Wednesday, November 30, 2011

0280.txt

date: Mon Aug 10 09:50:21 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Proposal as it stands -- now I need your help!
to: "Stott, Peter" <peter.stottatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "claudia tebaldi" <ctebaldiatXYZxyzmatecentral.org>, "Myles Allen" <allenatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk>, "Knutti Reto" <reto.knuttiatXYZxyz.ethz.ch>, "Gabi Hegerl" <gabi.hegerlatXYZxyzac.uk>, "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" <francis.zwiersatXYZxyzgc.ca>, "Tim Barnett" <tbarnett-ulatXYZxyzd.edu>, "Hans von Storch" <hvonstorchatXYZxyz.de>, "David Karoly" <dkarolyatXYZxyzmelb.edu.au>, "Toru Nozawa" <nozawa@nies.go.jp>, "Ben Santer" <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, "Daithi Stone" <stonedatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk>, "Richard Smith" <rlsatXYZxyzil.unc.edu>, "Nathan Gillett" <n.gillettatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Michael Wehner" <MFWehneratXYZxyz.gov>, "Doug Nychka" <nychkaatXYZxyzr.edu>, "Xuebin Zhang" <Xuebin.ZhangatXYZxyzgc.ca>, "Tom Knutson" <Tom.KnutsonatXYZxyza.gov>, "Tim Delsole" <delsoleatXYZxyza.iges.org>, "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)" <gareth.s.jonesatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Stephen Leroy" <leroyatXYZxyzrp.harvard.edu>, <seung-ki.minatXYZxyzgc.ca>

Dear Claudia,
Here are a few thoughts as I'm off for a couple of weeks off from Thursday this week.
We can go with a proposal that is more of the same - more D&A studies with more variables
globally and some getting down to regional scales. My weekend thoughts were that we could
structure the proposal a little differently to try and explain more why temperature seems
to work well, but variables like precipitation and pressure require GCM and RCM output to
be scaled. D&A work began with temperature using monthly gridded datasets at as near to
global scales as obs data allows. We've gone down to the daily time scale with
precipitation and temperature extremes and also gone down to regional space scales for
specific events (like the 2003 European Heat Wave). It is at these regional scales that
most people would like to see AGW explanations of recent changes. It is at these finer
temporal and spatial scales that we need to emphasize in the proposal - something that is
already there in the proposal outline. Reducing the temporal scale to daily limits us due
to data availability, except for some long daily series in a few areas.
My thought is that we need to try to also explain why AGW runs underestimate things for
variables like precipitation and pressure. For precipitation, there are two aspects - the
amounts and also the number of raindays. Monthly gridded precipitation datasets have also
been developed for raindays, so it's possible to also look at amounts per event. Models
probably don't do raindays that well, and there will be issues of comparing point values
which are gridded to boxes, while models do these areas directly. There are also issues of
what threshold for a rainday to use. It would also be possible to look at how the
parameters of say the Gamma Distribution are changing and whether models reproduce these
well or not.
In CRU, we have gridded PDSI series available and a paper soon to be submitted. This
uses a different formulation for the potential evapotranspiration (than the traditional
Thornthwaite) but it doesn't seem to make much difference to first few PCs. So, I'm
suggesting two work tasks, which would be at both the global land scale and also at the
regional land scale.
Using D&A with PDSI. There is quite a bit of number crunching here to get Penman PET
from GCM and RCM output. It's a bit of a hobby horse of mine to get modellers to output
PET, as it is so useful for impacts people.
Using D&A with parameters from the precipitation distribution (mainly monthly, but daily
would be possible where datasets are good enough).
I can sketch out some text for these two, if they are considered useful, and there is a
limit of how much text each sub task requires - I guess not much else the proposal would
get too long.
As for the tasks and sub-tasks already there, I'd like to be involved in the one numbered
1.4 and also the one with Gabi on regional variability over the last millennium (which is
probably just Europe and North America).
1.4 requires these noise-reduction techniques (taking out ENSO, volcanoes and circulation
influences a la
Dave Thompson) to be applied to GCMs as well. Worth trying at the global and hemispheric
scale first.
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to go down the operational D&A route, but we do try
and need to explain why temperature works well on all space and temporal scales but precip
and pressure require considerable scaling. I've no ideas on what to do about pressure.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:46 04/08/2009, Stott, Peter wrote:

Dear Claudia,
I'm off on vacation tomorrow and therefore somewhat stretched for a very
considered response from me - sorry - but the items I have my name
against look fine to me. There are a couple of items I couldn't find
which we could offer something up if we think appropriate
- attribution of ocean changes including temperature, salinity and sea
level rise to include new datasets, model analyses and methodologies
(could include Ben, Tim, Peter, ...) to answer questions such as can we
close sea level budget, can we better determine planetary radiative
imbalance ...
- hydrological cycle changes using new techniques, datasets (eg salinity
in addition to ocean analyses if we can use them), models etc to
attribute greenhouse gas and aerosols on hydrological cycle changes and
determine whether (as has been suggested) models generally underestimate
observed hydrological cycle changes, both means and extremes (could
include Myles, Peter, Francis ? ...)
I liked the
"Critical review of methods used for proposed operational attribution
programmes."
bullet. I think it would be good if IDAG could provide an assessment of
proposed methodologies and what would need to be done/satisfied for
output to be reliable, robust and timely. Along these lines we have
planned a BAMS paper which I was in line to lead. This might takes us a
bit of the way if we can get the people involved in this development
actively engaged in such a paper. Right now a many-author many-viewpoint
BAMS paper sounds a bit of a daunting prospect but maybe it will seem
more achievable after a break.
Finally I've attached the WIRE article I submitted yesterday by Stott,
Gillett, Hegerl, Karoly, Stone, Zhang, Zwiers (form some reason the
submission page only allowed me to enter 2 names in the relevant field,
hence only the first two appear on the covering page). This is one of
IDAG's paper deliverables I think (?).
All the best with getting the proposal off,
Peter
Dr. Peter Stott
Head, Climate Monitoring and Attribution,
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter. EX1 3PB, UK
Tel +44(0)1392 886646 Fax +44(0)1392885681
Email: peter.stottatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk
[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: claudia.tebaldiatXYZxyzil.com [[2]mailto:claudia.tebaldiatXYZxyzil.com] On
Behalf Of claudia tebaldi
Sent: 31 July 2009 19:51
To: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Gabi Hegerl; Zwiers,Francis
[Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru
Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael
Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Jones,
Gareth S (Climate Scientist); Stephen Leroy; seung-ki.minatXYZxyzgc.ca
Subject: Proposal as it stands -- now I need your help!
Dear all
please find attached the current version of the IDAG proposal. Please
disregard the format of the reference list for now, I'm going to work on
the cosmetics later (but feel free to add to that as you see fit).
I wish I knew exactly when the deadline for submitting this was, but
meanwhile, could I ask you for some specific input and some more general
feedback at your earliest convenience, and please *****no later than
August 20th?*****
Here at first is a specific list :
1) Those of you in charge of the specific tasks that were highlighted at
the meeting (you know who you are) could you please look at the
task/subtask list and clean it up/flesh it out/make it a little more
coherent? Add or take out as you see fit!
2) All of you: could you sign up for specific subtasks and give me an
idea of a 3-yr timeline for these activities that you would like to
follow? Please iterate with the heads of the task for this if you need
to work something out...
3) All of you fully funded, please send me a brief bio-sketch -- and
whatever you gave Gabi in the past in terms of financial information for
the funds you need, could you please send it on to me, updated?
Then a more general list:
I would REALLY REALLY appreciate it if you all read the 'thing' and made
comments/added/corrected as you see fit (of course with track changes
on!). I rather have too much and work on shedding than have gaping
holes in this narrative.
Everybody that recognizes his/her work in the Scientific background
section: would you please paste in a figure (and a description) to make
this think less black and white?
I hope this is not too much to ask on this fairly short timeline, I
really need some help here at this point. And help means both addition
to and refurbishing of what's in there but also checks and, by all
means, corrections.
Thank you very much in advance, and please let me have something within
the deadline!!!
Hope you are all having a good summer (and this does not spoil it!)
best to all
claudia
--
Claudia Tebaldi
Research Scientist, Climate Central
[3]http://www.climatecentral.org
currently visiting Stanford University,
Department of Statistics
tel. 650 796 6974
cell 303 775 5365

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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0279.txt

date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:14:30 +0100 (BST)
from: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
subject: Re: new zealand temps: crutem2 to crutem3
to: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Tim,
Maybe you should see David if he can recall making any changes to land
stations over NZ - and if so when? There might have been changes
immedaiately after Jones and Moberg (2003) that Harry wasn't aware of.
Another thought is to check whether your programs work with CRUTEM2 as
of now. CRUTEM2 data are on the CRU site, go to the temp page and they
are near the bottom.

Cheers
Phil

> Phil, I had a look at figure 1 of Brohan et al. showing land station
> coverage and coloured dots for new/deleted/edited stations. All in
> New Zealand are black, implying no change from CRUTEM2! I'll check
> with programs again in case I screwed up, but fairly confident I
> didn't -- so its rather confusing as to why CRUTEM2 and 3 are so
> different over New Z. in summer. Tim
>
> At 21:27 11/09/2009, you wrote:
>> Tim,
>> This one would be good enough. I don't know if it is the right one.
>> We
>>also got some additional NZ stations as well.
>> It is more about exposures in Australia - that cause the pre-1910
>> data
>>to be less good.
>> For NZ, it is more work on the early NZ data. Exposures would be a
>>problem, but before about 1880. There was a gap in much NZ data during
>>the 1870s. It may be that we had only a couple of sites for V2, but got
>>several more for V3.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>> > Hi Phil,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering how best to explain the cause of the change in New
>> Zealand
>> > summer temps from crutem2 to crutem3. I could just say that crutem3
>> uses
>> > differently (or better?) homogenised stations records from some
>> locations
>> > (could I say that the homogenisation adjusted for 19th century
>> exposures
>> > being different?), with a pers. comm. to you. But if there's a
>> reference
>> > for homogenised New Zealand data, that would be better. I saw this
>> one,
>> > by Jim Salinger that mentions "newly homogenised SW Pacific data" and
>> > includes New Zealand. Would this be what you now use?
>> >
>> > Salinger MJ (1995)
>> > Southwest Pacific temperatures: trends in maximum and minimum
>> temperatures
>> > Atmospheric Research
>> > Volume 37, Issues 1-3, July 1995, Pages 87-99
>> > Minimax Workshop
>> >
>> > doi:10.1016/0169-8095(94)00071-K
>> >
>> >
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3YRS4V8-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1007383597&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f3e472de489b183ec5de1f89ff066304>
>> >
>> > Though I can't download the PDF from home to see what it says.
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Tim Osborn
>> > RCUK Academic Fellow
>> > Climatic Research Unit
>> > School of Environmental Sciences
>> > University of East Anglia
>> > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>> > www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.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
>
>
>


0278.txt

date: Tue Sep 11 10:54:57 2001
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: The Coldest March
to: Mary Pallister <m.pallisteratXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Mary
I am attending a meeting in Switzerland at that time. Please send my apologies to Stuart.
Keith
At 10:40 AM 9/11/01 +0100, you wrote:

Dear All
You may recall Professor Penkett wrote to you on 14th August, inviting you to The
Coldest March: Scott's Fatal Antarctic Expedition, an illustrated talk and book-signing
by Dr Susan Solomon, followed by an invitation-only reception in the Sainsbury Centre
which is taking place on Monday 24 September.
I would be most grateful if you could please let me know as soon as possible whether you
will be able to attend, so that I can confirm numbers for catering.
Thank you very much and if you would like any further information, please let me know.
Kind regards
Mary
--

+++
Mary Pallister
science communications officer
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
dir tel: 01603 593 007
dir fax: 01603 259 883
e-mail: m.pallisteratXYZxyz.ac.uk
web: [1]www.uea.ac.uk

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

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

0277.txt

cc: geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.com, "Wilkins, Diana (GA)" <Diana.WilkinsatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>
date: Thu May 29 10:24:52 2003
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: response to Hans Verolme
to: "Warrilow, David (GA)" <David.WarrilowatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>, "'Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk'" <Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk>, simon.brownatXYZxyzoffice.com, "Johnson, Cathy (GA)" <Cathy.JohnsonatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>, "John Schellnhuber (E-mail)" <h.j.schellnhuberatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Martin Parry (E-mail)" <parrymlatXYZxyz.com>

David (and others),
My quick answer to this would include the following:
- there is clear evidence that some types of extreme weather in some regions of the world
are increasing; this is the solid conclusion reached in Chapter 2 of TAW WGI - so Jerry
Taylor from Cato Institute is wrong; (but this is not a mandate to say we are seeing
increases in all types of extreme weather everywhere);
- there is reasonably well founded basis for claiming that at least some of these extreme
weather changes are associated with planetary warming;
- whether emerging and future changes pose "catastrophic" risks for poor citizens is more
of a value statement than the result of careful scientific analysis; poor citizens are
currently exposed to what many people would regard as unacceptable climate hazards -
destabilising world climate will certainly add to these risks unless adaptive measures are
implemented;
- the argument about rising damages over the last 20-30 years (cf. M-R report and others) I
think says more about the insurance industry than it does about climate change (i.e., I
would not use these data as the primary basis for judging whether extreme weather was
changing); it is very difficult to pull out the climate signal from such data and even
harder to pull out the anthropogenic climate signal (and also to extrapolate such curves
out to 2060 and claim, as some have done, that we then face climate damage of 50% of GWP is
not wise);
- this issue is pertinent to questions of what is dangerous climate change - in a sense
what is important about the exponentially rising damage curves from the insurance people is
what it reveals about our exposure to climate risk and how we try to protect (insure)
against that risk and hence our expectations about how climate (and hence climate change)
impacts on our lives and well-being; this curve suggests therefore a different way of
approaching dangerous climate change - not in a formal scientific sense of attributing
cause and effect but in the sense that experience and expectation are powerful drivers of
perception, things that are all wrapped-up in any definition of "danger".
Mike Hulme
At 11:33 28/05/2003 +0100, Warrilow, David (GA) wrote:

Hans

I don't think there is a quick answer. There is evidence that extremes are getting
larger and Hadley Centre is working on this. Their quantification on the driver side
would be useful. The damage end is undoubtedly more difficult as there are several
factors to assess 1) increased frequency of extremes, 2) changes to planning policy or
practice, leading to increased exposure and other physical changes 3) more expensive
property (although M-R report is normalised at 1990 prices or some such). There may be
other factors too.

I am sure Simon can help with factor (1)
I am also copying this to Martin Parry, co-chair of IPCC WG2 and Mike Hulme/John
Schellenhuber at the Tyndall Centre for their comments on points (2) and (3). Their
views on the M-R figures would be useful. Grateful for short replies by end of week if
possible?

David


-----Original Message-----
From: Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk [[1]mailto:Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 May 2003 20:48
To: simon.brownatXYZxyzoffice.com; Johnson, Cathy (GA)
Cc: Warrilow, David (GA); geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.com
Subject: RE: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
While causing trouble. Can you all give an authoritative view in response to the
following quote?:
"It's false," said Jerry Taylor, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C. "There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on
the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a
reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."
This in response to the latest Worldwatch Institute report Vital Signs 2003 (see
below). How does that stack up relative to Munich and Swiss Re. views? Is there
research on increased intensity and frequency of 'extreme events'? As the debate on
adaptation v mitigation in the US becomes more alive this will be another issue we
will be asked to comment on.
Cheers,
HANS
Poor to bear brunt of climate change -- Worldwatch
Lauren Miura, Greenwire reporter
Rising temperatures, extreme weather events and other consequences associated with
global climate change pose "catastrophic" risks to the world's poorest citizens,
according to a Worldwatch Institute report released yesterday. On the positive side,
the report notes wind power generation has expanded in recent years and is expected
increase 15-fold over the next two decades.
The report, Vital Signs 2003, is Worldwatch Institute's annual summary of dozens of
economic, environmental and social trends. Researchers at the Institute, in
cooperation with the United Nations Environment Programme, use the report to gauge
the health of societies around the world and the global environment. This year's
report focuses on poverty and its link to social, health and environmental problems.
As levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climb, the report said, so have
average global temperatures -- leaving many of the world's poorest nations facing
the brunt of the consequences. "The burdens of climate change are far from evenly
distributed," said Molly O'Meara Sheehan, a senior researcher with Worldwatch.
For example, the report identifies erratic weather patterns -- what some scientists
believe to be an effect of climate change -- as the primary cause of famine for
millions of Africans. Over the past two decades, floods and other weather-related
natural disasters have prompted nearly 10 million people to migrate from Bangladesh
to India, creating immense population pressure.
In 2002, the report said economic damages from weather disasters were estimated at
$53 billion, a 93 percent jump from 2001, partially because of the return of El
Nino. Weather disasters were also blamed for nearly 8,000 deaths, according to the
report. Such trends are likely to continue, the report says, as "scientists believe
that rising global temperatures may increase the intensity and frequency of extreme
weather events even more."
Buildings and infrastructure in developing countries are also less likely to
withstand extreme weather events, Sheehan said. Moreover, public health systems in
poor countries are less able to handle emergencies, she said, meaning "those sorts
of weather disasters are likely to hit them harder."
Rising sea levels also pose serious threats to small island nations, the report
says. Some island states that have compiled "worst-case scenarios" anticipate a
1-meter rise in sea level over the next 100 years. More immediate problems
associated with rising seas include flooding, coastal erosion, coral bleaching and
economic losses. "In terms of vulnerability, [island nations] are the most at risk,"
the report says, although "they account for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse
gas emissions."
Critics condemned Worldwatch's link between climate change and severe weather
events. "It's false," said Jerry Taylor, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C. "There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on
the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a
reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."
Wind power surges
Wind power is the world's fastest-growing energy source, with an average growth rate
of 33 percent between 1998 and 2002, according to the report. Natural gas, the
fastest growing energy source among fossil fuels, grew at an annual rate of 2
percent. European countries led the push for wind power, particularly Germany, Spain
and Denmark.
Among the report's other findings:
Roughly 25 percent of the world's armed conflicts in recent years have involved
fights over natural resources, and virtually all of the conflicts have occurred in
poor countries.
There are approximately 50 million "environmental refugees" around the world, people
driven from their homes by drought, floods and other envirnmental problems resulting
from human and natural activities.
World population growth has slowed, but the 49 poorest countries in the world are
growing at an average of 2.4 percent per year -- nearly 10 times the annual growth
of industrialized nations.
Worldwatch president Christopher Flavin expressed his concern that a struggling
global economy and efforts to restore peace in the Middle East will overshadow the
need to address the causes and consequences of poverty in developing countries. "The
human tragedies behind the statistics in Vital Signs 2003 are compelling reminders
that social and environmental progress are not luxuries that can be set aside when
the world is experiencing economic and political problems," he said.
See [2]http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/vs/2003/overview.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Simon [[3]mailto:simon.brownatXYZxyzoffice.com]
Sent: 23 May 2003 12:12
To: 'Johnson, Cathy (GA)'
Cc: 'Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk'; Jenkins, Geoff
Subject: RE: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
Cathy,
re:
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in
closing intervened claiming the IPCC had recently refused to accept data
supporting Soon's argument and stating the raison d'etre of IPCC was to prop
up the FCCC. Does anyone have background on such recent exchanges with
sceptics and the IPCC?
I remember something along the lines that the National Academy of Science
was asked to determine how much the IPCC was swayed by politics and came out
with a fairly strong statement that it was clean. It might be on file...
Hans - regarding Ebell's comment on data - IPCC accepts all data which is
properly reviewed and published. If it wasn't accepted then there is a
reason.
Simon.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jenkins, Geoff
> Sent: 22 May 2003 09:56
> To: 'Johnson, Cathy (GA)'; 'Phil Jones'; 'Peter Stott';
> 'Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk'
> Cc: Brown, Simon; Tett, Simon
> Subject: RE: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
>
> Hans
>
> Thanks for your comprehensive report of the meeting. I am glad that we
> were able to help - and that you were able to use the ammunition on the
> day.
>
> You ask a couple of questions - I have put them in red in your email so
> that others can add.
> I recall Enegry and Environment publishing un-peer-reviewed sceptcal stuff
> before. It was when David Everest (ex- Cheif Scientist of DOE, who told me
> off for being too green when I worked there!) was the editor. I wrote to
> him to complain and he wrote back saying the editorial had made that
> plain; poor sceptics didnt get a voice etc etc. All copied to DoE, but
> maybe 5 or 6 years ago now.
>
> I would agree that the raison detre of IPCC is to support FCCC! but
> probably not in the way that was meant, ie it provides impartial
> scientific evidence and doesnt support any particular policy eg Kyoto. I
> guess "exchanges between IPCC and sceptics" have been/will be within
> individual chapters (eg that on detection and attribution).
>
> Re data: as far as I am aware all our data sets (and those joint with Phil
> Jones) are available to bona fide researchers, and can be got from Simon
> Tett here of Phil at UEA. Websites give info on this.
> Phil/Simon - can you agree/disagree/expand please?
>
> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
> IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
> of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. I have to
> say that at no time did we come under any even slight pressure to get us
> to say or omit anything in papers we wrote. Of course in Soon's case they
> already knew where he stood, so I guess could be confident that he would
> use their money to come up with more sceptical stuff.
>
> Peter, Simon (and Phil) - thank you for helping DEFRA/FCO with information
> and comments etc.
>
> Bestw ishes
>
> Geoff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnson, Cathy (GA) [SMTP:Cathy.JohnsonatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk]
> Sent: 21 May 2003 09:20
> To: 'Phil Jones'; 'Peter Stott'
> Cc: 'Geoff Jenkins'
> Subject: FW: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
>
> Peter and Phil
> see message from Hans - to which I add defra's thanks!
> Cathy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk
> [[4]mailto:Hans.VerolmeatXYZxyz.gsi.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:59 PM
> To: Johnson, Cathy (GA)
> Cc: Warrilow, David (GA); Noguer, Maria (GA);
> Christian.TurneratXYZxyz.gov.uk; Jonathan.Temple@fco.gov.uk
> Subject: RE: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
>
>
>
> Cathy, please pass to Hadley / UEA
>
> All,
> Thank you, in particular to Peter Stott at the Hadley Centre and
> Phil Jones at U. East Anglia, for the excellent speaking points for the
> briefing by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
> Astrophysics organized by the climate sceptic Marshall Insitute. The event
> went well, if maybe not the way the organizers and their sponsor, Senator
> George Allan (R-Virginia), had expected.
>
> The audience if not already firmly in the sceptic camp likely came
> away with little confidence in the scientific credibility of the Marshall
> Institute and the work of Dr. Soon.
>
> The presentation consisted of a jumble of over 40 transparencies
> showing various temperature records from around the globe, most of them
> pre-instrumental proxies. Dr. Soon presented them as evidence of the
> occurrence of a medieval warm period and a little ice age and argued that
> the present-day instrumental record compared against the historical record
> provided no evidence of 20th century warming.
>
> During the Q&A that followed, Soon quickly conceded the
> synchronicity point saying further research was needed.
>
> Greenpeace then challenged Soon on the issue of peer review and the
> Marshall Insitute on its sources of funding (which include ExxonMobil).
> Soon responded the article had been published by the "Journal of Energy
> and Environment." (Any views on the status of the Journal?). Bill O'Keefe,
> the president of the Institute, stated ExxonMobil's contribution had not
> influenced the research in any way.
>
> A question about present climate change impacts such as retreating
> glaciers and decreases in sea ice thickness was partly ignored, partly
> portrayed as requiring significant further research. Even so, Soon went on
> to say, paleo-records show increased CO2 levels should not be of concern,
> double the present levels had occurred. He came out of the climate-closet
> and people perked up.
>
> I took a gentler initial approach, drawing people's attention to the
> endorsement by the National Academy of Sciences of the IPCC TAR and
> President Bush' acceptance of that view. Soon responded by saying most if
> not all of his data were published post-TAR.
>
> Noting the IPCC acknowledged uncertainties and degrees of
> confidence, I explained how these were not grounds for inaction. Soon
> responded they were not uncertainties but unknowns and therefore provided
> no basis for action. (A point lost on most of the audience from my
> reading).
>
> Soon got nervous when I asked him about the manner in which he had
> chosen to represent other peoples data, such as Tom Crowley's. He refused
> to answer the question and asked me to discuss it outside the meeting. He
> claimed he was "merely a synthesizer." You seem to have found a weak spot
> here, keep at it. He further said I was misunderstanding his presentation
> of the data on the medieval warm period and little ice age. Some in the
> audience audibly disagreed. Your points were well taken.
>
> Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in closing
> intervened claiming the IPCC had recently refused to accept data
> supporting Soon's argument and stating the raison d'etre of IPCC was to
> prop up the FCCC. Does anyone have background on such recent exchanges
> with sceptics and the IPCC?
>
> The meeting disbanded in a somewhat disorganized manner. Mission
> accomplished.
>
>
> Follow-up
>
> Jeff Nesmith of the Cox Newspapers group is working on a piece
> exposing the sceptics. We agreed to speak.
>
> Staff in Rep. Bart Gordon's office (D-Tennessee) told me Rep. Sherry
> Boehlert (R-NY chair of the Science Cie.) had pursuaded Rep. Mark Udall
> (D-Colorado) not to add a climate amendment to recent legislation.
> Boehlert who is an ally and expert politician said it would unnecessarily
> antagonize the House leadership and stood no chance of passing. I concur.
> We agreed to stay in touch.
>
> Bill O'Keefe was eager to gain access to further recent instrumental
> temperature data we hold. Would you consider his request for data knowing
> they will likely be spun?
>
> Finally, Ian Murray, a former UK Dept. for Transport official is
> joining the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
>
>
> Thanks for enlivening up my Friday.
> HANS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnson, Cathy (GA) [ <[5]mailto:Cathy.JohnsonatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>]
>
> Sent: 15 May 2003 04:36
> To: 'Hans Verolme'
> Cc: Warrilow, David (GA); Noguer, Maria (GA)
> Subject: Questions to ask Soon and Balianus
>
>
> Dear Hans
> I am in the branch of GA Division covering Climate Science, and I
> have
> received from Peter Stott at the Hadley Centre the attached comments
> on Soon
> and Balianus' "paper"; they include three questions you could ask.
>
> I hope all this makes sense to you, but I will be glad to discuss
> them with
> you if you wish. I will be in the office until 17.45 UK time today,
> my
> direct line is 44 (0)20 7944 5226and my colleague Maria will be here
>
> tomorrow on ext. 5437.
> Alternatively Peter Stott's number is 44 (0)1344 854011
> Good luck, we'll be interested to know how you get on!
>
> best wishes
> Cathy
> <<Stott_Soon_comment.doc>>
>
>
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs.
GSI users see [6]http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm for further details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk.

0276.txt

cc: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Caspar M Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Raymond Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley <tcrowleyatXYZxyze.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, Ben Santer <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:38:13 -0700
from: "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: letter to Senate
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>

Colleagues,
I'm very torn between being drawn into endless exchanges outside normal
scientific discourse (e.g. tit-for-tat with the Idsos group) and leaving the field
open to them. They clearly have the resources to do fairly careful literature
searches, even if there are some serious conceptual problems in their writings,
and there is a real audience for their kind of materials, both in print
publication and on the web. I fear that you would find more colleagues and
grad students than you would like to think read their materials and are
influenced by them. Apart from anything else they respond better to the
heavily referenced articles by Idso or Soon than to "ex cathedra" statements
like the recent editorial by Barnett and Somerville. I know this to be the case
in the paleo community, although there the picture is complicated by the
differences in scientific approach of those working on interannual to century
time scales (i.e. folks like us) and those working on millennial and longer
time scales (notably Wally Broecker, Wijbjorn Karlen, but many others too).
One consequence of this intersection of differing sources of scepticism (sensu
stricto) is that an appeal to the NAS could be counterproductive - remember
the poor treatment of high-res paleo in the NAS report requested by the White
House the other year.
Let's learn from these guys. We don't have to strain to publish in the peer-
reviewed literature - it's our normal way of working. We do have to find a
more effective way of publicizing and interpreting these publications, when
appropriate, to a wider audience, including policy makers. How best to do
this?
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.

> Tom, Mike et al:
> 1. Making the S B papers the sole or main subject of an NRC committee
> would be a mistake. 2. But dispensing of them as a minor part of an
> NRC examination of paleoclimate makes sense. Some of you may recall
> the Idso, Newell contratemps of 20 years ago, and as I recall, this is
> how it was handled. 3. For the near term, the rebuttal paper in Eos is
> a terrific example of what can and should be done in such
> cirumstances, and the AGU press release is more than I would have
> expected. We've provided all the necessary ammunition. The best you
> can do now is be responsive if reporters or Congressional staff call.
> 4. For the long haul, in additon to the NRC committee route, some
> thought needs to be given to more formal ways to respond to such
> situations, which I expect to continue to arise indefinitely. This is
> one role for IPCC and NRC, but both are painfully slow. Perhaps AGU
> and AMS and AAAS need to see their roles as partly to provide a venue
> for such clarifications. The key this time was rapid turnover. Maybe
> Don Kennedy and Science could be engaged in this somehow. Michael
>
> "Michael E. Mann" wrote:
> Tom,
> Thanks for your email, and your (and Ben's) thoughtful comments on
> all of this... I think the Eos piece has gone a long way to
> discrediting the 'science'behind the "BS" papers (well,
> technically, "SB", but I prefer the reverse order too). The paper
> Phil and I have in press in GRL (hopefully to appear within a few
> weeks now) will reinforce this. But the BS papers certainly got a
> lot more mileage than they should have. The fact that the forces
> of disinformation were able to get that much mileage out of these
> two awful papers written by those clowns should remain a real
> cause for concern. Their ability to repeatedly co-opt the Harvard
> news office remains a real problem. Nobody I've talked to at
> Harvard is happy about this, and there's been talk of action on
> the part of various of the faculty, but nobody seems willing or
> able to mount enough of an effort to get anything done about this.
> Apparently there was a threat of a lawsuit against Harvard last
> time folks there tried to do something about Baliunas, and so they
> may have lost their nerve. But I know our Harvard colleagues are
> not happy about continually having their institutional name
> dragged through the mud. If someone has close ties w/ any
> individuals there who might be in a position to actually get some
> action taken on this, I'd highly encourage pursuing this. Re, an
> NAS committee--this is an interesting idea. But I wonder if a
> committee on BS would be overkill, perhaps giving these fools just
> the stage that they're looking for. An alternative would be, as
> you say, to take this on in the context of another more general
> NAS panel. Coincidentally, there is already a panel on "Radiative
> Forcing Effects on Climate" which convenes this falI. I believe
> the panel makeup is now in the public domain (or will be within
> days, on the NAS website) so there's no secret here. I'm on the
> panel. Daniel Jacob will be chairing it, and others on it are Jeff
> Kiehl, Francis Zwiers, Roni Avissar, Judith Lean, Stuart Gaffin,
> Lynn Russell. Also on the panel will be Ramanathan, Pielke Sr,
> Gerard Bond, Ulrike Lohmann, and Hadi Dowlatabadi (whom I don't
> know). Its a somewhat odd makeup, and I suspect that consensus
> will not be easy (there are at least a couple obvious trouble
> spots), but there is certainly a core group of reasonable folks on
> the panel, and this could be an opportunity to clarify the state
> of the science on long- term forced variability (including e.g.
> comparisons of model simulations and reconstructions of the past
> 1000 years). This, at least indirectly, would deal w/ the BS
> issue. I'm interested in the thoughts of others on any of the
> above. cheers, mike At 08:13 PM 7/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Folks, Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising
> from talking to Ben. What is worrying is the way this BS paper has
> been hyped by various groups. The publicity has meant that the
> work has entered the conciousness of people in Congress, and is
> given prominence in some publications emanating from that sector.
> The work appears to have the imprimateur of Harvard, which gives
> it added credibility. So, what can we as a community do about
> this? My concerns are two-fold, and I think these echo all of our
> concerns. The first is the fact that the papers are simply bad
> science and the conclusions are incorrect. The second is that the
> work is being used quite openly for political purposes. As
> scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need
> to concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to
> do this in as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it
> is enough to speak as individuals or even as a group of recognized
> experts. Even as a group, we will not be seen as having the
> 'power' of the Harvard stamp of approval. What I think is
> necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU and AMS. It
> would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves from
> the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
> the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and
> others) as experts, pointing out clearly that the work is
> scientific rubbish, we can certainly win this battle. I suggest
> that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
> assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
> potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo
> record for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over
> the past 1000 years. The second option seems more likely to be
> acceptable to NAS. This is arguably an issue of similar importance
> to the issue of climate sensitivity uncertainties which NAS
> reviewed earlier this year (report still in preparation). I am not
> sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
> Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
> better than I do and can make some suggestions here. The only way
> to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can muster. The
> Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS (even
> above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
> pursue this path. Best wishes, Tom.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> 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: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-
> 7770FAX: (434) 982-2137
>
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.s
> html
> 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
> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.ht
> ml
> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> _______
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> __________________________________________________________________
> _ ____ e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434)
> 982-2137
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229

0275.txt

date: Wed Mar 5 13:39:00 2008
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Douglass Paper response from santer et al
to: "Glenn McGregor" <glenn.mcgregoratXYZxyz.ac.uk>

I wondered just that the other day, given his earlier indication that it would be ready
quickly. It turns out that there has been a complete draft for a little while, but because
there are many co-authors it is taking time to get everyone's agreement/comments and also
some authors, because of their affiliations, may be requiring internal institutional review
before submission. I'm not sure what this means in terms of submission time...
Tim
At 13:17 05/03/2008, you wrote:

Tim
Any update on whether santer et al are submitting their response to the
Douglass paper. I ask as I have not seen any evidence of it yet on the MC
system
best
PS- will be leaving the country on easter weekend
Professor Glenn McGregor
Professor of Physical Geography
Director Centre for Environmental Assessment Management and Policy
Editor International Journal of Climatology
[1]www.interscience.wiley.com/joc
Department of Geography
King's College London
Strand London WC2R 2LS, UK
++44)0)2078482610/2612
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Osborn [[2]mailto:t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
Sent: 12 December 2007 10:42
To: Glenn McGregor
Subject: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy
Project
Hi Glenn,
it seems that a recent paper in IJC may make some headlines... see
email below and attached press release!
Hope all's well with you,
Tim
>>From: George Marshall Institute
>>[<[3]mailto:infoatXYZxyzshall.org>[4]mailto:infoatXYZxyzshall.org]
>>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
>>To: <[5]mailto:infoatXYZxyzshall.org>infoatXYZxyzshall.org
>>Subject: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project
>>
>>Where & When
>>
>>The National Press Club
>>529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor
>>Lisagor Room
>>Washington, DC 20045
>>
>>December 14, 2007
>>8am-11am
>>
>>Breakfast refreshments will be served.
>>
>>To RSVP, please email <[6]mailto:infoatXYZxyzp.org>infoatXYZxyzp.org.
>>
>>You are invited to a timely breakfast briefing
>>
>>on December 14, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. at the National Press Club, organized by
>>
>>The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
>>
>>As Al Gore collects his Nobel Prize and 15,000(more or less) in
>>Bali struggle to find a successor regime for the ineffective and
>>unlamented Kyoto Protocol, an 'inconvenient truth' has emerged:
>>
>>NATURE RULES THE CLIMATE: HUMAN-PRODUCED GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT
>>RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Therefore, schemes to control CO2
>>emissions are ineffective and pointless, though very costly.
>>
>>Come and listen to the authors of a peer-reviewed scientific study,
>>just published in the International Journal of Climatology (of the
>>Royal Meteorological Society), present their startling findings.
>>
>>Presenters:
>>
>>Prof. David Douglass, University of Rochester: GH Models clash with
>>best observations
>>
>>Prof. John Christy, University of Alabama: How GH models
>>overestimate GH warming
>>
>>Prof. S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia: Changes in solar
>>activity control the climate.
>>
>>I am sure you will appreciate the importance of their new result.
>>Once one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant
>>in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically:
>>
>> � Unburdened by climate fears, the US can pursue a more
>> rational energy policy, leading to less dependence on oil/gas
>> imports.
>>
>> � The current legislative efforts to cap CO2, or to control its
>> emission in other ways, are utterly useless.
>>
>> � Ambitious programs claiming to reduce CO2 emissions (like
>> ethanol, wind power, carbon sequestration, etc.) are a
>> complete waste.
>>
>> � The EPA can now deny California's request for a waiver on
>> CAFE.
>>
>> � The EPA can now respond properly to the Supreme Court
>> ruling on CO2.
>>
>> � International negotiations can assume a different dimension.
>>
>>SEPP has reserved the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club for
>>Friday December 14 from 8-11 am. Breakfast will be served.
>>
>>Please e-mail your acceptance to <[7]mailto:infoatXYZxyzp.org>infoatXYZxyzp.org.
>>
>>The George C. Marshall Institute | 1625 K St. NW Suite, 1050 |
>>Washington | DC | 20006

0274.txt

date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:22:29 +1100
from: David Thompson <davetatXYZxyzos.colostate.edu>
subject: the paper....
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, John Kennedy <john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>

Dear Phil and John,

Thanks much for the quick and helpful comments...

In the next version I'll include more details on the analysis procedure... hopefully that
will clarify how the volcano results were calculated.

As for the negative anomalies ~8-10 years before the eruption dates: they reflect the
impact of the trends in temperature on the composite, not just the impact of El Chichon
prior to Pinatubo. (You don't see the negative blips if you only go +/- 5 years). In the
text I used the spurious negative chunks to motivate the detrending. I agree with Phil that
the volcano text is still a little rough. And I like the idea of showing the results for
each volcano separately.

I've recently shown the results to a few folks heavily involved in the last IPCC, and
they've suggested we consider a pair of companion papers: a longer JCL paper which focuses
on the volcanos and provides the details of the filtering methodology; and a short, punchy
Nature paper which focuses on the step in 45. I suppose it's possible the step in 45 could
get lost in a longer volcano paper, and apparently the results clarify why the IPCC models
are unable to capture SST variability in the middle of the 20th century... if you have
strong thoughts on this, please let me know.

And if you have any additional comments that come to mind over the next couple weeks,
please send them along. I'll get a next draft to you soon after the New Year... it will
incorporate all your ideas, will provide the analysis details, etc ...

Thanks again,

Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449

0273.txt

date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:19:27 -0400
from: Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>
subject: EBM run
to: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi Tim,

here is the EBM run averaged 0-90N. let me know if it still looks weird,
it should be quite
similar to what you have otherwise!
and let me know if you need anything else

Gabi

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
email: hegerlatXYZxyze.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html


</x-flowed>
1000.0000 -0.0043
1001.0000 -0.0070
1002.0000 -0.0082
1003.0000 -0.0412
1004.0000 -0.0586
1005.0000 -0.0449
1006.0000 -0.0325
1007.0000 -0.0336
1008.0000 -0.0337
1009.0000 -0.0252
1010.0000 -0.0188
1011.0000 -0.0156
1012.0000 -0.0153
1013.0000 -0.0165
1014.0000 -0.0186
1015.0000 -0.0215
1016.0000 -0.0248
1017.0000 -0.0285
1018.0000 -0.0529
1019.0000 -0.0682
1020.0000 -0.0637
1021.0000 -0.0590
1022.0000 -0.0553
1023.0000 -0.0539
1024.0000 -0.0799
1025.0000 -0.0941
1026.0000 -0.0833
1027.0000 -0.0739
1028.0000 -0.0667
1029.0000 -0.0631
1030.0000 -0.0613
1031.0000 -0.0608
1032.0000 -0.0610
1033.0000 -0.0621
1034.0000 -0.0635
1035.0000 -0.0647
1036.0000 -0.0659
1037.0000 -0.0670
1038.0000 -0.0683
1039.0000 -0.0697
1040.0000 -0.0711
1041.0000 -0.0717
1042.0000 -0.0716
1043.0000 -0.0710
1044.0000 -0.0701
1045.0000 -0.0691
1046.0000 -0.0680
1047.0000 -0.0667
1048.0000 -0.0654
1049.0000 -0.0640
1050.0000 -0.0627
1051.0000 -0.0616
1052.0000 -0.0607
1053.0000 -0.0599
1054.0000 -0.0592
1055.0000 -0.0585
1056.0000 -0.0578
1057.0000 -0.0572
1058.0000 -0.0565
1059.0000 -0.0559
1060.0000 -0.0554
1061.0000 -0.0550
1062.0000 -0.0734
1063.0000 -0.0833
1064.0000 -0.0754
1065.0000 -0.0685
1066.0000 -0.0780
1067.0000 -0.0833
1068.0000 -0.0757
1069.0000 -0.0693
1070.0000 -0.0642
1071.0000 -0.0607
1072.0000 -0.0577
1073.0000 -0.0551
1074.0000 -0.0525
1075.0000 -0.0499
1076.0000 -0.0477
1077.0000 -0.0462
1078.0000 -0.0442
1079.0000 -0.0420
1080.0000 -0.0397
1081.0000 -0.0378
1082.0000 -0.0359
1083.0000 -0.0448
1084.0000 -0.0485
1085.0000 -0.0417
1086.0000 -0.0355
1087.0000 -0.0301
1088.0000 -0.0258
1089.0000 -0.0215
1090.0000 -0.0181
1091.0000 -0.0281
1092.0000 -0.0326
1093.0000 -0.0253
1094.0000 -0.0188
1095.0000 -0.0134
1096.0000 -0.0099
1097.0000 -0.0073
1098.0000 -0.0050
1099.0000 -0.0031
1100.0000 -0.0168
1101.0000 -0.0224
1102.0000 -0.0126
1103.0000 -0.0044
1104.0000 0.0020
1105.0000 0.0060
1106.0000 0.0089
1107.0000 0.0112
1108.0000 0.0132
1109.0000 0.0150
1110.0000 0.0164
1111.0000 0.0169
1112.0000 0.0170
1113.0000 0.0167
1114.0000 0.0162
1115.0000 0.0155
1116.0000 -0.0277
1117.0000 -0.0665
1118.0000 -0.0588
1119.0000 -0.0456
1120.0000 -0.0326
1121.0000 -0.0239
1122.0000 -0.0177
1123.0000 -0.0131
1124.0000 -0.0093
1125.0000 -0.0062
1126.0000 -0.0035
1127.0000 -0.0012
1128.0000 0.0009
1129.0000 0.0028
1130.0000 0.0051
1131.0000 0.0085
1132.0000 0.0126
1133.0000 0.0171
1134.0000 0.0220
1135.0000 0.0270
1136.0000 0.0323
1137.0000 0.0381
1138.0000 0.0447
1139.0000 0.0510
1140.0000 0.0563
1141.0000 0.0591
1142.0000 0.0606
1143.0000 0.0611
1144.0000 0.0611
1145.0000 0.0605
1146.0000 0.0595
1147.0000 0.0582
1148.0000 0.0567
1149.0000 0.0548
1150.0000 0.0527
1151.0000 0.0500
1152.0000 0.0470
1153.0000 0.0438
1154.0000 0.0403
1155.0000 0.0366
1156.0000 0.0328
1157.0000 0.0288
1158.0000 0.0247
1159.0000 0.0205
1160.0000 0.0170
1161.0000 0.0153
1162.0000 0.0148
1163.0000 0.0150
1164.0000 0.0157
1165.0000 0.0169
1166.0000 0.0187
1167.0000 0.0215
1168.0000 -0.0435
1169.0000 -0.0802
1170.0000 -0.0530
1171.0000 -0.0283
1172.0000 -0.0087
1173.0000 0.0019
1174.0000 0.0082
1175.0000 0.0124
1176.0000 0.0154
1177.0000 0.0174
1178.0000 0.0173
1179.0000 0.0169
1180.0000 0.0172
1181.0000 0.0176
1182.0000 0.0180
1183.0000 0.0181
1184.0000 0.0176
1185.0000 0.0162
1186.0000 0.0151
1187.0000 0.0141
1188.0000 -0.0112
1189.0000 -0.0255
1190.0000 -0.0305
1191.0000 -0.0294
1192.0000 -0.0175
1193.0000 -0.0091
1194.0000 -0.0022
1195.0000 0.0029
1196.0000 -0.0143
1197.0000 -0.0228
1198.0000 -0.0110
1199.0000 -0.0000
1200.0000 0.0087
1201.0000 0.0134
1202.0000 0.0155
1203.0000 0.0159
1204.0000 0.0161
1205.0000 0.0159
1206.0000 0.0028
1207.0000 -0.0047
1208.0000 -0.0004
1209.0000 0.0032
1210.0000 0.0055
1211.0000 0.0057
1212.0000 0.0050
1213.0000 0.0033
1214.0000 0.0006
1215.0000 -0.0018
1216.0000 -0.0042
1217.0000 -0.0067
1218.0000 -0.0092
1219.0000 -0.0117
1220.0000 -0.0138
1221.0000 -0.0151
1222.0000 -0.0163
1223.0000 -0.0166
1224.0000 -0.0164
1225.0000 -0.0307
1226.0000 -0.0379
1227.0000 -0.0308
1228.0000 -0.1671
1229.0000 -0.2390
1230.0000 -0.1768
1231.0000 -0.1235
1232.0000 -0.0874
1233.0000 -0.0714
1234.0000 -0.0614
1235.0000 -0.0539
1236.0000 -0.0478
1237.0000 -0.0429
1238.0000 -0.0389
1239.0000 -0.0356
1240.0000 -0.0328
1241.0000 -0.0302
1242.0000 -0.0278
1243.0000 -0.0256
1244.0000 -0.0236
1245.0000 -0.0217
1246.0000 -0.0199
1247.0000 -0.0182
1248.0000 -0.0166
1249.0000 -0.0150
1250.0000 -0.0138
1251.0000 -0.0200
1252.0000 -0.0236
1253.0000 -0.0214
1254.0000 -0.0196
1255.0000 -0.0187
1256.0000 -0.0188
1257.0000 -0.0194
1258.0000 -0.6917
1259.0000 -1.1265
1260.0000 -0.9031
1261.0000 -0.6719
1262.0000 -0.4801
1263.0000 -0.3733
1264.0000 -0.3063
1265.0000 -0.2598
1266.0000 -0.2256
1267.0000 -0.2266
1268.0000 -0.2211
1269.0000 -0.1974
1270.0000 -0.1777
1271.0000 -0.1603
1272.0000 -0.1476
1273.0000 -0.1379
1274.0000 -0.1302
1275.0000 -0.1243
1276.0000 -0.3337
1277.0000 -0.4994
1278.0000 -0.4437
1279.0000 -0.3710
1280.0000 -0.3048
1281.0000 -0.2633
1282.0000 -0.2351
1283.0000 -0.2141
1284.0000 -0.1973
1285.0000 -0.1843
1286.0000 -0.4137
1287.0000 -0.5737
1288.0000 -0.4939
1289.0000 -0.4062
1290.0000 -0.3311
1291.0000 -0.2863
1292.0000 -0.2565
1293.0000 -0.2357
1294.0000 -0.2205
1295.0000 -0.2086
1296.0000 -0.1987
1297.0000 -0.2042
1298.0000 -0.2055
1299.0000 -0.1956
1300.0000 -0.1869
1301.0000 -0.1786
1302.0000 -0.1720
1303.0000 -0.1661
1304.0000 -0.1607
1305.0000 -0.1556
1306.0000 -0.1507
1307.0000 -0.1460
1308.0000 -0.1414
1309.0000 -0.1370
1310.0000 -0.1329
1311.0000 -0.1295
1312.0000 -0.1266
1313.0000 -0.1240
1314.0000 -0.1216
1315.0000 -0.1194
1316.0000 -0.1174
1317.0000 -0.1155
1318.0000 -0.1138
1319.0000 -0.1122
1320.0000 -0.1110
1321.0000 -0.1113
1322.0000 -0.1120
1323.0000 -0.1127
1324.0000 -0.1133
1325.0000 -0.1349
1326.0000 -0.1471
1327.0000 -0.1395
1328.0000 -0.1332
1329.0000 -0.1288
1330.0000 -0.1266
1331.0000 -0.1370
1332.0000 -0.1409
1333.0000 -0.1319
1334.0000 -0.1237
1335.0000 -0.1171
1336.0000 -0.1116
1337.0000 -0.1065
1338.0000 -0.1016
1339.0000 -0.0966
1340.0000 -0.0919
1341.0000 -0.0979
1342.0000 -0.0997
1343.0000 -0.0926
1344.0000 -0.0857
1345.0000 -0.3050
1346.0000 -0.4530
1347.0000 -0.3768
1348.0000 -0.2953
1349.0000 -0.2265
1350.0000 -0.1867
1351.0000 -0.1610
1352.0000 -0.1427
1353.0000 -0.1288
1354.0000 -0.1180
1355.0000 -0.1092
1356.0000 -0.1019
1357.0000 -0.0961
1358.0000 -0.0918
1359.0000 -0.0878
1360.0000 -0.0837
1361.0000 -0.0789
1362.0000 -0.0737
1363.0000 -0.0683
1364.0000 -0.0633
1365.0000 -0.0588
1366.0000 -0.0542
1367.0000 -0.0502
1368.0000 -0.0455
1369.0000 -0.0406
1370.0000 -0.0362
1371.0000 -0.0337
1372.0000 -0.0322
1373.0000 -0.0314
1374.0000 -0.0312
1375.0000 -0.0313
1376.0000 -0.0431
1377.0000 -0.0509
1378.0000 -0.0480
1379.0000 -0.0456
1380.0000 -0.0441
1381.0000 -0.0440
1382.0000 -0.0621
1383.0000 -0.0725
1384.0000 -0.0663
1385.0000 -0.0611
1386.0000 -0.0576
1387.0000 -0.0566
1388.0000 -0.0566
1389.0000 -0.0831
1390.0000 -0.0981
1391.0000 -0.0882
1392.0000 -0.0790
1393.0000 -0.0731
1394.0000 -0.0717
1395.0000 -0.0715
1396.0000 -0.0719
1397.0000 -0.0728
1398.0000 -0.0738
1399.0000 -0.0751
1400.0000 -0.0764
1401.0000 -0.0771
1402.0000 -0.0770
1403.0000 -0.0773
1404.0000 -0.0777
1405.0000 -0.0783
1406.0000 -0.0789
1407.0000 -0.0795
1408.0000 -0.0801
1409.0000 -0.0808
1410.0000 -0.0810
1411.0000 -0.0804
1412.0000 -0.0802
1413.0000 -0.0802
1414.0000 -0.0803
1415.0000 -0.0804
1416.0000 -0.0805
1417.0000 -0.0806
1418.0000 -0.0808
1419.0000 -0.0810
1420.0000 -0.0808
1421.0000 -0.0803
1422.0000 -0.0805
1423.0000 -0.0810
1424.0000 -0.0816
1425.0000 -0.0824
1426.0000 -0.0833
1427.0000 -0.0843
1428.0000 -0.0853
1429.0000 -0.0864
1430.0000 -0.0878
1431.0000 -0.0897
1432.0000 -0.0920
1433.0000 -0.0945
1434.0000 -0.0973
1435.0000 -0.1001
1436.0000 -0.1031
1437.0000 -0.1063
1438.0000 -0.1095
1439.0000 -0.1128
1440.0000 -0.1158
1441.0000 -0.1185
1442.0000 -0.1535
1443.0000 -0.1730
1444.0000 -0.1617
1445.0000 -0.1518
1446.0000 -0.1446
1447.0000 -0.1433
1448.0000 -0.1444
1449.0000 -0.1450
1450.0000 -0.1451
1451.0000 -0.1450
1452.0000 -0.1454
1453.0000 -0.4157
1454.0000 -0.6295
1455.0000 -0.5622
1456.0000 -0.4727
1457.0000 -0.3903
1458.0000 -0.3392
1459.0000 -0.3051
1460.0000 -0.3385
1461.0000 -0.3509
1462.0000 -0.3116
1463.0000 -0.2786
1464.0000 -0.2529
1465.0000 -0.2495
1466.0000 -0.2448
1467.0000 -0.2303
1468.0000 -0.2181
1469.0000 -0.2168
1470.0000 -0.2143
1471.0000 -0.2053
1472.0000 -0.1977
1473.0000 -0.1916
1474.0000 -0.1872
1475.0000 -0.1838
1476.0000 -0.1810
1477.0000 -0.1782
1478.0000 -0.1751
1479.0000 -0.1728
1480.0000 -0.2037
1481.0000 -0.2198
1482.0000 -0.2223
1483.0000 -0.2176
1484.0000 -0.1991
1485.0000 -0.1864
1486.0000 -0.1770
1487.0000 -0.1704
1488.0000 -0.1661
1489.0000 -0.1628
1490.0000 -0.1600
1491.0000 -0.1568
1492.0000 -0.1528
1493.0000 -0.1664
1494.0000 -0.1724
1495.0000 -0.1615
1496.0000 -0.1502
1497.0000 -0.1414
1498.0000 -0.1354
1499.0000 -0.1306
1500.0000 -0.1266
1501.0000 -0.1229
1502.0000 -0.1189
1503.0000 -0.1332
1504.0000 -0.1404
1505.0000 -0.1310
1506.0000 -0.1224
1507.0000 -0.1154
1508.0000 -0.1108
1509.0000 -0.1074
1510.0000 -0.1043
1511.0000 -0.1016
1512.0000 -0.1691
1513.0000 -0.2056
1514.0000 -0.1763
1515.0000 -0.1508
1516.0000 -0.1317
1517.0000 -0.1225
1518.0000 -0.1178
1519.0000 -0.1149
1520.0000 -0.1132
1521.0000 -0.1117
1522.0000 -0.1102
1523.0000 -0.1087
1524.0000 -0.1074
1525.0000 -0.1154
1526.0000 -0.1193
1527.0000 -0.1145
1528.0000 -0.1102
1529.0000 -0.1067
1530.0000 -0.1040
1531.0000 -0.1006
1532.0000 -0.0977
1533.0000 -0.0954
1534.0000 -0.0938
1535.0000 -0.0921
1536.0000 -0.0902
1537.0000 -0.0879
1538.0000 -0.0855
1539.0000 -0.0829
1540.0000 -0.0804
1541.0000 -0.0781
1542.0000 -0.0759
1543.0000 -0.0738
1544.0000 -0.0718
1545.0000 -0.0698
1546.0000 -0.0677
1547.0000 -0.0658
1548.0000 -0.0648
1549.0000 -0.0637
1550.0000 -0.0622
1551.0000 -0.0603
1552.0000 -0.0582
1553.0000 -0.0561
1554.0000 -0.0896
1555.0000 -0.1073
1556.0000 -0.0915
1557.0000 -0.0772
1558.0000 -0.0658
1559.0000 -0.0592
1560.0000 -0.0547
1561.0000 -0.0513
1562.0000 -0.0644
1563.0000 -0.0706
1564.0000 -0.0619
1565.0000 -0.0543
1566.0000 -0.0482
1567.0000 -0.0447
1568.0000 -0.0429
1569.0000 -0.0412
1570.0000 -0.0395
1571.0000 -0.0615
1572.0000 -0.0728
1573.0000 -0.0616
1574.0000 -0.0522
1575.0000 -0.0455
1576.0000 -0.0415
1577.0000 -0.0388
1578.0000 -0.0371
1579.0000 -0.0363
1580.0000 -0.0440
1581.0000 -0.0480
1582.0000 -0.0443
1583.0000 -0.0410
1584.0000 -0.0388
1585.0000 -0.0372
1586.0000 -0.0592
1587.0000 -0.3440
1588.0000 -0.3425
1589.0000 -0.2646
1590.0000 -0.2082
1591.0000 -0.1679
1592.0000 -0.1387
1593.0000 -0.1429
1594.0000 -0.1863
1595.0000 -0.1728
1596.0000 -0.1513
1597.0000 -0.1304
1598.0000 -0.1146
1599.0000 -0.1034
1600.0000 -0.3920
1601.0000 -0.6610
1602.0000 -0.5470
1603.0000 -0.4214
1604.0000 -0.3168
1605.0000 -0.2587
1606.0000 -0.2227
1607.0000 -0.1983
1608.0000 -0.1812
1609.0000 -0.1681
1610.0000 -0.1578
1611.0000 -0.1496
1612.0000 -0.1437
1613.0000 -0.1391
1614.0000 -0.1348
1615.0000 -0.1309
1616.0000 -0.1274
1617.0000 -0.1244
1618.0000 -0.1219
1619.0000 -0.1197
1620.0000 -0.1320
1621.0000 -0.1962
1622.0000 -0.1901
1623.0000 -0.1713
1624.0000 -0.1542
1625.0000 -0.1419
1626.0000 -0.1348
1627.0000 -0.1300
1628.0000 -0.1263
1629.0000 -0.1229
1630.0000 -0.1209
1631.0000 -0.1206
1632.0000 -0.1202
1633.0000 -0.1200
1634.0000 -0.1196
1635.0000 -0.1188
1636.0000 -0.1187
