8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

1/18

Email 1 (1228922050) Re: A quick questionPosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Phil Jones To: santer1@llnl.govSubject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,Havent got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So Im notentirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would beto look on CA, but Im not doing that. I did get an emailfrom the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldnt be deleting emails-unlessthis was normal deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasntpaid his 10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three typesobservational data, paleo dataand who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter and

there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these all came fromDavid Holland. According to the FOI Commissioners Office, IPCC is aninternational organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holdsanything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anythingto do with our core business and it doesnt! Im sounding like Sir Humphrey here!McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responsesall get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them.On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a couple fromMcIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan.The latter relate to Wei-Chyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated bySUNY, Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY!

[1]http://www.informath.org/The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Keith reply.The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least twoothers from Holland.So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for puttingthings up only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads onCA.I got this email over the weekend see end of this email. This relates towhat Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as well a chattyone saying why didnt I respond to keep these people on CA quiet. Iveignored both.

Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs toanswer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how muchmoney DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that theydont give money they award grants based on open competition. DEFRAs systemalso told them there were no awards to CRU, as when we do get something it isdown as UEA!Ive occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests all from Holland.CheersPhil

Dear Mr Jones

What are you frightened of?

Is it that suddenly mugs like me who pay our taxes suddenly realise we are paying your

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

2/18

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

3/18

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, Phil Jones, QuestionEmail 2 (0839858862) Re: Your help, please?Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 1996, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Tom Wigley To: dgm@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu

Subject: Re: Your help, please?Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:07:42 -0600 (MDT)Cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, boville@ucar.edu, branst@ucar.edu, kiehl@ucar.edu, francisb@ssec.wisc.edu, rjcicero@uci.edu, covey@triton.llnl.gov, tom@astra.tamu.edu, curry@cloud.colorado.edu, pdadd@nassgiss.giss.nasa.gov, gates5@llnl.gov, graumlich@ccit.arizona.edu, dennis@atmos.washington.edu, barafu@mace.wisc.edu, tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov, lindzen@wind.mit.edu, liu@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov, sloman@wind.mit.edu,jm@gfdl.gov, rcm@lanl.gov, meehl@ucar.edu, berrien@global.sr.unh.edu, dickm@atmos.washington.edu, neelin@nino.atmos.ucla.edu, newell@newell1.mit.edu, north@csrp.tamu.edu, obrien@masig.fsu.edu, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rtp1@midwiy.uchicago.edu, ram@ucsd.edu, randall@redfish.atmos.colostate.edu, erasmu@atmos.umd.edu, cddhr@nasagiss.giss.nasa.gov, alan@atmos.umd.edu, njrosenberg@pnl.gov,

sarachik@atmos.washington.edu, schlesin@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu, schneide@cola.iges.org, shukla@cola.iges.org, esmith@metsat.met.fsu.edu, rsomervi@icsd.edu, turco@yosemite.atmos.ucla.edu, waliser@terra.msrc.sunysb.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, walsh@wx.atmos.uiuc.edu, wang@climate.asrc.albany.edu, P.D. Jones , drdendro@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mhughes@vms.ccit.arizona.edu, rbradley@climate1.geo.umass.edu, Tim Barnett , jfein@nsf.gov, Ben Santer , dgm@ldgo.columbia.edu

Dear Doug,

In response to Jay Feins e-mail re den-cen, here are some points (whichmay merely echo where you are already).

(1) Why study den-cen? Reason is: improve understanding of climatesystem to aid in detection and prediction. You should read Ch. 8(detection) of IPCC WGI SAR in this regard.

(2) How to study den-cen? Models and observed data are equallyimportant. Models (coupled O/AGCMs) can only give the internal componentof variability, instrumental and paleodata give internal-plus-external.

(3) How useful are paleodata? I support the continued collection ofsuch data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo communitytry to oversell their product. A specific example is the ice coreisotope record, which correlates very poorly with temperature on theannual to decadal timescale (and possibly also on the centurytimescale)question, how do we ever demonstrate the usefulness orotherwise of ice core isotopes on this timescale?

There are other well known proxy data issues that need careful thought

(a) Sedimentary recordsdating. Are 14C-dated records of any value atall (unless wiggle matched)?

(b) Seasonal specificityhow useful is a proxy record that tells usabout a single season (or only part of the year)?

(c) Climate variance explained by the proxy variableclose to zero for

ice core isotopes, up to 50% for tree rings, somewhere in between formost other indicators. How valuable are such partially explained recordsin helping explain the past?

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

4/18

(d) Signal-to-noise problemsa key issue is, what role has externalforcing had on climate over the past 10,000 years. There is a tendencyto interpret observed changes as evidence of external forcingusuallyunjustifiably. Few workers in the area realize that paleo interpretationhas a detection aspect, just like interpreting the past 100+ yearsonlymuch more difficult. More work is needed on this.

(e) Frequency dependence of explained variancethe classic examplehere is tree rings, where it is exceedingly difficult to get out acredible low frequency (50+ year time scale) message. Work in this areacould reap useful rewards.

(f) Coveragewhat about den-cen data from the oceans? We need muchmore of this, especially in regions that might provide insights intomechanisms (like NADW changes).

(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanicaerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more

work is required to improve thepaleo

solar forcing record and tounderstand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally

to solar forcing.

I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful

Cheers,Tom

P.S. Ive added Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Ed Cook, Keith Briffa, MalcolmHughes, Ray Bradley and Phil Jones to your mailing list.

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, it was written:

> Dear Colleague:>> Doug Martinson is the Chair of the NAS, Climate Research> Committees Dec-Cen panel. He and his Panelists are drafting a> Decadal-Century Climate Variability Science Plan (a US CLIVAR> contribution). Doug and his Panel are trying to get the broadest> possible scientific input for this Plan. Dougs approach is one> that I strongly endorse. In this reagrd he asked me to solicite> your comments on highest priority science questions and asks also> for some help regarding examples of published work that would be> useful for the Plan.>> I know you are busy, but urge you to think about this and comment.> Dougs committee meet in mid-September, so to be of most use to> him, your comments should be received by the end of August.>> Please email to Doug with a cc to me.>> Doug Martinson: dgm@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> Jay Fein: jfein@nsf.gov>> Thanks very much. Jay

>

Technorati Tags: Doug Martinson, Help, Tom WigleyEmail 3 (1229468467) FOIA request

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

5/18

Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Tom Wigley To: santer1@llnl.govSubject: Re: FOIA requestDate: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0700Cc: 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 , David C. Bader , Bill Goldstein , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Hal Graboske , Cherry Murray , mann , Michael C. MacCracken , Bill Fulkerson , Professor Glenn McGregor , Luca Delle Monache , Hack, James J. , Thomas C Peterson , vladeckd@law.georgetown.edu, miller21@llnl.gov, Michael Wehner , Bamzai, Anjuli

Dear Ben,

This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical(20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zonesas well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S,20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers online would be of great benefit to the community. In otherwords, although prompted by McIntyres request, you willactually be giving something to everyone.

Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would bean additional huge boon to the community.

For the data, what period will you cover. Although for ourpaper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data forthe full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all.This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory wedid not account for this in our paper but it is animportant issue.

This is a lot of work but the benefits to the communitywould be truly immense.

Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to listthe 47 models that he wants the data for. The current requestis ambiguous or, at least, ill defined. I think it iscrucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not goodenough FOIA requests must be clear, complete andunambiguous. This, after all, is a legal issue, and no courtof law would accept anything less.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

6/18

Ben Santer wrote:> Dear co-authors,>> I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made> a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act> (FOIA). McIntyre asked for Monthly average T2LT values for the 47> climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,

> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical> troposphere. I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.>> McIntyres request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear> Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested> records are to be provided to the FOIA Point of Contact (presumably at> NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.>> McIntyres request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the> Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined a set of 49> simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19> different models. McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century

> realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of> climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic> mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyres> understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful> analysis of climate model results.>> Over the past several weeks, Ive had a number of discussions about the> FOIA issue with PCMDIs Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL> colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these> discussions, I have decided to publish all of the climate model> surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the> tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to> upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of

> Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets> through an internal Review and Release procedure, and then placing the> datasets on PCMDIs publicly-accessible website. The website will also> provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)> temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc.>> After publication of the model data, we will inform the FOIA Point of> Contact that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly> available for bona fide scientific research.>> Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional> misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.>> By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be> providing far more than the Monthly average T2LT values mentioned in> McIntyres FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre> to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the> climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.> All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available> to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the> algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw> model temperature data.>> I hope that publication of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves> this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL.

