The importance of ship log data: reconstructing North Atlantic, European and Mediterranean sea level pressure fields back to 1750

Local to regional climate anomalies are to a large extent determined by the state of the atmospheric circulation. The knowledge of large-scale sea level pressure (SLP) variations in former times is therefore crucial when addressing past climate changes across Europe and the Mediterranean. However, currently available SLP reconstructions lack data from the ocean, particularly in the pre-1850 period. Here we present a new statistically-derived 5° × 5° resolved gridded seasonal SLP dataset covering the eastern North Atlantic, Europe and the Mediterranean area (40°W–50°E; 20°N–70°N) back to 1750 using terrestrial instrumental pressure series and marine wind information from ship logbooks. For the period 1750–1850, the new SLP reconstruction provides a more accurate representation of the strength of the winter westerlies as well as the location and variability of the Azores High than currently available multiproxy pressure field reconstructions. These findings strongly support the potential of ship logbooks as an important source to determine past circulation variations especially for the pre-1850 period. This new dataset can be further used for dynamical studies relating large-scale atmospheric circulation to temperature and precipitation variability over the Mediterranean and Eurasia, for the comparison with outputs from GCMs as well as for detection and attribution studies.

Opinions on registering trial details: a survey of academic researchers

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a set of items related to study design and administrative information that should build the minimum set of data in a study register. A more comprehensive data set for registration is currently developed by the Ottawa Group. Since nothing is known about the attitudes of academic researchers towards prospective study registration, we surveyed academic researchers about their opinion regarding the registration of study details proposed by the WHO and the Ottawa Group. METHODS: This was a web-based survey of academic researchers currently running an investigator-initiated clinical study which is registered with clinicaltrials.gov. In July 2006 we contacted 1299 principal investigators of clinical studies by e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey and a link to access a 52-item questionnaire based on the proposed minimum data set by the Ottawa Group. Two reminder e-mails were sent each two weeks apart. Association between willingness to disclose study details and study phase was assessed using the chi-squared test for trend. To explore the potential influence of non-response bias we used logistic regression to assess associations between factors associated with non-response and the willingness to register study details. RESULTS: Overall response was low as only 282/1299 (22%) principal investigators participated in the survey. Disclosing study documents, in particular the study protocol and financial agreements, was found to be most problematic with only 31% of respondents willing to disclose these publicly. Consequently, only 34/282 (12%) agreed to disclose all details proposed by the Ottawa Group. Logistic regression indicated no association between characteristics of non-responders and willingness to disclose details. CONCLUSION: Principal investigators of non-industry sponsored studies are reluctant to disclose all data items proposed by the Ottawa Group. Disclosing the study protocol and financial agreements was found to be most problematic. Future discussions on trial registration should not only focus on industry but also on academic researchers.