cc: "Peter W. Thorne" , Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopold Haimberger , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , Professor Glenn McGregor date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:19:02 -0700 from: Karl Taylor subject: Re: Response to: David Douglass Dear Dr. Douglass, I am puzzled by your keen interest in obtaining these 7 or 8 numerical values from Fig. 6 since in no way will that allow you to independently reproduce the results in our paper. You will need to do quite a bit of work to independently assess our claims. I'm sure you will not want to undermine the independence of your assessment by relying on our method to calculate zonal means, since we might have made mistakes. I recommend you start with the original data. In fact I think if we were to share any of our processed data with you at this time, this would compromise the independence of your analysis and might be frowned on by the scientific community. A "blind", truly independent analysis by you of the raw data (which as noted by others is available to you) would be much more valuable in either substantiating our undermining our claims. By the way, I hope you got the main point of our paper. Although the new observations make some difference, the most important conclusion of our paper is that the statistical test you applied in your paper was inappropriate and led to wrong conclusions. Isn't it great when the scientific method works? Mistakes get corrected, at least eventually, when independent scientists spot the errors. Also, I agree with you that reproducing scientific results by others is a hallmark of the scientific process, and as part of our study we found that we too could apply your inappropriate statistical test to reach incorrect inferences concerning statistical significance. An appropriate test leads to the opposite conclusion. I hope you now understand some of the errors in your paper, which regretfully were not caught earlier in the review process. If you now decide to undertake an independent analysis of the data we used in our paper, this would, I'm sure, be welcomed by the scientific community. You undoubtedly will find your zonal means differ somewhat from ours unless you make exactly the same analysis choices (e.g., include the same set of stations we used). If the differences between what you get and what we got turn out to be large enough to matter (i.e., large enough to be discernible when you compare your numbers with our figure), then it would be incumbent on you to try to determine why. This would move us forward in trying to understand uncertainties in the observations. My guess is that if after doing an independent analysis of this kind, you wanted to share your results with Ben, he would likely reciprocate and provide the 7 or 8 numerical values from our paper, but of course, this would really be quite unnecessary since you should be able to easily reproduce the numbers in our paper from the raw data already available to you. In any case I will advise Ben that our processed data (not the raw data on which it is based) should be withheld at least until you have completed your independent analysis; otherwise you might be accused of being unduly influenced by us. I hope I have provided you with some helpful guidance on how you might proceed in furthering understanding of climate and climate change. Sincerely yours, Karl Taylor David Douglass wrote: > To: to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper, as well as > to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. > From: David Douglass > Re: request for data from fig6 > > Here are the rest of the facts > > 1. I requested the IUK data from Sherwood. He replied: > > /The data, and a paper describing the method and showing the trend > results, are available on my web site (see below). I urge you to read > the paper before using the data, as there are some important issues to > be considered. > For example, the trends are quite unreliable at some stations, but I > included as many stations as possible in order to get the most > information possible on natural variability./ > > 2. In a telephone conversation Sherwood stated that Thorne had actually > done the calculation: > > 3. I sent an email to Thorne. He replied: > > /I sent them to Dr. Santer who I believe recalculated trends using his algorithm from the netcdf files of zonal and regional averages > that I produced and sent. The differences were minimal between algorithms. > I can send you the tabular data I produced > (which will differ slightly from that published because of different trend estimation algorithm)/ > > I noted the characterization "unreliable" from Sherwood and "differ slightly" from Thorne. > This lead me to question the IUK values calculated by Santer and the request for these 7 or 8 data values. > > My dissatisfaction is not at the level of filing a complaint. > What I would like is for any author of this paper to make the IUK data in Fig 6 available to me or in some publicly available location. > > Scientific claims should be able to be reproducible by other scientists. Santer's reply does not allow me to do that. > > David Douglass > > ------------------------------------ > > . > Ben Santer wrote: >> Prof. Douglass, >> >> You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in >> our recently-published paper in the International Journal of >> Climatology (IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the >> calculations we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome >> to do so. >> >> We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to >> calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric >> levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of >> zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those >> displayed in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our "numerical >> quantities" in order to determine whether we have correctly calculated >> zonal-mean trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric >> amplification of surface temperature changes. >> >> Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation >> of "synthetic" MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for >> calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by >> ourselves and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already >> demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of >> computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output. >> Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already >> successfully replicated our "model average" synthetic MSU temperature >> trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report). >> >> In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data >> that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that >> you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in >> our IJoC paper are sound or unsound. >> >> You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints >> against me "with the journal and other scientific bodies". If I were >> you, Dr. Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the >> serious error in the "robust statistical test" that you applied to >> compare modeled and observed temperature trends. >> >> I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. >> IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They >> deserve to be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints. >> >> Please do not communicate with me in the future. >> >> Ben Santer >> >> David Douglass wrote: >>> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and >>> should not be a personal matter. >>> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with >>> conclusions based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As >>> another scientist, I challenge the value of those quantities. These >>> values can not be authenticated by my calculating them because I have >>> nothing to compare them to. >>> >>> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I >>> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other >>> scientific bodies. >>> >>> David Douglass >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Benjamin D. Santer >> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 >> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. >> Tel: (925) 422-3840 >> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> email: santer1@llnl.gov >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >