Climategate/Leaked Emails

<Climategate

Shifted Means

From: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected],[email protected]
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@uea,p.jones@uea

Dear Mike and Ian

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.

The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.

A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
density network. In preparation.
Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
completion.

I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).

With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
me and/or Keith.

Best regards

Tim

Fudging Data

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: ray bradley <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK

Ocean Blip

From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

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

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm 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 -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent 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 aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently 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 I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

Destroying Evidence

From: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected]

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
in
response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom's
old
address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can
think of today
without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at the
weekend
as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
Keith A.
onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so
much else on at
the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what
to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't
the
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being
1300-
1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and
late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid
boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is
just
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will
use
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes
unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it
until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but
papers
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil
Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil

X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
To: p.jones@uea
From: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
Subject: Soon & Baliunas
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784
Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: [email protected]
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

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 [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING

From: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: [email protected]

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email [email protected]
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [email protected]
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm