Hide the Decline...

Well, that didn't take long!

CRU Document Hack Thoughts...

In reading various reactions to the documents hacked from CRU, I see three general trends:

• Those who, like me, feel betrayed by the corrupt science on exhibit – the manipulation of data, the suppression of honest debate, the withholding of information.  These people tend to view the CRU revelations as casting doubt on the “science” production of the CRU participants – which include most of the leading lights of pro-AGW science.
  
  
• Those who dismiss everything exposed in the CRU documents as merely the human side of science.  These folks seem to believe that all science is conducted in this fashion, and that the CRU documents simply expose this in an unusually candid fashion for the public to see.  Sheesh, I certainly hope these people are wrong!
  
  
• Those who see the CRU revelations as a blow to pro-AGW science, but think there's enough untainted science remaining to sustain their pro-AGW beliefs.  To me, this sounds like grasping at straws – the work tainted by the CRU documents is foundational work that remains, so far as I know, the only direct evidence of long-term global warming that is correlated to human activity.  I deliberately exclude climate models, as they are not observational science at all, but rather an attempt to project hypotheses into the future.  

What little coverage I've seen in the U.S. lamestream media has been superficial and oriented toward the scandalous aspects.  Nearly all the interesting analysis comes from blogs – hundreds of them.  In the U.K., the situation is different – there's more complete coverage from the media, including commentary by prominent scientists.  Compared to the U.S. coverage, it's quite impressive.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit is clearly enemy number one in the CRU documents.  These must be very interesting times for him.  His site has been overwhelmed with traffic, and he's set up a mirror site to handle the volume.  Some of the most interesting – and sober – analysis of the CRU documents can be found up there.  If this is a topic that interests you, I recommend monitoring his site.

It's going to be interesting to watch how this all shakes out...

An Email and My Response...

I received an email this morning that raises an interesting question.  The email (edited to preserve the anonymity of the writer):

I have enjoyed reading your posts on climategate, and am quite sympathetic to your position.  I am very skeptical about the science underlying the various global warming claims.  I am also sympathetic with your claim that publicly funded researchers should release their software codes to the public.

Nonetheless, the counter of these scientists is that other scientists can produce their own code and see what results they obtain.  I was wondering whether you knew if such attempts at reproduction have occurred, and if not, why not.  Is it that it is very expensive to undertake these studies and the ordinary funding sources do not want to fund such efforts?  Or do you think something else is goind on.  I would love to know the answer.  Thanks.

In any event, keep up the good work.
M.

Here's my response (slightly edited from the original to remove personal information):

Hi, M.!

Not only do they claim that other scientists could reproduce their results, they claim that two groups (one in Russia, and one in Australia) have already done so.  But I'm very skeptical of these results, as the two groups are hardly independent of the CRU crowd -- they're "insiders" in every sense.

It's an interesting question you raise, though, and one I've pondered a bit as I read through those CRU emails.  Reproducing their results has several possible meanings.  In the purest scientific sense, "reproduction" would mean that the same results were obtained with independently acquired and analyzed data.  In this sense, the CRU's results have NOT been reproduced, and they do not claim that they have been.  I believe reproduction in that sense would be quite challenging, as the CRU's claim is that virtually all available proxy temperature data was assessed in their efforts.  One step down on the reproduction scale would be for independent groups to take the same data but independently analyze it.  I can't be certain, as I don't have access to the actual studies, but from the emails it sounds like this approach is also NOT the kind of reproduction that the two groups did.  So one more step down on the reproduction scale would be for independent groups to take the same data and use the same general analytical approach.  I believe that this is what Mann et al are referring to when they claim their results have been reproduced, and could be reproduced by any qualified scientist.  Essentially that means someone checked their math, not exactly what I would call a validation of the approach.

What Mann et al have consistently refused to provide are detailed descriptions of exactly how (and why) they selected and adjusted their data sets.  Other researchers (like Steve McIntyre) with access to the raw data have been unable to reproduce the CRU's results with anything that resembles unbiased data selection or adjustment.  In fact, in some cases they come to very different results that would lead one to very different conclusions.  Hence the debate on Climate Audit, which has become increasingly informed over the past couple of years as McIntyre and his cohorts get more and more educated.

Speaking as a concerned citizen whose pocketbook is highly at risk here, I believe that what is urgently needed is for a truly independent and skeptical group of scientists to attempt to reproduce the CRU's results in the first, purest sense I described above.  We should not be considering sweeping and expensive mitigation efforts until we have done our very best to confirm the accuracy of the underlying science.

Enceladus Flyby...

Fantastic photos from yesterday's flyby of Enceladus, by Cassini.  Awesome!

CRU Roundup...

The blogosphere is chock full of stuff on the CRU data hack, now being dubbed “ClimateGate”.  Some that caught my fancy are here, here, here, and here.  The third link is to ClimateAudit's mirror site – Steve McIntyre has been so overwhelmed with traffic the past couple of days that he's had to engage a bigger server!

The lamestream media has fallen on its face with this one, as they have with so many other scandals that required even the tiniest bit of research and imagination.  Also, as with some of the past scandals (such as “RatherGate”), they seem to believe they have a vested interest – this time, in a pro-AGW stance.  Pajamas-clad amateurs have showed up the “pros” once again...

Still More on the CRU Data Dump...

Here's one more code file, this one calibrate_nhrecon.pro.  This is another IDL code file, and it appears to be calibrating tree ring data against direct temperature measurement data:

;
; Calibrates, usually via regression, various NH and quasi-NH records
; against NH or quasi-NH seasonal or annual temperatures.
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
perst=1881.  ;note 1
peren=1960.
thalf=10.     ; filter to use to give extra hi & lo pass info
;
; Select season of the temperature data against which to calibrate
;
if n_elements(doseas) eq 0 then doseas=0      ; 0=annual, 1=Apr-Sep, 2=Oct-Mar
seasname=['annual','aprsep','octmar']
;
; Select record to calibrate
;
if n_elements(dorec) eq 0 then dorec=0
recname=['esper','jones','mann','3tree','briffa','iwarm','mj2000','crowley03','rutherford04']
print,recname[dorec]
doland=0      ; for Mann et al. only, 0=use NH mean, 1=use land>20N mean
;
if recname[dorec] eq 'mann' then begin
  if doland eq 0 then openw,1,'recon_mannNH.out'+seasname[doseas] $
                 else openw,1,'recon_mannLN20.out'+seasname[doseas]
endif else begin
  openw,1,'recon_'+recname[dorec]+'.out'+seasname[doseas]
endelse
;
multi_plot,nrow=2
if !d.name eq 'X' then window,ysize=800
;
; Compute the >20N land instrumental temperature timseries and filter
;
datst=1860
daten=1980
print,'Reading temperatures'
ncid=ncdf_open('/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/crutem2_18512001.mon.nc')
tsmon=crunc_rddata(ncid,tst=[datst,0],tend=[daten,11],grid=gtemp)
ncdf_close,ncid
nmon=12
ntemp=gtemp.nt
nyrtemp=ntemp/nmon
yrtemp=reform(gtemp.year,nmon,nyrtemp)
yrtemp=reform(yrtemp(0,*))
;
; Compute the northern hemisphere >20N land series
;
; First extract >20N rows
kl=where(gtemp.y gt 20.)
ylat=gtemp.y(kl)
tsnorth=tsmon(*,kl,*)
; Compute latitude-weighted mean
nhmon=globalmean(tsnorth,ylat)
; Compute seasonal/annual mean
nhmon=reform(nhmon,nmon,nyrtemp)
case doseas of  ;note 2
  0: lvy=mkseason(nhmon,0,11,datathresh=6)   ; could try 9,8 (Oct-Sep annual)!
  1: lvy=mkseason(nhmon,3,8,datathresh=3)
  2: lvy=mkseason(nhmon,9,2,datathresh=3)
endcase
;
; Filter it
;
filter_cru,thalf,tsin=lvy,tslow=lvylow,tshigh=lvyhi,/nan
;
; Read in record and filter
;
case recname[dorec] of
  'esper': begin
    openr,2,'/cru/u2/f055/data/paleo/esper2002/esper.txt'
    readf,2,nyr
    headst=''
    readf,2,headst
    rawdat=fltarr(7,nyr)
    readf,2,rawdat
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(1,*))
  end
  'jones': begin
    openr,2,'../tree5/phil_nhrecon.dat'
    nyr=992
    rawdat=fltarr(4,nyr)
    readf,2,rawdat,format='(I5,F7.2,I3,F7.2)'
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(3,*))
  end
  'mann': begin
    if doland eq 0 then begin
      openr,2,'../tree5/mann_nhrecon1000.dat'
      nyr=981
      rawdat=fltarr(2,nyr)
      readf,2,rawdat           ;,format='(I6,F11.7)'
      close,2
      x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
      densall=reform(rawdat(1,*))
    endif else begin
      openr,2,'../tree5/mannarea_all.dat'
      nyr=981
      rawdat=fltarr(11,nyr)
      headdat=' '
      readf,2,headdat
      readf,2,rawdat           ;,format='(I6,F11.7)'
      close,2
      x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
      densall=reform(rawdat(10,*))
    endelse
  end
  '3tree': begin
    openr,2,'../tree6/tornyamataim.ave'
    readf,2,nnn
    rawdat=fltarr(2,nnn)
    readf,2,rawdat
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(1,*))
  end
  'briffa': begin
    restore,filename='/cru/u2/f055/tree6/bandtempNH_calmultipcr.idlsave'
    x=yrmxd
    densall=prednh
  end
  'iwarm': begin     ; use warm-season instrumental series as the predictor!
    x=yrtemp
    densall=mkseason(nhmon,3,8,datathresh=3)
  end
  'mj2000': begin
    openr,2,'/cru/u2/f055/data/paleo/ipccar4/data/mann03_orig.dat'
    readf,2,ncol
    readf,2,icol
    readf,2,nyr
    readf,2,nhead
    headst=strarr(nhead)
    rawdat=fltarr(ncol,nyr)
    readf,2,headst
    readf,2,rawdat
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(icol,*))
  end
  'crowley03': begin
    openr,2,'/cru/u2/f055/data/paleo/ipccar4/data/crowley03_orig.dat'
    readf,2,ncol
    readf,2,icol
    readf,2,nyr
    readf,2,nhead
    headst=strarr(nhead)
    rawdat=fltarr(ncol,nyr)
    readf,2,headst
    readf,2,rawdat
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(icol,*))
  end
  'rutherford04': begin
    openr,2,'/cru/u2/f055/data/paleo/ipccar4/data/rutherford04_orig.dat'
    readf,2,ncol
    readf,2,icol
    readf,2,nyr
    readf,2,nhead
    headst=strarr(nhead)
    rawdat=fltarr(ncol,nyr)
    readf,2,headst
    readf,2,rawdat
    close,2
    x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
    densall=reform(rawdat(icol,*))
  end
endcase
;
oopsx=x
oopsy=densall
;
kl=where((x ge datst) and (x le daten))
x=x(kl)
densall=densall(kl)
if total(abs(yrtemp-x)) ne 0 then message,'Incompatible years'
y1=densall
filter_cru,thalf,tsin=y1,tslow=ylow1,tshigh=yhi1,/nan
;
; Now correlate and regress them
;
printf,1,'Correlations and regression coefficients for '+seasname[doseas]
keeplist=where(finite(y1+lvy) and (x ge perst) and (x le peren),nkeep)
x=x(keeplist)
ts1=y1(keeplist)
ts2=lvy(keeplist)
r1=correlate(ts1,ts2)
dum=linfit(ts1,ts2,sigma=err_sigma)
c1=dum
printf,1,'Full timeseries:',r1,c1
plot,x,ts2
oplot,x,ts1*c1[1]+c1[0],thick=2
;
tsa=ts1(0:nkeep-2)
tsb=ts1(1:nkeep-1)
;mxd_ar1=correlate(tsa,tsb)
mxd_ar1=a_correlate(ts1,[-1])
tsa=ts2(0:nkeep-2)
tsb=ts2(1:nkeep-1)
;nht_ar1=correlate(tsa,tsb)
nht_ar1=a_correlate(ts2,[-1])
printf,1,'AR1 for MXD and NHEMI:',mxd_ar1,nht_ar1
;
tspred=c1(0)+c1(1)*ts1
tswant=ts2
plot,tspred,ts2,psym=1,$
  xtitle='Scaled Esper et al. anomaly  (!Uo!NC)',$
  ytitle='Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly  (!Uo!NC)',$
  /xstyle,xrange=[-0.6,0.3],$
  /ystyle,yrange=[-0.6,0.3]
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
oplot,[0.,0.],!y.crange,linestyle=1
dum=linfit(tspred,ts2,sigma=se)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*dum(1)+dum(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*dum(1)+dum(0)+se(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*dum(1)+dum(0)-se(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)+se(1))+dum(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)-se(1))+dum(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)+se(1))+dum(0)+se(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)-se(1))+dum(0)-se(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)+se(1))+dum(0)-se(0)
oplot,!x.crange,!x.crange*(dum(1)-se(1))+dum(0)+se(0)
;
ts1=yhi1(keeplist)
ts2=lvyhi(keeplist)
r2=correlate(ts1,ts2)
dum=linfit(ts1,ts2)
c2=dum
printf,1,'High-pass      :',r2,c2
;
ts1=ylow1(keeplist)
ts2=lvylow(keeplist)
r3=correlate(ts1,ts2)
dum=linfit(ts1,ts2)
c3=dum
printf,1,'Low-pass       :',r3,c3
;
; Now compute the rms error between the reconstruction and the original
; timeseries
;
tserr=tswant-tspred
rmserr=sqrt( total( tserr^2 ) / float(n_elements(tserr)) )
printf,1,'RMS error between land>20Napr-sep temperature and Esper et al. reconstruction'
printf,1,rmserr
printf,1,'Uncertainties surrounding regression coefficients'
printf,1,err_sigma
;
printf,1,' '
printf,1,'Computations carried out over the period ',perst,peren
printf,1,' '
printf,1,'To separate low and high frequency components, a gaussian weighted'
printf,1,'filter was used with a half-width (years) of ',thalf
;
close,1
;
end