>> With best regards,>

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

7/18

> Ben> ->> Benjamin D. Santer> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103

> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.> Tel: (925) 422-3840> FAX: (925) 422-7675> email: santer1@llnl.gov> ->

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, FOIA, FOIA Request, Request, Tom WigleyEmail 4 (1200010023) Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, somethinglike this?

Posted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Ben Santer To: Leopold Haimberger Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al., Dian, something like this?Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:07:03 -0800Reply-to: santer1@llnl.govCc: Peter Thorne , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , CarlMears , David C. Bader , Francis W. Zwiers , Frank Wentz , Melissa Free , Michael C. MacCracken , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , Susan Solomon , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , Hack, James J.

Dear Leo,

Thanks very much for your email. I can easily make the observations abit more prominent in Figure 1. As you can see from todays(voluminous!) email traffic, Ive received lots of helpful suggestionsregarding improvements to the Figures. Ill try to produce revisedversions of the Figures tomorrow.

On the autocorrelation issue: The models have a much larger range oflag-1 autocorrelation coefficients (0.66 to 0.95 for T2LT, and 0.69 to0.95 for T2) than the UAH or RSS data (which range from 0.87 to 0.89). Iwas concerned that if we used the model lag-1 autocorrelations to guidethe choice of AR-1 parameter in the synthetic data analysis, Douglassand colleagues would have an easy opening for criticising us (Aha!Santer et al. are using model results to guide them in their selectionof the coefficients for their AR-1 model!) I felt that it was much moredifficult for Douglass et al. to criticize what weve done if we usedUAH data to dictate our choice of the AR-1 parameter and the scalingfactor for the amplitude of the temporal variability.

As you know, my personal preference would be to include in our responseto Douglass et al. something like the Figure 4 that Peter has produced.

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

8/18

While inclusion of a Figure 4 is not essential for the purpose ofilluminating the statistical flaws in the Douglass et al. consistencytest, such a Figure would clearly show the (currently large) structuraluncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of the vertical profile ofatmospheric temperature changes. I think this is an important point,particularly in view of the fact that Douglass et al. failed to discussversions 1.3 and 1.4 of your RAOBCORE data even though they had

information from those datasets in their possession.

However, I fully agree with Toms comment that we dont want to doanything to steal the thunder from ongoing efforts to improvesonde-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change, and to betterquantify structural uncertainties in those estimates. Your group,together with the groups at the Hadley Centre, Yale, NOAA ARL and NOAAGFDL, deserve great credit for making significant progress on adifficult, time-consuming, yet important problem.

I guess the best solution is to leave this decision up to all of you(the radiosonde dataset developers). Im perfectly happy to include a

version of Figure 4 in our response to Douglass et al. If we do go withinclusion of a Figure 4, you, Peter, Dian, Melissa, Steve Sherwood andJohn should decide whether you feel comfortable providing radiosondedata for such a Figure. I will gladly abide by your decisions. As younote in your email, our use of a Figure 4 would not preclude a moredetailed and thorough comparison of simulated and observed amplificationin some later publication.

Once again, thanks for all your help with this project, Leo.

With best regards,

Ben

Leopold Haimberger wrote:> All,>> These three figures are really very clear and leave no doubts that the> Douglass et al analysis is flawed. This is true especially for Fig. 1.> In Fig. 1 one has to look carefully to find the RSS and UAH observed> trends to the right of all the model trends. Maybe one can make their> symbols more prominent.>> Concerning Fig. 3 I wonder whether the UAH autocorrelation is the lowest> of all available data. .86 is quite substantial autocorrelation. Maybe> it is a good idea to be on the safe side and use the lowest> autocorrelation of all datasets (models, RSS, UAH) for this analysis.>> Concerning Fig. 4, I like Peters and Dians idea to include RAOBCORE,> HadAT2, RATPAC and Steves data and compare it in one plot with model> output. While I agree that the first three figures and the corresponding> text are already sufficient for the reply, they target mainly to the> right panel of Fig. 1 in Douglass et als paper. The trend profile plot> of Fig. 4 is complementary as a counterpart to the left panel of their> plot. To see the trend amplification in in some of the vertical profiles> is much more suggestive than seeing the LT trends being larger than> surface trends, at least for me. Showing all available profiles adds> value beyond the RAOBCORE v1.2 vs RAOBCORE v1.4 issue. Yes, it is work> in progress and such a plot as drafted by Peter makes that very clear.

> In this paper it is sufficient to show that the uncertainty of> radiosonde trends is much larger than suggested by Douglass et al. and> we do not need to have the final answer yet. I have nothing against

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

9/18

> Peter doing the drawing of the figure, since he has most of the> necessary data. The plot would be needed for 1979-1999, however. Peter,> I will send you the trend profiles for this period a bit later.>> Publishing the reply in either IJC or GRL including Fig. 4 is fine for me.> When we first discussed a follow up of the Santer et al paper in> October, we had in mind to publish post-FAR climate model data up to

> present (not just 1999) and also new radiosonde data up to present in a> highest ranking journal. I am confident that this is still possible even> if some of the new material planned for such a paper is submitted> already now. What do you think?>> With best Regards,>> Leo>> Peter Thorne wrote:>> All,>>

>> as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This>> has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,>> but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for>> where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to>> use it. To do this Ive taken every single scrap of info I have in my>> possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have>> considered the common period of 1979-2004. So, assuming you are all>> sitting comfortably:>>>> Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.>> See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling>> factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to>> HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if

>> we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or>> not depending upon ones pre-conceived notion as to whether the models>> are correct.>>>> Red is HadAT2 dataset.>>>> black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all>> tropical stations with a 81-2000 climatology)>>>> Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from>> Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world>> assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here>> and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.>>>> Bright green is RATPAC>>>> Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here>> and not me so any final version Id want to get the raw gridded data and>> do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided>> as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (> height) difference:>>>> Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment>> estimates)>>

>> Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2>> Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3>> Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

10/18

>>>> I am also in possession of Steves submitted IUK dataset and will be>> adding this trend line shortly.>>>> Ill be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.>>>> My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that

>> this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer>> et al. Figure 3.B.>>>> Ill be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for>> it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for>> Leos to be used. Whatever people prefer.>>>> Peter>>>>>> >>

>

-Benjamin D. SanterProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and IntercomparisonLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryP.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.Tel: (925) 422-2486FAX: (925) 422-7675email: santer1@llnl.gov-

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Leopold Haimberger, Response, UpdateEmail 5 (1254108338) 1940sPosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2009, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Tom Wigley To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940sDate: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600Cc: Ben Santer

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partlyexplain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as Im sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,then this would be significant for the global mean butwed still have to explain the land blip.

Ive chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves anocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

11/18

ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some commonforcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all ofthese). When you look at other blips, the land blips are1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips higher sensitivityplus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves thingsconsistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,but we are still left with why the blip.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosoleffect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reducedocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a coolingin the NH just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note fromMAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can

get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukalsolar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940smakes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which itcurrently is not) but not really enough.

So why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so Idappreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls

Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS

Technorati Tags: 1940s, Phil Jones, Tom WigleyEmail 6 (1216753979) Re: A long and rocky roadPosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Tim Osborn To: santer1@llnl.govSubject: Re: A long and rocky roadDate: Tue Jul 22 15:12:59 2008

Dear Ben,well, thanks for your thanks. Im not sure that I did all that much, but glad that thesmall amount is appreciated. Its a shame that the process couldnt have been quickerstill, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly.Thanks for the copy of the paper, which Ive skim read already looks very carefully doneand therefore convincing (Im sure you already heard that from others).

