Thursday, December 29, 2011

1248790545.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Jim Salinger <j.salinger@auckland.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Tue Jul 28 10:15:45 2009
Cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, j.renwick@niwa.co.nz, b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>

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 <mann@meteo.psu.edu>:

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 <trenbert@ucar.edu>:

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 <mann@meteo.psu.edu>:

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:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-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
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>

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 <trenbert@ucar.edu>:

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
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
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
[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [6]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[8]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [9]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[10]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
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 <[13]mann@meteo.psu.edu>:

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 <[14]trenbert@ucar.edu>:

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 <[15]mann@meteo.psu.edu>:

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:
[16]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-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
[17]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
<McLean2008JD011637.pdf>

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 <[18]trenbert@ucar.edu>:

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
[19]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
--
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
[20]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [21]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [22]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [24]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [25]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[27]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [28]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [29]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[30]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: [31]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [32]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[33]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

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.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu
2. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
6. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
7. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
9. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
10. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
13. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
14. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
15. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
16. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
17. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
18. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
19. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
20. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
21. mailto:mann@psu.edu
22. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
23. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
24. mailto:mann@psu.edu
25. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
26. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
27. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
28. mailto:mann@psu.edu
29. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
30. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
31. mailto:mann@psu.edu
32. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
33. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

No comments:

Post a Comment