Good morning all from tomorrowland (Wednesday!) Gosh, you have all been very busy overnight here. Thank you, and Mike & I will start wordsmithing our section. We now have (in IPCC terms) a nice bunch of LA's and CAs for this commentary! 'Talk' to you later! Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : > Phil > see also this: > Trenberth, K. E., and L. Smith, 2009: Variations in the three > dimensional structure of the atmospheric circulation with different > flavors of El Niño. /J. Climate/, *12*, No. 11, 2978-2991, doi: > 10.1175/2008JCLI2691.1. [PDF] > > It has tables with relationships with Nino 3.4 and SOI and you can > see the differences in lead lag e.g. Table 1. SOI leads Nino 3.4 by > 1 or 2 months typically but as in the 2002 paper, the leads and > lags vary with Nino index, see also > Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2001: Indices of El Niño > evolution. /J. Climate./, *14*, 1697-1701. [Paper(.pdf) > ] > ^* > > > Kevin > > Phil Jones wrote: >> >> Kevin, Mike et al, >> Figure 3 in what Kevin just sent is the sort of thing we need to show. >> On the lags, I think the reason the lag with what Tom did was different is >> that you used Nino3.4 SST and Tom used SOI. I know people think >> they are the same thing, but I think SOI lags a little behind 3.4 SST. >> It would be a useful bit of new science to look at the links between SOI >> and 3.4 SST, but it shouldn't be part of a comment on what's wrong with the >> awful paper For that you're going to have to use the Bureau Of Meteorology >> version of the SOI. These are on this web site >>  >> I did check a few years ago and these numbers look pretty much the same >> as the CRU ones (allowing for the BoM multiplier of 10). >> When you calculate the SOI you normalize the Darwin >> and Tahiti series. BoM change the base period with each new year, so >> don't expect to get exactly the same results as McLean. >> You have to smooth the SOI series in some way as it is noisy. >> Their running mean >> is a lousy filter. I'd recommend using the one we did in Ch 3 of >> IPCC. It is on >> p336. The second filter will work fine, with all the months in >> sequence. It will >> approximate a 10-12 month filter and won't do anything to the phase. Maybe >> doing this with SOI and Nino3.4 will show a slight lag between the >> two - 3 months >> maybe! >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 15:57 28/07/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>> The leads and lags are analyzed in detail in this paper >>> Trenberth, K. E., J. M. Caron, D. P. Stepaniak, and S. Worley >>> 2002: The evolution of ENSO and global atmospheric surface >>> temperatures >>> /J. Geophys. Res./, *107*, D8, 10.1029/2000JD000298. >>> and we were not able to reproduce Tom Wigley's result (we tried). >>> It may depend in indices used. In this paper we also document the >>> extent to which ENSO contributes to warming overall. >>> Kevin >>> >>> Phil Jones wrote: >>>> Mike, >>>> See below for instructions. >>>> >>>> Also, just because IPCC (2007, Ch 3) didn't point out the 6/7-month lag >>>> between the SOI and global temperatures doesn't mean it hasn't been >>>> known for years. IPCC is an assessment and not a review of everything >>>> done. If they had even read Wigley (2001) they would have seen this >>>> lag pointed out. I wasn't the first to do this in 1989 either. I don't >>>> think Walker was either. I think the first was Hildebrandsson in the >>>> 1890s. Why does it always go back to a Swede! >>>> >>>> file is at ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk >>>> >>>> login anonymously with emails as pw >>>> >>>> then go to people/philjones >>>> >>>> and you should find santeretal2001.pdf >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> At 14:08 28/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: >>>>> thanks Phil, >>>>> >>>>> this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some >>>>> of the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. >>>>> I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues >>>>> who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first >>>>> author on a response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that >>>>> was published some time ago, and has been doing a number of >>>>> analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al. >>>>> >>>>> I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when >>>>> it is ready to the broader group of people who have been >>>>> included in these exchanges for feedback and potential >>>>> co-authorship, >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your >>>>> followup message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be >>>>> downloaded? >>>>> On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim et al, >>>>>> Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, >>>>>> there are a few things >>>>>> to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right >>>>>> of reply, so need to >>>>>> ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From >>>>>> doing the attached a >>>>>> year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important >>>>>> to concentrate only >>>>>> on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with >>>>>> the paper, it >>>>>> won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to >>>>>> be just two or three. >>>>>> >>>>>> The three aspects I would emphasize are >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that >>>>>> they smooth the series >>>>>> with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan >>>>>> 1980 from that in >>>>>> Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know >>>>>> this removes >>>>>> any long-term trend. >>>>>> >>>>>> The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is >>>>>> possibly why >>>>>> they get different lags from others. Using running means also >>>>>> enhances the >>>>>> explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise >>>>>> without the smoothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These >>>>>> clearly have a >>>>>> trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The >>>>>> SOI doesn't explain >>>>>> the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para >>>>>> 30 are all wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> A few minor points >>>>>> >>>>>> - there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3. >>>>>> - I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events >>>>>> occurring after volcanoes! >>>>>> Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't >>>>>> say what is purported - in fact >>>>>> it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done. >>>>>> - there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he >>>>>> applies the same type >>>>>> of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as >>>>>> it is large. In case it >>>>>> is too large here is the reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., >>>>>> Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, >>>>>> S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of >>>>>> volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed >>>>>> temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, >>>>>> 2803328059. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did >>>>>> something similar to >>>>>> what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added >>>>>> the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale >>>>>> and I did have many more years. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response >>>>>>> (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a >>>>>>> lot of play in contrarian circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I >>>>>>> sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a >>>>>>> similar effort w/ this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can >>>>>>> discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin >>>>>>>> Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on >>>>>>>> Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific >>>>>>>> record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to >>>>>>>> join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east >>>>>>>> trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate >>>>>>>>> later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions >>>>>>>>> of the paper already up on other sites, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the >>>>>>>>>> following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would >>>>>>>>>> be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni >>>>>>>>>> of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the >>>>>>>>>> Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that. >>>>>>>>>> Who else wants to join in?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on >>>>>>>>>>> travel the >>>>>>>>>>> past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer >>>>>>>>>>> Colloquium >>>>>>>>>>> is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks >>>>>>>>>>> (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. >>>>>>>>>>>> contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or >>>>>>>>>>>> not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in >>>>>>>>>>>> the peer- >>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed literature. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a >>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their >>>>>>>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> skim of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is to say it filters out all the low frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one takes y= A sin wt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does a differentiation one gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dy = Aw cos wt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = 2*pi/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is the period. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cracks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recent years, and this is another one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> et al, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tu- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lt/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these papers collectively showed that both datasets were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers-- papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> findings render that conclusions of the current article >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had the net effect of artificially removing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warming trend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the MSU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent assessment, and their estimates are largely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperatures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have artificially too little warming trend, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interannual variability). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role of natural variability on the observed warming trend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of CSU, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. their analysis was so careful and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clever that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1940s) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had never before been discovered in the global surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. needless to say, they removed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface temperature over the past century of a little less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sulphate aerosols). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin, Gavin, Mike, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc Morano >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth Borenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associated Press Science Writer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sborenstein@ap.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20005-4076 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 202-641-9454 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this communication is intended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have received this communication in error, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1-212-621-1898 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and delete this e-mail. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [IP_US_DISC] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precisely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallout this will cause...oh dear...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according tro NOAA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability. It should not have been published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kia orana from Rarotonga >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the h... did this get accepted!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dominion today {24/7/09] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment by J Salinger "little new" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Influence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Res., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor Jim Salinger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> School of Geography and Environmental Science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Auckland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Private Bag 92 019 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Auckland, New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response >>>>>>> (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz >>>>>>> which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking >>>>>>> this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in >>>>>>> spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and >>>>>>> we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin >>>>>>>> Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with >>>>>>>> stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the >>>>>>>> scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled >>>>>>>> together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? >>>>>>>> I am happy to coordinate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south >>>>>>>> east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on >>>>>>>>> RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other >>>>>>>>> useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other >>>>>>>>> sites, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the >>>>>>>>>> following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It >>>>>>>>>> would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same >>>>>>>>>> Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC >>>>>>>>>> is director of)! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in >>>>>>>>>> the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>> do that. Who else wants to join in?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have >>>>>>>>>>> been on travel the >>>>>>>>>>> past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> summer Colloquium >>>>>>>>>>> is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks >>>>>>>>>>> (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. >>>>>>>>>>>> contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or >>>>>>>>>>>> not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted >>>>>>>>>>>> in the peer- >>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed literature. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a >>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their >>>>>>>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial skim of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is to say it filters out all the low frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one takes y= A sin wt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does a differentiation one gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dy = Aw cos wt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency = 2*pi/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is the period. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 50 years get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only got a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cracks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recent years, and this is another one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understate the warming trends: the Christy and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spencer MSU data and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were a series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three key papers published in Science a few years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago, by Mears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> et al, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these papers collectively showed that both datasets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were deeply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and understate actual tropospheric temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. I find it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely remarkable that this paper could get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers-- papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> findings render that conclusions of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had the net effect of artificially removing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warming trend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the MSU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataset, but they always seem to show less warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than every other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent assessment, and their estimates are largely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperatures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have artificially too little warming trend, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then shown, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interannual variability). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role of natural variability on the observed warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend of recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other far more careful analyses (a paper by David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson of CSU, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year ago) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. their analysis was so careful and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clever that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements (that yields artificial cooling during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mid 1940s) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had never before been discovered in the global surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. needless to say, they removed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that error too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volcanoes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface temperature over the past century of a little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offsetting cooling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sulphate aerosols). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whats left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin, Gavin, Mike, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Marc Morano >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth Borenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associated Press Science Writer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sborenstein@ap.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20005-4076 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 202-641-9454 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the designated recipients named above. If the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1-212-621-1898 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and delete this e-mail. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [IP_US_DISC] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precisely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallout this will cause...oh dear...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according tro NOAA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability. It should not have been published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kia orana from Rarotonga >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the h... did this get accepted!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dominion today {24/7/09] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature blamed over warming - describing recently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> published paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment by J Salinger "little new" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Influence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Res., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor Jim Salinger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> School of Geography and Environmental Science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Auckland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Private Bag 92 019 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Auckland, New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>>> NR4 7TJ >>>>>> UK >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>> >>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>> >>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>> >>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>  >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks Phil, >>>>> >>>>> this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some >>>>> of the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. >>>>> I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues >>>>> who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first >>>>> author on a response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that >>>>> was published some time ago, and has been doing a number of >>>>> analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al. >>>>> >>>>> I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when >>>>> it is ready to the broader group of people who have been >>>>> included in these exchanges for feedback and potential >>>>> co-authorship, >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your >>>>> followup message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be >>>>> downloaded? >>>>> On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim et al, >>>>>> Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, >>>>>> there are a few things >>>>>> to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right >>>>>> of reply, so need to >>>>>> ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From >>>>>> doing the attached a >>>>>> year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important >>>>>> to concentrate only >>>>>> on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with >>>>>> the paper, it >>>>>> won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to >>>>>> be just two or three. >>>>>> >>>>>> The three aspects I would emphasize are >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that >>>>>> they smooth the series >>>>>> with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan >>>>>> 1980 from that in >>>>>> Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know >>>>>> this removes >>>>>> any long-term trend. >>>>>> >>>>>> The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is >>>>>> possibly why >>>>>> they get different lags from others. Using running means also >>>>>> enhances the >>>>>> explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise >>>>>> without the smoothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These >>>>>> clearly have a >>>>>> trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The >>>>>> SOI doesn't explain >>>>>> the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para >>>>>> 30 are all wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> A few minor points >>>>>> >>>>>> - there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3. >>>>>> - I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events >>>>>> occurring after volcanoes! >>>>>> Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't >>>>>> say what is purported - in fact >>>>>> it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done. >>>>>> - there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he >>>>>> applies the same type >>>>>> of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as >>>>>> it is large. In case it >>>>>> is too large here is the reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Santer, B.D., *Wigley*, *T.M.L.*, Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., >>>>>> Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, >>>>>> S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of >>>>>> volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed >>>>>> temperature trends. /Journal of Geophysical Research/ *106*, >>>>>> 28033--28059. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did >>>>>> something similar to >>>>>> what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added >>>>>> the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale >>>>>> and I did have many more years. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response >>>>>>> (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz >>>>>>> which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking >>>>>>> this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in >>>>>>> spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and >>>>>>> we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin >>>>>>>> Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with >>>>>>>> stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the >>>>>>>> scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled >>>>>>>> together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? >>>>>>>> I am happy to coordinate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south >>>>>>>> east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on >>>>>>>>> RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other >>>>>>>>> useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other >>>>>>>>> sites, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the >>>>>>>>>> following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It >>>>>>>>>> would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same >>>>>>>>>> Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC >>>>>>>>>> is director of)! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in >>>>>>>>>> the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>> do that. Who else wants to join in?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have >>>>>>>>>>> been on travel the >>>>>>>>>>> past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> summer Colloquium >>>>>>>>>>> is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks >>>>>>>>>>> (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. >>>>>>>>>>>> contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or >>>>>>>>>>>> not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted >>>>>>>>>>>> in the peer- >>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed literature. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a >>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their >>>>>>>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial skim of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is to say it filters out all the low frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one takes y= A sin wt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does a differentiation one gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dy = Aw cos wt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency = 2*pi/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is the period. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 50 years get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only got a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cracks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recent years, and this is another one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understate the warming trends: the Christy and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spencer MSU data and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were a series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three key papers published in Science a few years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago, by Mears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> et al, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lt/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these papers collectively showed that both datasets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were deeply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and understate actual tropospheric temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. I find it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely remarkable that this paper could get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers-- papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> findings render that conclusions of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had the net effect of artificially removing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warming trend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the MSU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataset, but they always seem to show less warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than every other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent assessment, and their estimates are largely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperatures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have artificially too little warming trend, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then shown, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interannual variability). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role of natural variability on the observed warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend of recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other far more careful analyses (a paper by David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson of CSU, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year ago) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. their analysis was so careful and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clever that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements (that yields artificial cooling during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mid 1940s) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had never before been discovered in the global surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. needless to say, they removed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that error too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volcanoes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface temperature over the past century of a little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offsetting cooling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sulphate aerosols). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whats left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin, Gavin, Mike, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Marc Morano >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth Borenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associated Press Science Writer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sborenstein@ap.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20005-4076 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 202-641-9454 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the designated recipients named above. If the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1-212-621-1898 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and delete this e-mail. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [IP_US_DISC] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precisely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallout this will cause...oh dear...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according tro NOAA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability. It should not have been published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kia orana from Rarotonga >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the h... did this get accepted!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dominion today {24/7/09] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature blamed over warming - describing recently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> published paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment by J Salinger "little new" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Influence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Res., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor Jim Salinger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> School of Geography and Environmental Science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Auckland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Private Bag 92 019 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Auckland, New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response >>>>>>> (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz >>>>>>> which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking >>>>>>> this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in >>>>>>> spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and >>>>>>> we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin >>>>>>>> Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with >>>>>>>> stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the >>>>>>>> scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled >>>>>>>> together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? >>>>>>>> I am happy to coordinate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south >>>>>>>> east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on >>>>>>>>> RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other >>>>>>>>> useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other >>>>>>>>> sites, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the >>>>>>>>>> following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It >>>>>>>>>> would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same >>>>>>>>>> Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC >>>>>>>>>> is director of)! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in >>>>>>>>>> the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>> do that. Who else wants to join in?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have >>>>>>>>>>> been on travel the >>>>>>>>>>> past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> summer Colloquium >>>>>>>>>>> is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks >>>>>>>>>>> (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. >>>>>>>>>>>> contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or >>>>>>>>>>>> not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted >>>>>>>>>>>> in the peer- >>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed literature. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a >>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their >>>>>>>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Michael Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial skim of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivatives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is to say it filters out all the low frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one takes y= A sin wt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does a differentiation one gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dy = Aw cos wt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency = 2*pi/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is the period. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 50 years get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only got a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cracks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recent years, and this is another one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understate the warming trends: the Christy and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spencer MSU data and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were a series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three key papers published in Science a few years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago, by Mears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> et al, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these papers collectively showed that both datasets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were deeply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flawed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and understate actual tropospheric temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trends. I find it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely remarkable that this paper could get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers--papers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> findings render that conclusions of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had the net effect of artificially removing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warming trend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the MSU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dataset, but they always seem to show less warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than every other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent assessment, and their estimates are largely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperatures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have artificially too little warming trend, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then shown, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interannual variability). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role of natural variability on the observed warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend of recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other far more careful analyses (a paper by David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson of CSU, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year ago) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. their analysis was so careful and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clever that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements (that yields artificial cooling during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mid 1940s) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that had never before been discovered in the global surface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature record. needless to say, they removed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that error too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volcanoes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface temperature over the past century of a little >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offsetting cooling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sulphate aerosols). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt. it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whats left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin, Gavin, Mike, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Marc Morano >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seth Borenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associated Press Science Writer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sborenstein@ap.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20005-4076 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 202-641-9454 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the designated recipients named above. If the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1-212-621-1898 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and delete this e-mail. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [IP_US_DISC] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Precisely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallout this will cause...oh dear...... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according tro NOAA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variability. It should not have been published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kia orana from Rarotonga >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the h... did this get accepted!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dominion today {24/7/09] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature blamed over warming - describing recently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> published paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment by J Salinger "little new" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Influence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Res., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor Jim Salinger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> School of Geography and Environmental Science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Auckland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Private Bag 92 019 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Auckland, New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ___________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 3000 >>>>>>>>>>> Boulder CO 80307 >>>>>>>>>>> ph 303 497 1318 >>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>>> NR4 7TJ >>>>>> UK >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Michael E. Mann >>>>> 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: mann@psu.edu >>>>> >>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >>>>> >>>>> website: ~mann/Mann/index.html >>>>> >>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site: >>>>>  >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>> NR4 7TJ >>>> UK >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> **************** >>> Kevin E. >>> Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>> >>> Climate Analysis >>> Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>> >>> NCAR >>> P. O. Box >>> 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>> Boulder, CO >>> 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>> >>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >>> >> >> 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.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > **************** > Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu > Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > NCAR > P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 > Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) > > Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Auto Adjustment Confirmation To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add USAA.Web.Services@customermail.usaa.com to your address book. Auto Adjustment Confirmation View Accounts | Privacy Promise | Contact Us Online Security Guarantee Dear member, Thank you for continuing to choose USAA for your insurance needs. Because we recently adjusted your policy, you now need updated you online account. Manage your policy online. Request ID cards. Add vehicles or drivers. File a claim. View and print your policy documents. Log on to usaa.com Thank you, USAA We may have initiated this policy change without your knowledge based on information we received from other sources. Please do not reply to this e-mail. To send a secure message to USAA, please contact us. Privacy Promise USAA, 9800 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas 78288 If you don't have Adobe Reader, you'll need to install it to view and print your ID cards. 67623-0707


What is our cash needs over the week to ten days? Ned for mcmahon meeting at 1. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)


Notification To keep your password active and to access your mailbox account Click Help-Desk IT Security immediately ________________________________ SEED IS PROUD TO BE A 21st CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER. LEGAL DISCLAIMER - The information contained in this communication (including any attachments) may be confidential and legally privileged. This email may not serve as a contractual agreement unless explicit written agreement for this purpose has been made. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender indicating that it was received in error and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.


Thank you for this, and for your call. From: Miranda, Luis Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:41 PM To: Ken Vogel Cc: Paustenbach, Mark Subject: Following up... Hi Ken, good talking with you. Here's a quote you can attribute to me if you do have any follow up: The suggestion there's anything unusual about our joint victory funds has no basis in the law or reality, as recognized by numerous independent experts that have looked at this. The fact is both campaigns signed on to similar agreements. While only one campaign is currently using their joint victory fund we encourage both of our campaigns to identify opportunities to support the national and state Democratic parties now so that we can continue to build the infrastructure to help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November. [SigDems] Luis Miranda, Communications Director Democratic National Committee 202-863-8148 - MirandaL@dnc.org - @MiraLuisDC


In a message dated: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:53:55 CDT Ulises Ponce said: >Thanks Paul, >That is the way I am doing right now, but I would like to NOT use the mouse >for such things. Any other clue? The best I can think of is to figure out what the command being issued by exmh is that selects and inserts the sig and bind that to a key sequence. That shouldn't be *too* difficult, it's just a matter of figuring out the tcl (something my perl-based brain isn't excited about :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! _______________________________________________ Exmh-users mailing list Exmh-users@redhat.com


Untitled Document Password change required! Dear sir, We recently have determined that different computers have logged onto your Chase user profile account, and multiple password failures were present before the logons. We strongly advice CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD. If this is not completed by October 15, 2005, we will be forced to suspend your account indefinitely, as it may have been used for fraudulent purposes. Thank you for your cooperation. Click here to Change Your Password Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for using Chase! Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.


I need to setup a VPN between a few sites. From what I've read, the the choices come down (on the Linux side) to IPsec (using FreeSWAN) or CIPE. It seems that FreeSWAN is 'better', being an implementation of IPsec which is a standard. However, CIPE does the job as well for Linux clients and is somewhat simpler to setup. The problem is that it's not a pure Linux situation - a couple of the sites run OS-X. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to find an implementation of IPsec for OS-X, but I think CIPE is Linux only. So, the question is for those of you have have implemented BOTH - is there a significant difference in setup time and hassle between CIPE and FreeSWAN ? If CIPE is going to be much easier than dealing with FreeSWAN (and whatever on the OS-X sites) then I'll simply get a Linux box for each of the remote sites - with the low price of hardware, it doesn't take much more complexity in software to make buying hardware to use simpler software economic. Niall -- Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie  for (un)subscription information. List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie


Your Mailbox Has Exceeded It Storage Limit As Set By Your Administrator,Click Below to complete update on your storage limit quota Click Here Please note that you have within 24 hours to complete this update. because you might lose access to your Email Box. System Administrator