I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision of SOM is arelatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

12/18

problems.A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has itsSOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but Ill now email Glenn to remind himof this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I think this

is a problem on the publishers side of things rather than an editorial problem.Because of our absent SOM, weve temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personalwebsite. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complainif thepaper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on yourown websitewhen the paper appears online. But hopefully therell be no problem with it!I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Toms wedding hope that was fun!Best regardsTimAt 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote:

Dear Tim,Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and isin press at IJoC. Ive appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. Itsbeen a long and rocky road, and Ill be quite glad if I never have to write another MSUpaper again ever!Id be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC nowhasonline publication, were hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks.Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the

submission of the paper to IJoC.With best regards,Ben-Benjamin D. SanterProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and IntercomparisonLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryP.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.Tel: (925) 422-3840FAX: (925) 422-7675email: santer1@llnl.gov-

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, Road, Tim OsbornEmail 7 (1224005421) ResponsePosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2008, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Ben Santer To: David Douglass Subject: ResponseDate: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:30:21 -0700Reply-to: santer1@llnl.govCc: Peter W. Thorne , Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor ,

Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Philip D. Jones , Thomas R Karl

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

13/18

, Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , Professor Glenn McGregor , David C. Bader

Prof. Douglass,

You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in ourrecently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology(IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the calculationswe performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome to do so.

We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) tocalculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmosphericlevels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation ofzonal means. You can compare your results directly with those displayedin Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our numerical quantities inorder to determine whether we have correctly calculated zonal-mean

trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric amplification ofsurface temperature changes.

Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation ofsynthetic MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms forcalculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselvesand others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have alreadydemonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable ofcomputing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output.Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have alreadysuccessfully replicated our model average synthetic MSU temperaturetrends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report).

In summary, you have access to the same model and observational datathat we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information thatyou require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in ourIJoC paper are sound or unsound.

You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints againstme with the journal and other scientific bodies. If I were you, Dr.Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the seriouserror in the robust statistical test that you applied to comparemodeled and observed temperature trends.

I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoCpaper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They deserve tobe fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints.

Please do not communicate with me in the future.

Ben Santer

David Douglass wrote:> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and> should not be a personal matter.> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with conclusions> based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As another scientist,> I challenge the value of those quantities. These values can not be

> authenticated by my calculating them because I have nothing to compare> them to.>

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

14/18

> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other> scientific bodies.>> David Douglass-Benjamin D. Santer

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and IntercomparisonLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryP.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.Tel: (925) 422-3840FAX: (925) 422-7675email: santer1@llnl.gov-

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Response

Email 8 (1197507092)Re: Douglass paperPosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2007, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Ben Santer To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: Douglass paperDate: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:51:32 -0800Reply-to: santer1@llnl.govCc: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tom Wigley

Dear Tim,

Thanks for the heads up. As Phil mentioned, I was already aware ofthis. The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finallyaccepted by IJC. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC.It has serious scientific flaws. Im already working on a response.

Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass etal. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did notsupport their models are wrong argument (even though they had thesedatasets in their possession). Pretty deplorable behaviour

Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining thetemperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negativesensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christysure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators

With best regards,

Ben

Tim Osborn wrote:> Hi Ben,>> I guess its likely that youre aware of the Douglass paper thats just> come out in IJC, but in case you arent then a reprint is attached.

> They are somewhat critical of your 2005 paper, though I recall that some> (most?) of Douglass previous papers and papers that hes tried to> get through the review process appear to have serious problems.

