest information on how climate may change in the 21st century, for policy
makers, those researching climate change impacts and adaptation, for
businesses and organisations, and the general public. The scenarios
represent a major step forward in understanding how climate may change
across the UK over the coming century, and will be the definitive 'state of
the art' for several years to come.

2. Third issue of Tynd-All now available
Tynd-All is the quarterly summary of past Tyndall events, news and
announcements of coming activities and opportunities. It is aimed at
external stakeholders and is being sent quarterly by email to about 300
people who have registered for it at the Tyndall Website. The latest issue
is now archived at and you
are encouraged to inform any external contacts of its availability and
suggest they sign up for it by filling in the online form at (or follow the link from the
front page of the Tyndall Website).

3. Tyndall North scoping study for SDC
The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) is undertaking a scoping study
entitled 'Area-based Carbon Emissions Reduction'. Tyndall North, in
association with De Montfort and Manchester Universities, was appointed to
assist the SDC in its appraisal of existing initiatives and to advise on the
future work, focusing on local to regional projects, programmes and policies
that assist in the eventual delivery of large reductions of carbon
emissions. Simon Shackley and others gathered information about
decarbonisation work, including carbon emission reduction initiatives
undertaken by companies, local authorities, NGOs, universities, and other
individual organisations. The Tyndall Centre has now finalised the report to
the Commission, entitled 'Low Carbon Spaces', which will soon be publicly
available. A database of UK carbon reduction activities has also been
prepared and will be launched as a public resource in due course.

4. Science for Sustainability event at UEA
The Tyndall Centre is supporting a two-day high-level event to be held at
the University of East Anglia on 2-3 July 2002 that will provide an
opportunity to debate the contribution of international science towards the
objectives to be laid out at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg in late August. The event is organised by the School of
Environmental Sciences at UEA, the Royal Society, the UNEP-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre and the UK DTI. Keynote speakers include the
government's chief scientist Professor David King, Christian Patermann from
the European Commission, and John Schellnhuber. The conclusions of the
meeting will be submitted to the WSSD.

5. Publications by Tyndall Centre researchers
Tyndall researchers are highlighted in bold. Publications marked * arise
from research funded largely by the Tyndall Centre. A full publications list
is at

* Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002).
Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and
Research. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16.

Berkhout, F. (2002) Technological regimes, path dependency and the
environment. Global Environmental Change, 12, 1-4

* Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J. R. and Jenkins, G. (2002). Climate Change
Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Briefing Report. Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, 15pp.

* Hulme, M., Jenkins, G. Lu, X., Turnpenny, J. R., Mitchell, T. D., Jones,
R. G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J. M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and
Hill, S. (2002). Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The
UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,

* Hulme, M. (2002). The changing climate of the UK: now and in the future.
Pp.9-26 In: Climate change: impacts on UK forests Broadmeadow, M. (ed),
Forestry Bulletin No. 125, Institute of Chartered Foresters/Forestry
Commission, Edinburgh, 198pp.

* K�hler, J.H. (2002). Long run technical change in an
energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15.

Lu, X., Crossley, J. and Hulme, M. (2002) An exploration of regional climate
change scenarios for Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal, 117, 251-270.

* Shackley, S. and Gough, C. (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An
Institutional Analysis Perspective. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14.

Turnpenny J.R., Crossley J. F., Hulme M. and Osborn T. J. (2002). Air flow
influences on local climate: comparison of a regional climate model with
observations over the United Kingdom. Climate Research 20: 189-202

6. Tyndall in the news
The UKCIP02 scenario launch generated wide media interest, with Mike Hulme
and John Turnpenny conducting many interviews. The scenarios were reported
by the Financial Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times,
Express and regional papers, BBC national and local news, BBC News24, ITV
national and regional news, Radio 4 and regional BBC networks. Meanwhile, a
press release was sent to energy journals and other media to mark the first
month of the Renewables Obligation and highlighting the Briefing Note
analysing the new policy by Jim Watson and Adrian Smith at SPRU, (the full
Briefing Note is available at The
Norwich Evening News described the free public workshop at Norwich Cathedral
tomorrow (Saturday) from 9.30am where Andrew Watkinson and Tim O'Riordan
will discuss the science, management and spirituality of the coast. Jean
Palutikof discussed wind decreases in the Arctic with Nature's news service.
And Simon Torok was interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly in Egypt for a general
article on climate change.

7. Science, impacts and policy workshop
The Tyndall Centre's Rachel Warren and Larissa Naylor (UEA), Terry Barker
(Cambridge) and Melvin Cannell (CEH) were amongst the speakers at the
workshop 'Climate Change: Science, Impacts and Policy Responses' held in
April. The training programme, for government and industry professionals
seeking a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding climate
change, was organised by Imperial College's Centre for Energy Policy and
Technology, Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute and the
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. International industry,
government and academic representatives were in attendance.

8. Worth a surf
The European Union has delivered on its long-standing commitment to
stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide at their 1990 level by 2000, despite
an emissions upturn in the final year of the period. Total carbon dioxide
emissions from the 15 EU Member States were 0.5% lower in 2000 than 10 years
earlier, the latest emissions inventory from the European Environment Agency
shows. The inventory is available on the EEA's web site at

Contact if you wish to stop receiving In Tyndall.