Where to start?  Here, I guess:

1.  Another arbitrary-looking choice of limits.  In this case, they've selected the period 1881 through 1960 to correlate the two data series.  The comment above, however, is very suggestive of why the 1960 cutoff was chosen.

2.  This piece of code looks like classic cherry-picking and fudging.  Here the software writer is choosing arbitrary months and data thresholds when sampling the annual mean of the instrumental data (which will be used to calibrate the tree-ring data.  The comment reinforces this notion.

Something that strikes me as I read through all this code: it looks amateurish, not at all like what I'd imagine code written by scientists expecting peer review would produce.  I'm no scientist, so it may well just reflect my naiveté about things scientific.  But I'm quite disappointed in it...

More on the CRU Data Dump...

The blogosphere is chock full of stuff this morning, mainly analyzing the emails and documents (more on that in another post).  So this morning I thought I'd take a gander at some of the software code that was included in the hacker's dump.  This is the contents of an IDL file named briffa_sep98_e.pro.  This code appears to be used to pre-process raw tree ring data.  I've highlighted areas of interest in bold red, and added a comment with a footnote number; otherwise the file's contents are unmodified:

;
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately.  Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]  ;note 1
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
  2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75         ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
loadct,39
def_1color,20,color='red'
plot,[0,1]
multi_plot,nrow=4,layout='large'
if !d.name eq 'X' then begin
  window, ysize=800
  !p.font=-1
endif else begin
  !p.font=0
  device,/helvetica,/bold,font_size=18
endelse
;
; Get regional tree lists and rbar
;
restore,filename='reglists.idlsave'
harryfn=['nwcan','wnam','cecan','nweur','sweur','nsib','csib','tib',$
  'esib','allsites']
;
rawdat=fltarr(4,2000)
for i = nreg-1 , nreg-1 do begin
  fn='mxd.'+harryfn(i)+'.pa.mean.dat'
  print,fn
  openr,1,fn
  readf,1,rawdat
  close,1
  ;
  densadj=reform(rawdat(2:3,*))
  ml=where(densadj eq -99.999,nmiss)
  densadj(ml)=!values.f_nan
  ;
  x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
  kl=where((x ge 1400) and (x le 1992)) ;note 3
  x=x(kl)
  densall=densadj(1,kl)     ; all bands
  densadj=densadj(0,kl)     ; 2-6 bands
  ;
  ; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
  ;
  mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
  mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) ;note 2
densall=densall+yearlyadj
  ;
  ; Now plot them
  ;
  filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
  cpl_barts,x,densall,title='Age-banded MXD from all sites',$
    xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
    zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
  oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
  oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
  ;
endfor
;
; Restore the Hugershoff NHD1 (see Nature paper 2)
;
xband=x
restore,filename='../tree5/densadj_MEAN.idlsave'
; gets: x,densadj,n,neff
;
; Extract the post 1600 part
;
kl=where(x ge 1400)
x=x(kl)
densadj=densadj(kl)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) ;note 2
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot it too
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densadj,title='Hugershoff-standardised MXD from all sites',$
  xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
  zeroline=tshug,yrange=[-7,3],bar_color=20
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their bidecadal components
;
plot,xband,tslow,$
  xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
  yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title='Low-pass (20-yr) filtered comparison'