1637.0000 -0.1191
1638.0000 -0.2198
1639.0000 -0.2796
1640.0000 -0.2579
1641.0000 -0.3954
1642.0000 -0.5575
1643.0000 -0.4799
1644.0000 -0.3820
1645.0000 -0.3070
1646.0000 -0.2626
1647.0000 -0.2474
1648.0000 -0.2282
1649.0000 -0.2118
1650.0000 -0.1992
1651.0000 -0.1898
1652.0000 -0.1830
1653.0000 -0.1778
1654.0000 -0.1747
1655.0000 -0.1725
1656.0000 -0.1704
1657.0000 -0.1684
1658.0000 -0.1668
1659.0000 -0.1654
1660.0000 -0.1645
1661.0000 -0.1639
1662.0000 -0.1640
1663.0000 -0.1650
1664.0000 -0.1658
1665.0000 -0.1666
1666.0000 -0.1674
1667.0000 -0.1721
1668.0000 -0.3049
1669.0000 -0.3083
1670.0000 -0.2684
1671.0000 -0.2384
1672.0000 -0.2181
1673.0000 -0.2465
1674.0000 -0.3523
1675.0000 -0.3324
1676.0000 -0.2976
1677.0000 -0.2680
1678.0000 -0.2499
1679.0000 -0.2396
1680.0000 -0.2456
1681.0000 -0.3322
1682.0000 -0.3216
1683.0000 -0.2927
1684.0000 -0.2687
1685.0000 -0.2527
1686.0000 -0.2435
1687.0000 -0.2375
1688.0000 -0.2346
1689.0000 -0.2432
1690.0000 -0.2459
1691.0000 -0.2383
1692.0000 -0.2314
1693.0000 -0.2402
1694.0000 -0.4184
1695.0000 -0.4266
1696.0000 -0.5140
1697.0000 -0.4707
1698.0000 -0.4016
1699.0000 -0.3502
1700.0000 -0.3133
1701.0000 -0.2903
1702.0000 -0.2740
1703.0000 -0.2617
1704.0000 -0.2525
1705.0000 -0.2447
1706.0000 -0.2372
1707.0000 -0.2309
1708.0000 -0.2253
1709.0000 -0.2205
1710.0000 -0.2160
1711.0000 -0.2122
1712.0000 -0.2084
1713.0000 -0.2040
1714.0000 -0.1991
1715.0000 -0.1941
1716.0000 -0.1891
1717.0000 -0.1842
1718.0000 -0.1793
1719.0000 -0.1745
1720.0000 -0.1697
1721.0000 -0.1646
1722.0000 -0.1599
1723.0000 -0.1558
1724.0000 -0.1512
1725.0000 -0.1527
1726.0000 -0.1512
1727.0000 -0.1435
1728.0000 -0.1361
1729.0000 -0.1295
1730.0000 -0.1248
1731.0000 -0.1415
1732.0000 -0.1492
1733.0000 -0.1376
1734.0000 -0.1273
1735.0000 -0.1189
1736.0000 -0.1134
1737.0000 -0.1093
1738.0000 -0.1059
1739.0000 -0.1061
1740.0000 -0.1575
1741.0000 -0.1522
1742.0000 -0.1325
1743.0000 -0.1176
1744.0000 -0.1075
1745.0000 -0.1018
1746.0000 -0.0975
1747.0000 -0.0936
1748.0000 -0.0908
1749.0000 -0.0886
1750.0000 -0.0865
1751.0000 -0.0841
1752.0000 -0.0815
1753.0000 -0.0788
1754.0000 -0.0760
1755.0000 -0.0732
1756.0000 -0.0708
1757.0000 -0.0690
1758.0000 -0.0667
1759.0000 -0.0643
1760.0000 -0.0619
1761.0000 -0.0596
1762.0000 -0.0921
1763.0000 -0.1091
1764.0000 -0.0925
1765.0000 -0.0774
1766.0000 -0.0657
1767.0000 -0.0586
1768.0000 -0.0533
1769.0000 -0.0760
1770.0000 -0.0862
1771.0000 -0.0701
1772.0000 -0.0545
1773.0000 -0.0413
1774.0000 -0.0320
1775.0000 -0.0240
1776.0000 -0.0160
1777.0000 -0.0093
1778.0000 -0.0037
1779.0000 0.0022
1780.0000 0.0074
1781.0000 0.0104
1782.0000 0.0120
1783.0000 0.0035
1784.0000 -0.0493
1785.0000 -0.0396
1786.0000 -0.0217
1787.0000 -0.0079
1788.0000 0.0000
1789.0000 0.0039
1790.0000 -0.0169
1791.0000 -0.0197
1792.0000 -0.0113
1793.0000 -0.0037
1794.0000 0.0036
1795.0000 0.0095
1796.0000 0.0138
1797.0000 0.0165
1798.0000 0.0175
1799.0000 0.0177
1800.0000 0.0173
1801.0000 0.0165
1802.0000 0.0154
1803.0000 0.0140
1804.0000 0.0123
1805.0000 0.0105
1806.0000 0.0088
1807.0000 0.0076
1808.0000 0.0058
1809.0000 -0.1440
1810.0000 -0.4439
1811.0000 -0.3856
1812.0000 -0.2926
1813.0000 -0.2375
1814.0000 -0.1904
1815.0000 -0.3515
1816.0000 -0.7266
1817.0000 -0.6292
1818.0000 -0.4851
1819.0000 -0.3593
1820.0000 -0.2806
1821.0000 -0.2299
1822.0000 -0.1928
1823.0000 -0.1636
1824.0000 -0.1404
1825.0000 -0.1213
1826.0000 -0.1051
1827.0000 -0.0907
1828.0000 -0.0773
1829.0000 -0.0663
1830.0000 -0.0821
1831.0000 -0.1454
1832.0000 -0.2651
1833.0000 -0.2170
1834.0000 -0.1589
1835.0000 -0.2837
1836.0000 -0.3676
1837.0000 -0.2916
1838.0000 -0.2175
1839.0000 -0.1568
1840.0000 -0.1342
1841.0000 -0.1166
1842.0000 -0.0914
1843.0000 -0.0790
1844.0000 -0.0791
1845.0000 -0.0609
1846.0000 -0.0435
1847.0000 -0.0289
1848.0000 -0.0172
1849.0000 -0.0082
1850.0000 -0.0008
1851.0000 0.0053
1852.0000 0.0110
1853.0000 0.0167
1854.0000 -0.0058
1855.0000 -0.0106
1856.0000 0.0043
1857.0000 0.0165
1858.0000 0.0263
1859.0000 0.0335
1860.0000 0.0384
1861.0000 0.0019
1862.0000 -0.0199
1863.0000 -0.0025
1864.0000 0.0158
1865.0000 0.0308
1866.0000 0.0406
1867.0000 0.0365
1868.0000 0.0364
1869.0000 0.0471
1870.0000 0.0557
1871.0000 0.0630
1872.0000 0.0687
1873.0000 0.0732
1874.0000 0.0773
1875.0000 0.0806
1876.0000 0.0842
1877.0000 0.0874
1878.0000 0.0901
1879.0000 0.0932
1880.0000 0.0946
1881.0000 0.0890
1882.0000 0.0922
1883.0000 0.0770
1884.0000 -0.1789
1885.0000 -0.1752
1886.0000 -0.0996
1887.0000 -0.0346
1888.0000 0.0112
1889.0000 0.0371
1890.0000 0.0557
1891.0000 0.0705
1892.0000 0.0819
1893.0000 0.0914
1894.0000 0.1001
1895.0000 0.1073
1896.0000 0.1133
1897.0000 0.1190
1898.0000 0.1248
1899.0000 0.1300
1900.0000 0.1360
1901.0000 0.1426
1902.0000 0.1484
1903.0000 0.0926
1904.0000 0.0908
1905.0000 0.1167
1906.0000 0.1401
1907.0000 0.1503
1908.0000 0.1524
1909.0000 0.1681
1910.0000 0.1829
1911.0000 0.1956
1912.0000 0.1850
1913.0000 0.0891
1914.0000 0.1140
1915.0000 0.1561
1916.0000 0.1821
1917.0000 0.2007
1918.0000 0.2184
1919.0000 0.2327
1920.0000 0.2446
1921.0000 0.2547
1922.0000 0.2637
1923.0000 0.2719
1924.0000 0.2658
1925.0000 0.2622
1926.0000 0.2755
1927.0000 0.2881
1928.0000 0.2998
1929.0000 0.3106
1930.0000 0.3200
1931.0000 0.3293
1932.0000 0.3391
1933.0000 0.3482
1934.0000 0.3568
1935.0000 0.3647
1936.0000 0.3722
1937.0000 0.3677
1938.0000 0.3639
1939.0000 0.3732
1940.0000 0.3840
1941.0000 0.3933
1942.0000 0.4006
1943.0000 0.3942
1944.0000 0.3917
1945.0000 0.3992
1946.0000 0.4058
1947.0000 0.4116
1948.0000 0.4150
1949.0000 0.4170
1950.0000 0.4193
1951.0000 0.4206
1952.0000 0.4149
1953.0000 0.4199
1954.0000 0.4261
1955.0000 0.4314
1956.0000 0.4359
1957.0000 0.4409
1958.0000 0.4459
1959.0000 0.4507
1960.0000 0.4504
1961.0000 0.4378
1962.0000 0.4357
1963.0000 0.4202
1964.0000 0.3578
1965.0000 0.3276
1966.0000 0.3445
1967.0000 0.3750
1968.0000 0.3803
1969.0000 0.3611
1970.0000 0.3882
1971.0000 0.4286
1972.0000 0.4603
1973.0000 0.4765
1974.0000 0.4833
1975.0000 0.4631
1976.0000 0.4827
1977.0000 0.5243
1978.0000 0.5605
1979.0000 0.5843
1980.0000 0.6160
1981.0000 0.6410
1982.0000 0.5810
1983.0000 0.4503
1984.0000 0.5014
1985.0000 0.5765
1986.0000 0.6208
1987.0000 0.6601
1988.0000 0.7040
1989.0000 0.7450
1990.0000 0.7766
1991.0000 0.7608
1992.0000 0.5735
1993.0000 0.6086
1994.0000 0.6826
1995.0000 0.7409
1996.0000 0.7888
1997.0000 0.8327
1998.0000 0.8789
1999.0000 0.9240
2000.0000 0.9654
2001.0000 1.0003

0272.txt

cc: stockeratXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch
date: Mon, 30 May 2005 06:46:01 +0200
from: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.JansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>
subject: Re: FW: Imprint
to: simon.tettatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi Simon and Keith,
sorry for not answering before. We had the annual
external evaluation of the Bjerknes Centre last
week, which kept me busy.
I see the points raised by the Hadley Centre,
although I am not sure I agree. If our community
does not make strong statements, we may risk
being further marginalised, and even though this
will be annoying some in the Commission it might
in balance make it worthwhile.
The reality of the mattter is that Met Office is
sceptical to sending official complaints, and the
same position is also taken by CNRS.
This will dilute the protest, and i think we need
to follow the alternative strategy of informing
our national reps. This approach could be
strengthened if we write a memo, summarizing our
concerns, i.e. something which would be very
close to the leter we intended to send to the
Commission, and made sure all national reps get a
copy. Thus our arguments would be well known.
In addition we should request a meeting with the Commission.
Could you let me know if you think we should take
this route? If yes, I can have a draft ready
tomorrow.
Eystein

At 10:15 +0100 26-05-05, Tett, Simon wrote:
>Eystein & Keith,
> I have talked to Adrian Broad (who is responsible for links with the EU
>amongst other things). He has talked to Dave Griggs.
>
>Met Office position is basically that I should not sign any formal
>letter to the commission as it will change nothing and just annoy them
>(which would do the Met Office no good). Other proposals, that the Met
>Office was involved with, also seem to have had evaluation problems so
>Imprint is not our only concern.
>
>Adrian thinks the best way forward is to forward our concerns directly
>to our national representatives so that they are aware of the
>`evidence'/opinions regarding the latest round of evaluations. Adrian
>has also told me that Dave will have a private word with contacts he
>knows in DG(Research) who manage the budget for GCE (Global Change and
>Environment) under FP6 (and forwards into the equivalent top level theme
>in FP7).
>
>Adrian thinks the best way forward would be for all partners in Imprint
>to raise the issues through their national reps + other contacts rather
>than through a formal complaint.
>
>Simon
>
>On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 04:46, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>> Keith, what do you think?
>> Concerning the committee having met, this is only
>> partly corrrect, as they have approved the short
>> listing of proposals to start negotiations with,
>> but haven��t formally decided on giving any
>> projects the green light. This will happen in
>> September as far as I have been informed.
>>
>> Some say it will help us writing a complaint
>> which will be seen by both the national reps of
>> the committee as well as parliament members.
>>
>>
>> At 16:06 +0100 25-05-05, Tett, Simon wrote:
>> >Both,
>> > see Dave's comments below. Adrian Broad
>> >tells me that the appropriate committee has
>> >already met so we will not be able to change the
>> >decision.
>> >
>> >Simon
>> >
>> >Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
>> >Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>> >Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
>> >Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>> >Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>> >E-mail: simon.tettatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>> >Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Griggs, Dave
>> >Sent: 24 May 2005 16:47
>> >To: Tett, Simon; Broad, Adrian
>> >Cc: Brohan, Philip; Hewitt, Chris; Crucifix, Michel; Jones, Chris D
>> >Subject: RE: Imprint
>> >
>> >
>> >Simon
>> >
>> >I think we have to be very cautious about doing
>> >something like this. It is unlikely to be
>> >effective (as acknowledged by Eystein) and may
>> >be counterproductive as it may even predjudice
>> >the Commission against future bids. My preferred
>> >route would be to make the concerns very clear
>> >to the Commission, but to do it informally so
> > >that they are not embarrassed in public.
>> >
>> >Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Dr Dave Griggs, Director Climate Research
>> >>Met Office Hadley Centre
>> >>Fitzroy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
>> >>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886615 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
>> >>E-mail: dave.griggsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Tett, Simon
>> >Sent: 24 May 2005 10:43
>> >To: Broad, Adrian; Griggs, Dave
>> >Cc: Brohan, Philip; Hewitt, Chris; Crucifix, Michel; Jones, Chris D
>> >Subject: Imprint
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Adrian & Dave,
>> > We have just received the evaluation of
>> >IMPRINT. Though we passed the minimum criteria
>> >we are unlikely to get funded. I think some of
>> >the referee's comments were fair. The proposal
>> >was too broad and trying to do too many things.
>> >
>> >However my colleagues are extremely unhappy that a competing proposal
>> >(Millennium) looks like it will be funded. We
>> >feel that (at least in stage 1) Millennium did
>> >not really answer the call. Below is an email
>> >from Eystein Jansen who thinks we should
>> >protest. On a personal basis I would like to see
>> >more evidence before signing onto such a thing.
>> >However I would also like to get a Met Office
>> >corporate view on this before doing anything
>> >else. Simon
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------
>> >Dear friends of the Imprint - SSC,
>> >
>> >After seeing the evaluation summary of our
>> >proposal, and not least the same for Millennium,
>> >it is clear to me that we have been very badly
>> >treated, first by the public advice from the
>> >Commission in Utrecht who advised the community
>> >to create a proposal which we did, but which is
>> >orthogonal to what they now have decided to
>> >negotiate, later by the random way we were
>> >reviewed and the many inconsistencies in the
>> >evaluation. Compared to this the Millennium
>> >review was full of subjective phrases and a
>> >number of negative aspects were glossed over.
>> >The review is an insult, and it appears likely
>> >that elements in the panel bear some grudges
>> >against our community. In order to get the 0.5
>> >point difference between Imprint and Millennium
>> >they had to give a number of very imbalanced
>> >statements. They also had to raise the management
>> >score of Millennium to 4 by the xtended panel
>> >despite critisisms by the reviewers that the
>> >management was not well laid out.
>> >
>> >I feel that the review was very biased and the
>> >result is that they will probably fund a project
>> >with only limited relevance to the call, and miss
>> >a major opportunity of integrating European
>> >paleoclimate research and climate modelling and
>> >create a new major step forward.
>> >
>> >We have been advised to send a formal letter of
>> >complaint to the Commission, asking for a renewed
>> >evaluation, not because we think there is a good
>> >chance that it will lead to much, but we think it
>> >is important that they know that they have upset
>> >a community consisting of top level European
>> >scientists, This may help us in the longer term.
>> >
>> >The advice I have got is to send this to Pierre
>> >Valette, co-signed by the key partners, both
>> >their PIs and head of administration, with copies
>> >to our individual national members of the Global
>> >Change Panel of the EU.
>> >So far there is no formal decision on which
>> >proposal to fund, this may happen in September
>> >after negotiations with the selected proposals.
>> >There is a seldom precedence in Europe that such
>> >an intervention has been successful, but very
>> >rarely.
>> >
>> >In phrasing such a letter we have to be very
>> >careful and make sure our message is clear and
>> >fair, but I think it needs to be done.
>> >
>> >I would therefore ask you to respond immediately
>> >to this mail as to whether you think we should go
>> >this route or not. We will then in a few days
>> >send out a draft for comments, if you agree that
>> >we shall send in a complaint. We have to move
>> >fast here, so I hope you will be quick.
> > >
>> >Concerning the other proposals on what to do,
>> >there are many good ideas, and I think we should
>> >have a meeting in the autumn to discuss the
>> >strategy of securing paleo in the 7th Framwork
>> >program. The text is out for review now, and we
>> >all need to suggest changes through our national
>> >representatives. I will distribute a list of who
>> >this is for the various countries over the
>> >week-end.
>> >I am also working on formulating text to help
>> >launch our ideas in teh European Parliament via
>> >Atte�Ǭ?s wife.
>> >Best wishes,
>> >
>> >Eystein
>> >--
>> >Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
>> >Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>> >Meteorology Building, University of Reading RG6 6BB
>> >Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>> >Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>> >E-mail: simon.tettatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>> >Global climate data sets are available from
>> >http://www.hadobs.org Dr Simon Tett Managing
>> >Scientist, Data development and applications.
>> >Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>> >Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
>> >Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>> >Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>> >E-mail: simon.tettatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>> >Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org
>>


--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All�gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330
</x-flowed>