Back issues of In Tyndall are archived at

The next internal newsletter will arrive on 20 May 2002. Please send to any interesting news, announcements, classifieds, Web
sites, publications, media appearances, grant and conference alerts, etc.


cc: <>, <>, <>, "Philip Newton" <>
date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:02:24 +0100
from: "Eric W Wolff" <>
subject: Re: RAPID statement -round 2
to: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>

Hi Christine,

Generally this is a good initiative and the text is good although I do have a couple of suggestions.

In para 1, the bit in brackets is a bit unwieldy, how about: "exaggerated events: for example, total shutdown takes place over a few days rather than the decades that seems scientifically feasible." (leave the bit about freezing out?)

In paragraph 3 in contrast, I feel, bearing in mind also the comments we got from DEFRA at the meeting a few months back about the message we send out, that we might add a little. (Their concern was that we should not imply that we expect cooling to offset global warming but rather that they are both part of the same problem). How about (my changes in capitals):

"THERE ARE SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS THAT GREENHOUSE WARMING MIGHT CAUSE A SLOWDOWN OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OVERTURNING CIRCULATION, FURTHER PERTURBING THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. Present understanding would suggest that rapid climate change over the next FEW decadeS is a low probability event, but should it happen, its impact on Western European economy and society Could be serious."

But I can live with the present text if you prefer to keep it.


Eric Wolff
British Antarctic Survey
High Cross
Madingley Road
Cambridge CB3 0ET
United Kingdom

Phone: +44 1223 221491
Fax: +44 1223 221279
Alternate fax: +44 1223 362616

>>> Christine Gommenginger <> 20/05/04 11:28:49 >>>
Dear RAPID SC member,

Given the anticipated interest in rapid climate change issues following next
Friday's global release of the Day after Tomorrow Hollywood blockbuster
movie, Meric and I have (with advice from our local communication officials)
prepared a statement to post on the RAPID web site (see below).

Our aim is to keep it brief - in fact it may already be too long. Please can
you let me know asap of any absolute show-stoppers.

My aim is to post it on our web page some time tomorrow (i.e. before the

Many thanks,

The Day After Tomorrow - the latest Hollywood blockbuster movie by Roland
Emmerich, maker of "Independence Day" - depicts an extreme rapid climate
change event following the sudden shutdown of the North Atlantic overturning
circulation due to global warming.

Could this really happen?

While the film is a classic action movie featuring hugely exaggerated events
(total shutdown takes place over a few days rather than decades, tidal waves
in New York flood the city and then turn into a massive ice block within
hours), it does present some genuine scientific information about ocean
circulation, ice core sampling and past climate shifts. The film has been
broadly welcomed by scientists as a way to raise awareness about the
importance of climate change issues.

The UK is taking the lead in rapid climate change research. A �20 Million
Rapid Climate Change programme (known as RAPID for short) is being funded by
the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The aim of RAPID is to
determine the probability of rapid climate change and its likely impact. For
the first time, a monitoring system is being set up to monitor changes in
the North Atlantic overturning circulation (which is associated with but not
quite the same as the Gulf Stream). The UK research vessel RRS Discovery has
recently deployed an array of moorings across the N. Atlantic Ocean.

Present understanding would suggest that rapid climate change over the next
decade is a low probability event, but should it happen, its impact on
Western European economy and society would be serious. Hence, we need to
improve our knowledge of the processes involved and narrow the uncertainties
on the prediction of potential future rapid climate change. That is exactly
what the RAPID programme aims to do.

Dr Christine Gommenginger

Laboratory for Satellite Oceanography (LSO)
James Rennell Division for Ocean Circulation and Climate
Southampton Oceanography Centre (SOC)
Southampton, SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom

Tel (direct): +44 (0)2380 596411 Fax: +44 (0)2380 596400

Assistant Science Co-ordinator for NERC RAPID Climate Change Programme


cc: Mike MacCracken <>, Martin Hoffert <>, Karl Taylor <>, Ken Caldiera <>, Curt Covey <>, Stefan Rahmstorf <>, "Michael E. Mann" <>, Raymond Bradley <>, Malcolm Hughes <>, Phil Jones <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, Tom Crowley <>, Scott Rutherford <>, Caspar Ammann <>, Keith Briffa <>, Tim Osborn <>, Michael Oppenheimer <>, Steve Schneider <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <>, Eric Steig <>,,,,, Urs Neu <>, J�rg Beer <>
date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:00:33 -0600
from: Tom Wigley <>
subject: Re: FW: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
to: Andr� Berger <>


I have been closely involved in the CR fiasco. I have had papers that I
refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas's editorship, appear
later in the journal -- without me seeing any response from the authors.
As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly
referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a
paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more
'sympathic' reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough
reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier.

I agree that an ethics committee is needed and I would be happy to serve
on such a committee. It would have to have endorsement by international
societies, like Roy. Soc., US Nat. Acad., Acad. Europ., plus RMS, AMS,
AGU, etc.

Jim Titus mentioned to me that in the legal profession here people are
disbarred for behavior like that of De Freitas (and even John Christy --
although this is a more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but
we can alert the community of honest scientists to such behavior and
formally discredit these people.