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

15/18

>> cc Phil & Keith for your interest too!>> Cheers>> Tim> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow

> Climatic Research Unit> School of Environmental Sciences> University of East Anglia> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK>> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk> phone: +44 1603 592089> fax: +44 1603 507784> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>

-Benjamin D. SanterProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and IntercomparisonLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryP.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.Tel: (925) 422-2486FAX: (925) 422-7675email: santer1@llnl.gov-

Technorati Tags: Ben Santer, David Douglass, Douglass Paper, Paper, Tim OsbornEmail 9 (1098472400) Re: MBHPosted on Dec 01, 2009 under 2004, Climategate Emails 1 - 100 No Comment

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: MBHDate: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004Cc: santer1@llnl.gov

Tom,Just got the Science attachments for the von Storch et al. paper for Tim and Keith, soI thought you might like to see them. Ive just sent a reply to von Storch as heclaimshis model is a better representation of reality than MBH. How a model that is only givenpast forcing histories can be better than some proxy data is beyond me, but Hansseemsto believe this. The ERA-40 report and JGR paper are relevant here. ERA-40 is not ofclimate quality. There are differences and trends with CRU data before the late1970sand again around the mid-1960s that should include other variables that are calculated.

It is so bad in the Antarctic that ERA-40 rejects most of the surface obs (because theyget little weight) and they dont begin to get accepted until the late 1970s. Conc

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

16/18

lusionis thatyou cant consider ERA-40 for climate purposes. Maybe the next generation, with aconsiderableefforts in getting all the missing back data in and changes to weights given tosurfacedata might

mean the 3rd generation is better.I shouldnt rabbit on about this as I have to go home to drive with Ruth to Gatwickforour week in Florence. A lot of people criticise MBH and other papers Mike has beeninvolved in, but how many people read them fully or just read bits like the attached.The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong invirtuallyeverything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were usedin the

Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doingthis -only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrongyear/decade.I wasted a few hours checking what Id done and got no thanks for pointing their mistakeoutto them.If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site[1]http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/It will take a while to get around these web pages and youve got to be a bit of nerd and

knowthe jargon, but it lists all the mistakes McKittrick has made in various papers.I betthere isnta link to this on his web site. The final attachment is a comment on a truly awful paperbyMcKittirck and Michaels. I cant find the original, but its reference is in this. Thepaper didntconsider spatial autocorrelation at all. Fortunately a longer version of the paper did getrejected by IJC it seems a few papers are rejected !Point Im trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good away of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the work in theHolocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keithsreconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mikes may haveslightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esperet al),buthe is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the

summerand none are truly annual I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !Bottom line their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as th

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

17/18

elast 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg Con a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, butyears of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.

CheersPhil

At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:

Phil,I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work an opinion I have heldfor some time.Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? or is it?I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is toodeep into this to be helpful.

Tom.

Prof. Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784University of East AngliaNorwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.ukNR4 7TJUK-

References

1. http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/

Technorati Tags: MBH, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley Previous EntriesRed Hot LiesRed Hot LiesAn expos of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them.Categories

* 1996* 1997* 1998* 1999* 2000* 2001* 2002* 2003* 2004* 2005* 2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* Climategate Emails

* Climategate Emails 1 100* Climategate Emails 1001 1073* Climategate Emails 101 200

8/14/2019 the hacked emails from climatologists

18/18

* Climategate Emails 201 300* Climategate Emails 301 400* Climategate Emails 401 500* Climategate Emails 501 600* Climategate Emails 601 700* Climategate Emails 701 800* Climategate Emails 801 900

* Climategate Emails 901 1000* Extra

Pages

* Contact us

TagsBBC BBC on Climate Ben Santer Carl Mears Caspar Ammann Clare Goodess Climate Climategate Emails Data David Douglass Edward Cook ENSO Eystein Jansen Fred SingerGabi Hegerl Gavin Schmidt Grant Foster IJoC IPCC ITRDB ITRDB FOR John Christy John Lanzante Jonathan Overpeck Karl Taylor Keith Briffa Kevin Trenberth Leopold H

aimberger Malcolm Hughes Melissa Free Michael E. Mann Mike Hulme Paper Peter Thorne Phil Jones Rashit Hantemirov Raymond Bradley Stepan Shiyatov Stephen Schneider Susan Solomon Thomas R. Karl Tim Osborn Tom Crowley Tom Wigley YamalSearch for:Archives

* December 2009

Meta

* Log in* Entries RSS* Comments RSS

* WordPress.org

Tony Haryanto