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their 50-yr components
;
filter_cru,50,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
filter_cru,50,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
plot,xband,tslow,$
  xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
  yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title='Low-pass (50-yr) filtered comparison'
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now compute the full, high and low pass correlations between the two
; series
;
perst=1400.
peren=1992.
;
openw,1,'corr_age2hug.out'
thalf=[10.,30.,50.,100.]
ntry=n_elements(thalf)
printf,1,'Correlations between timeseries'
printf,1,'Age-banded vs. Hugershoff-standardised'
printf,1,'     Region    Full   <10   >10   >30   >50  >100'
;
kla=where((xband ge perst) and (xband le peren))
klh=where((x ge perst) and (x le peren))
ts1=densadj(klh)
ts2=densall(kla)
;
r1=correlate(ts1,ts2)
rall=fltarr(ntry)
for i = 0 , ntry-1 do begin
  filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts1,tslow=tslow1,tshigh=tshi1,/nan
  filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts2,tslow=tslow2,tshigh=tshi2,/nan
  if i eq 0 then r2=correlate(tshi1,tshi2)
  rall(i)=correlate(tslow1,tslow2)
endfor
;
printf,1,'ALL SITES',r1,r2,rall,$
  format='(A11,2X,6F6.2)'
;
printf,1,' '
printf,1,'Correlations carried out over the period ',perst,peren
;
close,1
;
end

Well.  Where to start?  I guess I'll just dive right in...

1.  This code constructs a pair of 20 element arrays that are used later as inputs to an interpolation routine.  As the comments "fudge factor" and "very artificial correction for decline" would seem to indicate, these values appear to be completely arbitrary, and unsupported by any underlying theory about why the raw data should be manipulated this way.  I'll tell you what it looks like to this ancient, gray-bearded software who has constructed many software models in his career: this looks like someone manipulating the input to a model to get the desired results.  Publicly such a modeler would proclaim: “Lookee here!  I crunched the tree-ring data and got this result!” – when the reality is that the modeler “fudged” and “corrected” the data until the results matched his preconceived and desired result.  Smoking code gun number one.

2.  These two places are where the “very artificial correction” is being applied. 

3.  This code limits the data in the results to the years 1401 to 1991.  It would be interesting to know why those particular years were chosen.  I'm especially intrigued by the 1991 cutoff, as I've read elsewhere that the tree ring data from the late 20th century doesn't support the notion that tree ring width is a good proxy for temperature.  Could this be the reason for the early cutoff?

Another CRU Email...

The current climate models employed by the warmenist scientists use a temperature series that is based largely on tree ring data as a proxy for temperature.  Having grown up on a tree nursery, I was skeptical of the basic assumption that tree ring width in an individual tree will vary primarily because of ambient temperature.  I have personally observed much variance in the growth rate of trees based on other factors, like rainfall, nutrients in the ground, predation by animals, etc.  Certainly temperature has some effect on tree growth rate, but other factors also do.

So when I read this email (1256760240.txt) in the collection hacked from CRU, I was most interested.  Again, I've bolded and footnoted the sections I found interesting:

From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009

    Keith,
       There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen  what McIntyre has put up. You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
   [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
    This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.
    Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
    Cheers
    Phil