The Danish Acad. did something like this recently, but were not entirely

In the meantime, I urge people to dissociate themselves from Climate
Research. The residual 'editorial' (a word I use almost tongue in cheek)
board is looking like a rogues' gallery of skeptics. Those remaining who
are credible scientists should resign.


Andr� Berger wrote:
> Dear Stefan,
> Dear Mike,
> Dear Collegues,
> I admire the courage of Stefan and of all other colleagues who are
> willing to answer these highly controversed papers (garbage as Marty
> said). I am personally tired of analysing these papers, having quit
> doing this for the Ministry and European Commission some 5 years ago.
> Nevertheless, I am also sad when I see these papers, mostly because they
> succeeded to be published. So not only we have to teach their authors
> the Science of climate but also the reviewers and/or the
> editors/publishers who have accepted them. This is a huge effort. I,
> personally, would like to see an International Committee of Ethics (or
> something like this) in Geo-Sciences be created as it is the case for
> Medical Sciences and Biotechnology.
> I have been told that AMS has such a Committee who is a kind of super
> peer-review telling what is wrong in some declarations, papers, books
> .... Is anybody willing to participate in an attempt to create such a
> Committee within AGU-EGU-IUGG ... ?
> In the meantime, I am please to send you here attached an email by R.L.
> Park on Soon, Baliunas, Seitz and others.
> Best Wishes and Regards,
> Andr� BERGER
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 8 Aug 03 Washington, DC
> One of the purported abuses cited in the minority staff report
> involved the insertion into an EPA report of a reference to a
> paper by Soon and Baliunas that denies globl warming (WN 1 Aug
> 03). To appreciate its significance, we need to go back to March
> of 1998. We all got a petition card in the mail urging the
> government to reject the Kyoto accord(WN 13 Mar 98). The cover
> letter was signed by "Frederick Seitz, Past President, National
> Academy of Sciences." Enclosed was what seemed to be a reprint
> of a journal article, in the style and font of Proceedings of the
> NAS. But it had not been published in PNAS, or anywhere else. The
> reprint was a fake. Two of the four authors of this non-article
> were Soon and Baliunas. The other authors, both named Robinson,
> were from the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in
> Cave Junction, OR. The article claimed that the environmental
> effects of increased CO2 are all beneficial. There was also a
> copy of Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Robinsons (father and
> son) that described increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as
> "a wonderful and unexpected gift of the industrial revolution."
> There was no indication of who had paid for the mailing. It was
> a dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse.
> At 10:59 4/08/2003 -0400, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>> You all might want to get in on response to this paper.
>> Mike
>> ----------
>> From: Stefan Rahmstorf <>
>> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:02:36 +0200
>> To: "Michael E. Mann" <>
>> Cc: Raymond Bradley <>, Malcolm Hughes
>> <>, Phil Jones <>, Kevin
>> Trenberth
>> <>, Tom Crowley <>, Tom Wigley
>> <>, Scott Rutherford <>, Caspar
>> Ammann
>> <>, Keith Briffa <>, Tim Osborn
>> <>, Michael Oppenheimer <>, Steve
>> Schneider <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, Mike
>> MacCracken
>> <>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <>, Eric
>> Steig <>,,
>>,,, Urs
>> Neu <>, J�rg Beer <>
>> Subject: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
>> Dear colleagues,
>> the Soon&Baliunas paper has given political lobbyists a field day in
>> their attempts to confuse the public and decision-makers about the state
>> of global warming science. It is quite interesting how a lobby
>> organisation like the Marshall Institute manages to get a paper like
>> that into the peer-reviewed literature with the help of a sympathetic
>> editor, against reviewer concerns, and then capitalise on that right
>> away in Senate hearings and the media. There clearly is a wider and
>> well-funded strategy behind such activities, which has something to do
>> with why the US has backed out of the Kyoto protocol. These same US
>> organisations are also active here in Europe trying to influence policy,
>> albeit so far with less success.
>> In the face of such sophisticated lobbying we scientists should not be
>> too naive. Although simply doing good science remains our main job, I
>> think at some points we need to intervene in the public debate and try
>> to clarify what is science and what is just political lobbying. In
>> particular, I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically
>> motivated science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature -
>> it is too easy to just shrug and ignore an obviously bad paper. Hence I
>> greatly appreciate that Mike and his co-authors responded in Eos to the
>> errors in the Soon&Baliunas paper.
>> I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific response,
>> the one by Shaviv&Veizer (attached). It derives a supposed upper limit
>> for the CO2-effect on climate (i.e., 0.5 C warming for CO2 doubling),
>> based on paleoclimatic data on the multi-million-year time scale. This
>> paper got big media coverage here in Germany and I guess it is set to
>> become a climate skeptics classic: the spin is that GCMs show a large
>> CO2 sensitivity, but climate history proves it is really very small.
>> Talking to various colleagues, everyone seems to agree that most of this
>> paper is wrong, starting from the data themselves down to the
>> methodology of extracting the CO2 effect.
>> I think it would be a good idea to get a group of people together to
>> respond to this paper (in GSA today). My expertise is good for part of
>> this and I'd be willing to contribute. My questions to you are:
>> 1. Does anyone know of any other plans to respond to this paper?
>> 2. Would anyone like to be part of writing a response?
>> 3. Do you know people who may have the right expertise? Then please
>> forward them this mail.
>> Best regards, Stefan
>> --
>> Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf
>> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
>> For contact details, reprints, movies & general infos see:
> *************************************************************************
> Prof. A. BERGER
> Universit� catholique de Louvain
> Institut d'Astronomie et de G�ophysique G. Lema�tre
> 2 Chemin du Cyclotron
> Tel. +32-10-47 33 03
> Fax +32-10-47 47 22
> E_mail:
> <>
> *************************************************************************



cc: Jonathan Overpeck <>, "Michael E. Mann" <>, Caspar M Ammann <>, Raymond Bradley <>, Keith Briffa <>, Tom Crowley <>, Malcolm Hughes <>, Phil Jones <>, Tim Osborn <>, Kevin Trenberth <>,
date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:38:40 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <>
subject: Re: letter to Senate
to: Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>

Also makes sense... seems like things are getting done on multiple fronts.
Sounds like your NAS comm., Mike, is the "weight in on solar forcing"
committee. That explains the make up in my mind. Have fun... the NAS
word on this issue will be important, and relevant to the issues (and
papers) we've been debating.
cheers, peck

>I wasn't suggesting that AGU get involved...I agree that it's
>neither necessary nor
>a good use of AGU at this point. Rather, both our paper and the AGU
>press release
>are already public documents, so those in Washington with an
>interest in this, like
>my former colleagues, will likely just put the two together and
>circulate them on
>the Hill.
>Tom Crowley wrote:
>> this has gotten too complicated.....
>> I doubt AGU is going to contact the senators on this officially - I
>> am not sure they should. why doesn't Mike M., as the senior author
>> on the paper, just send an information copy to John McCain -
>> practically the only Republican who has power and still seems
>> somewhat sane. Mike does not need the permission of either his
>> co-authors or AGU to do this - it is simply an information item as a
>> point of note.
>> Tom
>> >Dear All:
>> >
>> >Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to
>>step back and
>> >think about a more considered approach. My view is that
>>scientists are fully
>> >justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its
>> >relevance in
>> >the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be heard
>> >instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
>> >
>> >In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it
>> >may be that
>> >neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much
>> >at this time.
>> >But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from
>> >individuals
>> >or groups of scientists will be important.
>> >
>> >Michael
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Tom Wigley wrote:
>> >
>> >> Folks,
>> >>
>> >> I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time
>> >> could lead to something with much more impact?
>> >>
>> >> Tom.
>> >> _____________________________
>> >>
>> >> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>> >> > Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather
>>not sign -
>> >> > at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the
>> >> > issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
>> >> >
>> >> > My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful
>>discussion first.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other
>> >> > scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the
>>AGU statement
>> >> > (or whatever it's called) on global climate change.
>> >> >
>> >> > Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the
>> >> > Senators, then we respond, then...
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for
>> >> > the AGU etc to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I
>>can imagine a
>> >> > special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other
>> >> > political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as
>> >>individuals?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing
>> >> > anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of
>> >> > co-authors in support.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers, Peck
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some
> > >> >> on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be
>worthwhile to send
>> >> >> this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a
>> > > >> copy of our Eos article.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
>> > > >> your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get
>> >this out ASAP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Michael M and Michael O
>> >> >
>> >> >> ______________________________________________________________
>> >> >> 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: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc
>> >> >> (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonathan T. Overpeck
>> >> > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>> >> > Professor, Department of Geosciences
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>> > name="omichael.vcf"
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >Content-Description: Card for Michael Oppenheimer
>> >Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> > filename="omichael.vcf"
>> >
>> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:omichael 2.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (0001BAD6)
>> --
>> Thomas J. Crowley
>> Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
>> Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
>> Box 90227
>> 103 Old Chem Building Duke University
>> Durham, NC 27708
>> 919-681-8228
>> 919-684-5833 fax
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="omichael.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Michael Oppenheimer
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="omichael.vcf"
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:omichael 2.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (00056944)

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

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: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <>, "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <>
date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:45:57 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <>
subject: RE: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request
to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <>

Another 'orphan' that I need to address....

I'm afraid that responding that a request is 'ludicrous' is not a viable exception under EIR! ;-)

I'm assuming that the data is received from a vast array of scientists and stations around the globe. If I understand you correctly, there is no one place, either here or elsewhere, that has listed the sources of the data that comprises the CRUTEM data set? (This is question 2).

If that is the case, I would think that we would need to think carefully about our response or I fear we could end up with a headline blazing 'CRU has no idea where it's data comes from!'

The first question relates to who we have 'solicited' to get such information. Once again, if I understand correctly, there is no such list and such solicitations would have occurred over a long period of time and there may no longer be a record of whom we actually contacted...?

I would think that even if we state in some fashion that we don't have the data on who we solicited, the question of who gives us data probably merits the invocation of the 40 day extension period to answer. Remember, we don't have the 'appropriate limit' under EIR so it's either 'we don't have it' or it's 'manifestly unreasonable' due to the time it would take to locate & retrieve the information....

Deadline on this one is tomorrow and I'm sure we won't have a response ready by then....