     X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to
     using -f
     Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
     Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:48 -0000
     X-MS-Has-Attach:
     X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
     Thread-Topic: Yamal and paleoclimatology
     Thread-Index: AcpDQ2sqWC+z2djuSqC1Ax4HdHoH1wUn1Ocw
     From: "Keiller, Donald"
     To:
     Cc:      X-ARU-HELO: CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL
     X-ARU-sender-host: cambe01.ad.anglia.ac.uk (CAMEXCH.ANGLIA.LOCAL) [193.63.55.171]:25427
     X-ARU-Mailhub: yes
     X-ARU-Exchange: yes
     X-ARU-MailFilter: message scanned
     X-Spam-Status: no
     Reply-to: Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk
     X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
     X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
     X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
     X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
     X-Canit-Stats-ID: 34330416 - 89bde843c4e5 (trained as not-spam)
     X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
     [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=f
     X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
     [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=n
     X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=s
     X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1
     Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology;
     ([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm)
     and the chronology itself;
     ([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)
     Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre¹
     ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588)
     Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
     1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
     2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?
     And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
     Dr. D.R. Keiller
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Keiller, Donald
     Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
     To: 'k.briffa@uea.ac.uk'
     Cc: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'
     Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
     Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell.
     However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.
     As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
     As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology². In particular;
     1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
     2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
     3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the
     "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
     4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.
     Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers³.
     As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.
     There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
     Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.
     Yours sincerely,
     Dr. Don Keiller.

     --
     EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of
     our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the
     academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies;
     Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History;
     Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit
     [8]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.
     This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
     recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
     error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
     them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
     then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.

     Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
     necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.

     Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and
     attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good
     computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus
     free.

     Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may
     not be a 100% secure communications
     Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service -
     [9]www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

   1. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
   2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=f
   3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=n
   4. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=34330416&m=89bde843c4e5&c=s
   5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm
   6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
   7. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588
   8. http://www.anglia.ac.uk/rae
   9. http://www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems

One thing that's clear from reading a hundred or so of these emails: the warmenist scientists are quite obsessed with, and defensive about, the Climate Audit web site by Steve McIntyre.  I've long linked to McIntyre's site as one of the best global warming skeptical sites I'd found.  I consider now that my choice has been completely validated!

I don't know anything about the Dr. Donald Keiller who wrote two of the emails in this thread, other than that I was able to confirm (via Google) that Dr. Keiller indeed exists, and works in the field implied in his emails.

My comments:

1. Dr. Keiller read of the controversy regarding the tree ring data being used in the temperature series on McIntyre's Climate Audit site.  He wrote to the authors for clarification.  They never responded, though they did post comments to the articles on Climate Audit.  Dr. Keiller finds McIntyre (a skeptic) more credible.

2. But more interestingly to me, Dr. Keiller questions the entire basis of dendroclimatology (using tree rings to infer anything about the climate).  The Wikipedia article I linked to explains the questions pretty clearly.  This is a big problem for the warmenists, as a major element of their models is the temperature series, which is in turn partly compised of dendroclimatology data.

3. Dr. Keiller is one of many scientists who have called BS on the warmenists creative use of statistics.  It's too bad that this hijacked email contained no more specifics.

Another CRU Email...

This one put a smile on my face.  A scientist I'd not heard of before (Tom Wigley) takes the warmenist scientists to task:

From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@staff.tpe.wau.nl, grassl_h@gateway.wmo.ch, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@iss.nl, oriordan@enviro.uct.ac.za, uctpa84@ucl.ac.uk, john@pik-potsdam.de, mparry@geog.ucl.ac.uk, pier.vellinga@ivm.vu.nlam.de
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it.  Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions."  In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options.  It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it.  However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.  This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service.  To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment.  What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.  In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research.  I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.  No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves.  You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this!  I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.

Let me remind you of the science.  The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU.  Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue.  Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization.  It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway.  It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.

Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles.  Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits.  As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways.  Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.

The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups).  Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means!  You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation.  Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are.  In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit.  Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling").  People who endorse your letter will
NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing.  You have failed to do so.  Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al.  I
find this extremely disturbing.

Tom Wigley


On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:

> Reference:  Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> *****  The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan        Hartmut Grassl    Klaus Hasselmann    Jill J‰ger
> Hans Opschoor        Tim O'Riordan        Martin Parry        David Pearce
> Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber            Wolfgang Seiler    Pier Vellinga
>
> After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
> scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
> Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
> Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
> Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
> November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body.  This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
>
> WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
>
> We would very much like you to endorse this Statement.  Unfortunately, at
> this time we can no longer take into account any suggested modifications.
> Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely enough so that
> you can support it.  If you agree with the Statement, then:
>
> 1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via email
> (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax number.
> Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be included.  If
> replying by email please do not use the 'reply all' option.  If this
> invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please make sure your reply
> is directed to the originators of this invitation, namely:
> t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk (on behalf of Mike Hulme and Joe Alcamo).
>
> 2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who
> are receiving this email directly from us.  If you feel it is appropriate,
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country who
> are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
> Statement and whom we have not targeted.  To identify colleagues whom we
> have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
> for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
> email).
>
> We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
> influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
> Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
> Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany
>
> (On behalf of the other signatories of the Statement)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse the
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
> Climate.
>
> Full Title and Name                       
>
> Affiliation                        Country
>
> Signature (for fax replies only)                       
>
> Date
>
> Other comments:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would prefer you to return this email message to us by email, having
> duly completed the form above.  You should be sending the form to:
>
>                            ****************************
>                            **                        **
>                            **  t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk  **
>                            **                        **
>                            ****************************
>
> If you would rather not use the email reply function, then please print out
> the form above and fax it (filled in) to:
> 
> "Attention: European Climate Statement"
> Climatic Research Unit,  University of East Anglia
> Telefax: +44 1603 507784
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
> =============================================================================
>
> In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
> climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year,
> at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take
> another important step.  It is our belief that the nations of the world
> should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions.
> 
> Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
> carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
> IPCC reported that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
> influence on global climate". They also gave examples of observed climate
> change up to now, including:
>
> ∑ Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
> degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
> warmest since 1860.
> ∑ Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past
> 100 years.
>
> Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
> humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
> future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as
> in the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions;
> and society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
> against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will
> increase risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human
> time scale. Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level,
> the transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop
> yield, and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is
> also possible that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and
> floods, could occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are
> people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and
> islands, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or in mountainous
> regions. The risk to nature will be significant in the many areas where
> ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are
> already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
>
> Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits
> on the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the
> climate system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations
> use such long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining
> short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example,
> by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
>
> Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because
> of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view
> is that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
> "precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
> climate change", as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
> postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
> carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find
> the arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing
> action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
> onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to
> prevent future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the
> latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate
> control of emissions.
>  
> Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
> industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
> of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
> use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
> efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
> sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
> reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
> pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
>
> We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
> term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
> emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
> countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
> emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
> similar, goal as a positive first step "to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system" and to lessen risks to society and
> nature.   Such substantive action is needed now.
>
> *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
> Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
>
> Signed:
>
> Jan Goudriaan            Hartmut Grassl        Klaus Hasselmann
> Jill J‰ger            Hans Opschoor            Tim O'Riordan
> Martin Parry             David Pearce            Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
> Wolfgang Seiler        Pier Vellinga   
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> **  This message originated from the                                    
> **     Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.  
> **  It was sent out by                                                  
> **     Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories. 
> **  If you object to being on this email address list,                  
> **     please accept our apologies and inform us;                       
> **     we will then remove your address from the list.                  
> **  Please direct any comments to:                                      
> **     t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk                                                
> ************************************************************************
>
> The list below consists of the people with UK email addresses to whom this
> message has been sent:
>
> all CRU staff
> Adger, N
> Alcock, Graeme
> Allan, P
> Allan, Richard P
> Anderson, Dennis
> Armstrong, Adrian
> Arnell, N W
> Audsley, Eric
> Baker, Richard
> Baran, A J
> Barker, Terry
> Benestad, R E
> Bentham, G
> Bigg, G
> Boucher, Keith R
> Bouma, D
> Bramwell, Penny
> Brooks, Roger
> Brown, Philip RA
> Brugge, Roger
> Bullock, P
> Burkhardt, Ulrike
> Butterfield, Ruth
> Cai, Xiaoming
> Cannell, Melvyn
> Carling, Bob
> Castleford, John
> Chan, Angela H Y
> Clark, Douglas B
> Cluckie, I D
> Collins, Matthew
> Colman, Andrew
> Connolley, William M
> Cornford, Dan
> Costigan, Peter
> Cox, Peter
> Cox, Peter M
> Cui, Zhiqiang
> Culf, Alastair
> Cullum, Dave
> Dale, Ian
> Davis, Gerald R
> Dewhurst, Nicola
> Doherty, Ruth
> Dokerty, T
> Dorling, S
> Downey, Ian
> Downing, Tom
> East, M.
> Easthope, Mark
> Evans, Sam
> Favis-Mortlock, David
> Ferris, Rachel
> Fisher, Helen
> Folland, Chris
> Foot, John S
> Ford, I J
> Fowler, David
> Friend, Andrew
> Fruh, Wolf-Gerrit
> Gallop, Rowland
> Gawith, Megan
> Geer, Alan
> George, Glen
> Gibson, J K
> Giles, Brian
> Goode, Helen Rachel
> Gregory, David
> Gregory, Jonathan
> Gregory, Ken
> Griggs, D
> Grubb, Michael
> Hannah, David M
> Hansen, Jim
> Harrison, Paula
> Hawksworth, Kevin Stuart
> Hedger, Merylyn
> Hewitt, Chris
> Highwood, Eleanor
> Holt, Chris
> Horton, Briony
> Houghton, J
> Houseago, Richenda
> Huntingford, Chris
> Hutchings, Jenny
> Ingram, John
> Ingram, W J
> Jackson, Tim
> Jakob, Christian
> Jeffree, Christopher E
> Jenkins, Geoff
> Johns, Tim
> Johnston, Peter
> Jolliffe, Ian
> Jones, Clive
> Jones, Colin
> Jordan, A
> Joyce, Andrew N
> Keen, Ann
> Kennedy, Hamid
> Kenworthy, Joan M
> Keramitsoglou, Iphigenia
> Kilsby, Chris
> King, Ben P
> King, John
> Kings, John
> Kniveton, Dom
> Lamptey, Benjamin Lantei
> Lary, David J
> Liss, P
> Livermore, Matt
> Lloyd, Colin
> Lynagh, Norman
> Marshall, David
> Marshall, Stewart
> Maskell, Kathy
> Matthews, B
> Mavromatis, Theodoros
> Mayes, Julian
> Mayr, Thomas
> McClatchey, John
> McGregor, Glenn Russell
> McKay, Douglas
> McLaren, Alison
> McMichael, Tony
> Medlyn, Belinda
> Merchant, Chris
> Mitchell, John
> Morison, James
> Morse, Andy
> Mulligan, Mark
> Murphy, James
> Murrill, A
> Nicholls, Robert
> Noguer, Maria
> Orr, John
> Palmer, Tim
> Palutikof, Jean
> Parker, David
> Parkinson, Stuart
> Parry, M
> Pedder, Mike
> Perry, Allen
> Pierce, Clive
> Pilling, C
> Pope, V D
> Pugh, D
> Ravetz, Jerome R
> Read, P L
> Rey, N
> Reynard, Nick
> Reynolds, David
> Roberts, D L
> Rosier, Suzanne
> Rounsevell, Mark
> Rowell, Dave
> Ryan, Sonja
> Sanderson, Michael G
> Scaife, Adam
> Sear, Chris
> Semenov, Mikhail
> Shackley, Simon
> Shao, Jianmin
> Shine, Keith P
> Simpson, I
> Simpson, V
> Sims, Graham
> Skea, Jim
> Slingo, Julia
> Smithson, Peter
> Snow, Keith
> Spellman, Greg
> Standley, Andy
> Stott, Peter
> Subak, S
> Sumner, Graham
> Sutton, R T
> Tait, Andrew
> Taylor, C M
> Tett, Simon
> Thorncroft, Chris
> Thornes, John E
> Thornton, Tim
> Thorpe, Robert
> Thuburn, John
> Todd, Martin
> Tullett, Michael
> Turner, R K
> Unwin, David
> Veal, Anthony
> Viterbo, Pedro
> Walker, Malcolm
> Wang, Kuoying
> Warrilow, David
> Washington, Richard
> Webb, Mark
> Wheeler, Tim
> Wigley, Tom
> Wilby, Rob
> Wild, Richard
> Williamson, P
> Woodward, Stephanie
> Wright, Peter
> Wynne, Brian
> Yamin, Farhana
>
>


       **********************************************************
       *Tom M.L. Wigley                        *
       *Senior Scientist                     *
       *National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
       *P.O. Box 3000                                *
       *Boulder, CO 80307-3000                    *
       *USA                                                     *
       *Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
       *Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
       *E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
       **********************************************************