Cheers, Dave

>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:49 PM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
>Subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulation 2004
>request (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16) [FOI_09-127: EIR_09-18]
> Dave,
> This is a ludicrous request!! GHCN doesn't have this sort
> of information. They don't keep a track either of where each
> bit of data, or each station, comes from!
> Some of it is in the papers we referred to on the web page
> and others we have written over the years.
> Cheers
> Phil
> > Another request from Mr. O'Donnell. As this one is quite
>different that
>> the other, I will treat it separately.
>> Do we actually have the requested information? I am
>assuming that we know
>> where we get this information from so we should have a list
>of where we
>> get the data; what I am not sure of is whether we have a list of who
>> CRU/UEA has approached to provide the data.
>> Deadline is 11 September BUT we have the option under Reg.
>7(1) of EIR to
>> extend this deadline to 40 days where we 'reasonably believe the the
>> complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is
>> impracticable either to comply or... to make a decision to
>refuse to do
>> so" within the standard 20 day period. This should be
>considered with all
>> requests under EIR where applicable (Note - this provision
>does not exist
>> under FOIA)
>> Cheers, Dave
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ryan ODonnell []
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:00 AM
>> To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>> Subject: Re: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request
>> (FOI_09-123; EIR_09-16)
>> Mr. Palmer,
>> I apologize in advance for not consolidating this into a
>single request.
>> I request, under FOI/EIR, a list of the individual scientists,
>> governments, NMSs, and any other organization that has been
>solicited to
>> provide temperature data for inclusion in the CRU land
>temperature index
>> by any person acting in an official capacity at CRU or the
>University of
>> East Anglia. I additionally request, as a separate entity,
>a list of the
>> individual scientists, governments, NMSs, and any other
>organization that
>> is known to have provided temperature data for the
>aforementioned purpose.
>> The reason for my request is to determine what parties have
>or may have
>> contributed information in order to lobby these parties to
>provide the
>> University of East Anglia written statements of unconditional or
>> conditional release (on satisfactory terms for academic and
>> research) of this information; or, alternatively, written
>statements that
>> the information is already considered public domain.
>> It is in the public interest for the temperature information
>to be freely
>> available in order for the scientific processes of replication and
>> sensitivity analysis of the CRU land temperature index to be
>> As your organization has offered the position that it lacks
>the resources
>> to complete this arduous undertaking itself, it is therefore
>greatly in
>> the public interest that the individuals and organizations that are
>> apparently preventing release of the information be provided
>such that
>> they can be lobbied through the appropriate channels.
>> Regards,
>> Ryan O'Donnell
>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
><> wrote:
>> From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) <>
>> Subject: Environmental Information Regulation 2004 request
>> EIR_09-16)
>> To: "" <>
>> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 6:25 AM
>> Mr. O'Donnell,
>> Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request received
>> yesterday, 11 August 2009. It contains further information
>regarding the
>> handling of this request under the Environmental Information
>> 2004. I will be in contact with you further in due course.
>> Cheers, Dave Palmer
>> ____________________________
>> David Palmer
>> Information Policy & Compliance Manager
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich, England
>> NR4 7TJ
>> Information Services
>> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
>> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010


date: Wed Sep 11 17:42:20 2002
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: Fair trade coffee club
to: John Turnpenny <>

I'm happy to switch to Fairtrade coffee.
Of course there are problems here - why do we drink tea/coffee from around the world -
aircraft emissions - when we could drink water, milk and apple juice from our local
supplier. But we do it to provide the local growers with a market and a fair price. So
which takes precedence?
At 12:05 11/09/02 +0100, you wrote:

Dear coffee clubbers,
Post-ESRC proposal, and pondering the amount of tea and coffee we get through in TYN, I
thought it would be great if we could change to Fairtrade tea and coffee. If you're not
familiar with this, the reason most coffee and tea is cheap because, among other things,
the people growing, harvesting and packing the product do not get paid a fair wage.
Products with the Fairtrade mark (eg Tea Direct, CafeDirect) ensure that, among other
things, those involved get a fair wage (see below for more details).
We pay 30 p a week at the moment for unlimited drinks, nothing really. Switching to
Fairtrade would involve a price rise (probably to about 60 - 70 p per person per week
depending on where and how we get our produce) but even that is very little - at
Norwich Union they pay 16 p per cup, and even at a friend's small publishing company
they each pay �1 per week for unlimited drinks. As part of a centre promoting
sustainable solutions to global problems I think it's worth the extra few pence a week.
Please let me know whether you want to make the switch!
The International Federation for Alternative Trade's (IFAT) definition of Fairtrade is:
'Fairtrade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that
seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development
by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalised
producers. Fairtrade organisations are engaged actively in supporting producers,
awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of
conventional international trade.'
The goals of Fairtrade are:

To improve the livelihoods and wellbeing of producers by improving market access,
strengthening the producer organisations, paying a better price and providing
continuity in the trading relationship.
To promote development opportunities for disadvantaged producers, especially women
and indigenous people, and to protect people from exploitation in the production
To help consumers exercise their purchasing power positively, by raising their
awareness of the negative effects of international trade on producers.
To set an example of partnership in trade through dialogue, transparency and
To campaign for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international
To protect human rights by promoting social justice, sound environmental practices
and economic security.

Source: International Federation for Alternative Trade - [1]


cc:, Philip Brohan <>
date: Wed Mar 2 16:42:00 2005
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: Query
to: Ian Harris <>, Peter Thorne <>

Dear All,
I'll elaborate on Harry's email a little and then make a suggestion. The deleted
stations were mainly duplicate ones, or ones with very little data (but had normals
from the WMO source). The changed stations may have had from 1 to N changes.
You don't yet have these files (Philip may have) and need the appropriate normals
and SD files. So, I hope you've not mixed any files sent by Harry - as you'll need
a full new set.
I don't think this is the reason, by the way. Far more likely is that the month
you're now doing is January - a new year. This always gave me problems as the
Anders file has to be expanded to have one more year for each station. I also needed
to expand some arrays to read in one more year. As Harry says we've not altered anything
in NZ.
The fact that the error manifest itself in NZ may be irrelevant and it is just masking
it really occurred.
Hope you find it ! Peter will be back with you on Friday !
At 13:34 02/03/2005, Ian Harris wrote:

On 2 Mar 2005, at 13:15, Peter Thorne wrote:

Phil, Philip, Harry, John,

do you know of any changes made to a NZ station(s) in the last month? I'll try to
investigate further upon my return on Friday, but it looks like this can't be dismissed
as a simple bug in the system. I doubt a change at UEA would have led to this problem
unless it had been deliberately propogated to the Met Office archive which is
conceivable. I have no info as to the relative magnitude of the change.

No changes to NZ data from my end, Peter. Here's a map showing the stations I've
'affected' ;-)
Keep me posted!


Note: forwarded message attached.
From: "Hardwick, Jen" <>
Date: 2 March 2005 08:49:34 GMT
To: Peter Thorne <>
Subject: HadCRUTtttttttttttttttttewwwe ew
HadCRUT fails at test 3# from the test_landsstmerge program, after the
negrhadcrut2 script.
"Test 3 failed, values before the current month are too dissimilar.
Check random years Either SST or land in error for hadcrut2
The proportion of values changed before the current month is: 0.0063"
The criteria are 0.001 for a normal run through and 0.005 if Phil
updates the anders file. Looking at the data there are a number of
differences for the previous month and subsequent months.
This is interesting because the land values have not changed and the SST
values have not changes.
Looking more closely at the 'dodgy' file you can see that the change in
values, for almost all years back to 1856, are localised to the lat,
long grid box areas (27, 66+). This is around New Zealand.
I'm baffled. Not an unusual turn of events there!
Don't worry too hard about it,
Happy day
Jen Hardwick, Climate Information Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Tel: +44 (0)1392 884288 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
Email: [2]
Global climate data sets are available from [3]

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

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 Mar 8 09:26:32 2007
from: Keith Briffa <>
subject: Re: REQUEST to REVIEW a Technical Comment and Response on 1135456

Dear Pat
just back in my office and leaving at the weekend for a visit to teach and lecture in
Sweden. Hence, I can not do this . The obvious reviewer would be Jonathan Gregory (Hadley
Centre , but in Reading - see [1] but Jason Lowe
at Hadley Centre in Exeter ( might be a more
accessible/willing reviewer .
At 00:15 07/03/2007, you wrote:

March 6, 2007

Dear Dr. Briffa,

Hello - I am the associate editor of the Technical Comments section of SCIENCE and I am
writing to ask if you would have the time and interest to review a technical comment and
response for us. The comment is by (Holgate, Simon et al.)and deals with the paper "A
semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea level rise" by Rahmstorf, Stefan,
published on
p. 368 of the January 19,2007 edition of SCIENCE. The Response is by Rahmstorf.

The comment and response together are about 7 pages, double-spaced, in length. If you
agree to review the comment, we ask that the review be completed within two weeks.
Also, if you're unable to do the review, could I ask for your suggestions on alternative
appropriate reviewers?

Thanks for your time and help.

Sincerely yours,

Tara S. Marathe
Associate Online Editor, SCIENCE

Pat Moore
Editorial Assistant
Fax 202-289-3649

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:53:03 +0000
from: David Viner <>
subject: Re: Press Summaries for Tuesday 8th February 2005
to: Tim Osborn <>, k.briffa Briffa <>

<x-rich>Lenton's Words(amongst others having ago at CC science).

Scientists at UEA have also cast doubt on the famous hockey stick
graph used to convince us that global warming is a recent phenomena,
with no allowance made for the well documented medieval warm period
and the later Little Ice Age.

The graph and its scary supporters assume that the climate in northern
Europe over the past millennium has been roughly constant, but Timothy
Osborn and Keith Briffa conclude that the true variability is likely
to be much greater, and if it is, "the extent to which the recent
warming can be viewed as 'unusual' would need to be reassessed".

Tim and Keith

The essay by HVS is all well and good, but that does not address the
Lenton article in which you are either correctly represented or not.
Do you agree with Lenton's precise words or not? Simple Yes or No?

If you support Lenton's comments then the Unit needs to have a big
discussion about them. If you do not then you should contact Lenton
and put him right. If Lenton is wrong and you do not correct him then
it will be people like me who have to pick up the pieces and spend
more time addressing them, than you will spend by writing a short
email to him.

So do you want to take a few minutes now sending an email to Lenton or
spend a greater amount of time taking this issue further.

In new Scientist Tim is quoted:

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>"One of the conclusions
we draw is that the climate�s sensitivity might be higher, and
therefore future climate change will be greater,�

So why can not you send this short excerpt to Lenton and a further
piece to put him straight?</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>


PS The issue about over dramatisation is one carried out by the media
or pressure groups, and very rarely the scientists themselves, the
other extracts of HVS's story aren't very good either.

On 8 Feb 2005, at 12:40, Tim Osborn wrote:

<excerpt>At 11:59 08/02/2005, David Viner wrote:

<excerpt>Dear Keith and Tim

please see below a summary of Lenton's piece. If you are happy with
this fine, I and others here will pick up the pieces. If not it would
be good if you could correct Lenton, if not it will just keep
resurfacing every-time we speak to the media or give public

It may mean a bit of hassle in the short term for you but is likely to
create a lot more hassle for others.




David - here are some relevant excerpts from an essay recently
published by von Storch:

"...there is indeed a serious problem for the natural sciences:
namely, the public depiction and perception of climate change.
Research has landed in a crisis because its public actors assert
themselves on the saturated market of discussion by overselling the

...The costs of stirring up fear are high... A scarce resource -
public attention and trust in the reliability of science - is used up
without being renewed by the practice of positive examples...

...The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a
politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public
is more intelligent than is usually assumed. In the long term, these
allegedly so helpful dramatizations achieve the opposite of that which
they wish to achieve."


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




Dr David Viner

Climatic Research Unit

University of East Anglia

Norwich NR4 7TJ

Tel: +44 1603 592089

Fax: +44 1603 507784 Tourism and Climate Change




date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:58:39 +0000 (GMT)
from: "" <>
subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
to: <>

Dear Phil,
I am getting many contrasting views about this story. I would like
to be sure that my reporting is correct. I normally do not circulate
manuscripts beforehand, but if you think that you can check it for me
-and not circulate at this stage- I will be happy to send you some
paragraph to see if they are correct or not.
This, furthermore, should be done the soonest - otherwise the
editors will hang me.
Best, Jacopo
----Messaggio originale----
Data: 19.12.2007 14.02
A: <>
Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate

Well, a responder (the original authors) to a comment on a
shouldn't be able to revise their response at the proof stage.
It is a difficult issue and I doubt journals have rules about
it, but
maybe they will come in the future.
What I hadn't realised was that the editor of EPSL had spent
a year's sabbatical at EPSL!


At 12:20 19/12/2007, you wrote:
>... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes
>between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL?
>----Messaggio originale----
>Data: 14.12.2007 10.37
>A: <>
>Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
> Jacopo,
> I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't
>to reproduce
> what Courtillot et al claimed to have done.
> Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists,
>this is
> in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not
>aware of
> all the literature in the climate field. They are very
>the papers
> they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in
> climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to
> literature. In this respect the editors have a harder time
>knowing they are
> getting access to the best climate reviewers.
> To get another (may be similar) view to mine, I'd contact
> Stocker in Bern. (
> Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report.
> These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were
> deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been
>referred to,
> as they are not in mainstream climate journals.
> The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document
> can read on the subject. There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in
> WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the
> increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was
>pointing out
> the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing
> and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s.
> Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't
> As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse
>and the
>negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming,
> only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the
>20th century.
> So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases
>were going
> up then as well (albeit less so).
> When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of
>forcing to
> climate model simulations of the 20th century.
> Cheers
> Phil
>At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote:
> >Dear Phil,
> >thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming
> >fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this.
> >In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there
> >might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer
> >strictly confidential).
> >
> >I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot
> >co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www.
> >org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an
> >example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as
> >argue that the others are not getting the right point around
> >change.
> >
> >May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent
> >are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I
> >think of.
> >
> >I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there
> >agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a
> >industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt
> >since the 80ies.
> >
> >Thank you again,
> >Jacopo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----Messaggio originale----
> >Da:
> >Data: 13.12.2007 18.29
> >A: <>
> >Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
> >
> >
> > Jacopo,
> > I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot
> > by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try
> > locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their
> >to
> > Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue
> > comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I
> > files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google
> >search
> > doesn't find it!
> > The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use
> >(Jones
> >et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007)
> > is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was
> >unable
> >to reproduce their
> > diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't
> >much
> >difference, but
> > you wonder what other mistakes they have made.
> >
> > There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to
> >the
> > global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a
> >series
> > (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and
> >anthropogenic
> > sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols)
> >.
> > I think if you want to refer to this subject at least
> >a good paper
> > on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and
> >argued paper.
> > The answers to all your questions will be in this paper.
> >Frohlich is
> > Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French
> >person
> > who doesn't understand the climate system!
> >
> > There are two problems/issues in the climate field
> >
> > 1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably
> >shouldn't). They give
> > some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is
> >amongst
> > climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE
> >blame.
> > Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't
> >understand the
> > climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People
> >think they can
> > publish in the climate field without knowing little about
> >literature. There are
> > too many journals (and still growing) and all have
> >finding qualified
> > reviewers.
> >
> > 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering
> >to the
> > climate change issue. This gives the public and some
> >a
> > belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't.
> >only way to
> > slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote:
> > >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I
> >happen
> > >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with
> > >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary
> > >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought
> > >the
> > >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there
> >is
> > >offered
> > >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this
> > >geomagnetic
> > >perspective on climate.
> > >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would
> >very
> > >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in
> > >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper).
> > >
> > >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000-
> >10000
> > >scale climate change correlates well with changes in
> > >field of earth (no causality). Correct?
> > >
> > >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field?
> > >
> > >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise
> > >ca 1980. Correct?
> > >
> > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation
> > >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential
> >of
> > >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you
> > >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in
> > >field)?
> > >
> > >Is it really "increasingly recognised"?
> > >
> > >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays
> >could
> > >effect the climate change?
> > >
> > >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all
> > >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this
> >He
> > >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he
> >for
> > >the last few decades?
> > >
> > >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims,
> >would
> > >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC
> > >projections and alike.
> > >
> > >
> > >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the
> > >tomorrow).
> > >Jacopo Pasotti
> > >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there
> > >reply on the comment in the journal's website.
> > >-
> > >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc.
> > >Science Communicator
> > >Science Journalist
> > >
> > >Basel - Switzerland
> > >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785
> > >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >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
>NR4 7TJ


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: Popa Ionel <>, Phil Jones <>, Keith Briffa <>, Simon Tett <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, "Gerald R. North" <>, Claudia Timmreck <>, Stephan Lorenz <>, Sandy Tudhope <>, "raymond s. bradley" <>
date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:51 +0000
from: Thomas Crowley <>
subject: Medieval9
to: Bo Vinther <>


Hi Bo,

just to whet your appetite of our new product, here is an updated
reconstruction of 30-90N temperatures (land) for 994-2007

(I wanted to focus on annual data to validate new volcano simulations
being run by some modelling groups...)

this simulation incorporates several features not previously included

new data from

Alberta (Canada) - (Luckman extended record)
Alaska (D'Arrigo-Wilson)
Carpathian region (Popa, CD this year)
Mongolia (some of the finally released Jacoby data)
Alps (Jan Espers work)

the method combines long reconstructions from nearby sites of Yamal and
Polar Urals in order not to overweight one region

I only use sites that have records extending continuously from 994-1960
- calibrated with instrumental data over interval 1880-1960 (r=0.64,
error = 0.25 C)

the nine sites have very nice spacing - White Mtns (Nevada), Alberta,
Alaska, Scandinavia, Alps (SudTirol), Carpathians (region we never had
before - big hole), West Siberia, East Siberia (Taimyr), and Mongolia

would be nice to have an annualized time series from China, but so far
cannot track one down

used 30-90N (land) because that is where the best paleo data - that is
where we can best validate volcano simulations, and, in general, most
people still live on land - somemore more useful metric than global temp.

note approximate 2.5 C range in temperature from depth of Little Ice Age
to present (also have extended instrumental series to 2007 - thank you
Phil) - pretty big

zero line represents Phil's calibration interval for instrumental data
(Phil - 1930-1960?)

note only ONE year rises above Phil's zero reference level -- AD 1031 -
beginning about 1920 values consistently rise above that, therefore
supporting Gabi's interpretation of detectable global warming signal by
mid-20th century

sending this out to others for any comments/questions - when we get the
annualized Greenland O18 we will be done, unless someone knows of a
reliable annual time series from China (one published last week in
Science was unfortunately biannual)

with regards, Tom

ps 1258 cooling only about 0.5C, supporting conclusions from work I am
doing with the Hamburg group that large flux at that time was associated
with increased particle size, which led to increased absorption of
longwave radiation and damping of cooling signal (which should have been
10X Pinatubo)

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, " Barker" <>, "Minns Asher Mr (ENV)" <>, "Watson, Robert (ScD)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Goodess Clare Dr (ENV)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:53:12 +0100
from: "Kevin Anderson" <>
subject: Thanks for an excellant report and Tyndall Cities Programme
to: "" <>, "" <>, "Richard Dawson" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Jim Hall" <>, "C G Kilsby" <>, "" <>, "Claire Walsh" <>

Dear All,

This is a quick email to say thanks from me and the wider Tyndall Centre for the years of
`ard graft that clearly went into your latest report. The report itself, as well as all the
other outputs, stakeholder engagement etc is a real credit to both the Cities team and
Tyndall - and certainly it is outputs like yours that will ensure Tyndall has a fruitful
and sustainable future.

I for one enjoyed the launch event and clearly John Beddington and Alex Nickson were
impressed with the report and more significantly very complementary of the active engaged
with stakeholders throughout the Cities programme - an excellent example of how Tyndall's
academic work can also be directly policy relevant.

Thanks once again - and all the best with ARCADIA

Kind regards


Ps. Jim, could you please forward my thanks to anyone I've missed in the list above.

Prof. Kevin Anderson

Research Director

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

University of East Anglia Tel:+44(0)1603 593900

University of Manchester Tel:+44(0)161 306 3701

Email: [1]

PA. Harriet Pearson

Email: [2]

Tel: 0161 275 4344