The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 826209667.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
I and Eugene received your E-mail of 04.03.1996. This day I talked
over the telephone with Eugene and he asked me to send an answer from
both of us.
Thank you for the information concerning proposals to the
INCO/COPERNICUS. We agree with your strategy used and we hope
that this proposal will not be rejected.
The results of INTAS-RFBR proposal will be known at the beginning
of May. We know that they received many proposals and a competition
is high (only 1 in 10 proposals might get money). Of course, you
included in as a participant. Fritz is a coordinator from the INTAS
countries.
This year our laboratory received two small grants (approximately
8,000-10,000 USD per year) from the Russian Foundation of Basic
Researches (RFBR) for the next three years: the first one for
developing the Yamal supra-long chronology and the second one for
developing tree-ring chronologies from living trees growing at the
polar timberline in Siberia (together with Vaganov's laboratory).
These money are very important for us as they will allow to maintain
the staff of our laboratories.
I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and
together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book "Dendroclimatic
Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic". The problem now is to find
money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million
roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean
ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form
of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements
which were used for developing these chronologies.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for
collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions.
The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times
during the last some years. That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge
meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.
If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does
not insist upon this visit.
The best wishes to you and Phil.
Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov
Original Filename: 835015638.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: schiyatov
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 08:47:18 +0500
Dear Keith,
I have bought the tickets from Moscow to London and back. My arrival
to London (Heathrow Airport) is by flight SU 245 (Aeroflot Company) on
July 19. Departure from Moscow is at 20.10 (local time), arrival to London
is approximately at the same local time. As I know, Evgeny Vaganov did not
bay tickets until now, but he informed of my dates and can bay tickets the
same flights. My depature from London to Moscow is on August 1 by the
Aeroflot Company flight SU 244 at 09.00 of local time.
Please, inform me how can I arrive at Cambridge from London? Is
there the program of this meeting? We must be ready to do some reports?
For example, I can prepare a report about the progress in developing the
Yamal supra-long chronology and together with Evgeny about dendroclimatic
investigation in the Ural-Siberian subarctic.
Rashit Hantemirov and Alexander Surkov will go soon to the Yamal
peninsula (June 24). This summer they want to collect subfossil material
from areas which are much more remote and situated at higher latitudes.
We hoped to use some money of the ADVANCE project. But we have not received
this money until now and the program of collecting during this summer will
be reduced.
Some days ago I received an information that the INTAS-RFBR project
was rejected. The competition was very high.
Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
Original Filename: 835819980.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: km_king@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: F028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: URGENT RESPONSE NEEDED - Early Detection Work
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:xxx xxxx xxxx(PDT)
Dr. Jones,
I am contacting you on behalf of Dave Bader and Tim Barnett regarding a couple
action items in support of early detection on climate change. Based upon the
anticipated award for NOAA support during fiscal year 1997 on climate change
data and detection, DOE has authorized the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) to utilize existing funding through 9/30/96 to conduct a
meeting of the experts, and to begin preliminary investigations.
PNNL would like to place a contract with you as soon as possible to provide
support through 9/30/96. In order to place a contract with you, I need to
submit a statement of work and signed cost proposal to our Contracts
Department. If you could please fax this to me as soon as possible on (509)
xxx xxxx xxxx, it would be greatly appreciated.
I thought your activity my look something like the following (feel free to
change/edit):
Scope of Work
Dr. Phillip Jones shall begin initial work in support of the pilot project
identified in the Early Detection of Climate Trends report. He shall prepare
for and participate in a meeting on greenhouse signal detection, to be held in
Washington, DC on September 17-18, 1996. In addition, Dr. Jones shall conduct
a preliminary analysis ?????? (please provide input)
Deliverables
Prepare for and participate in 9/17-18, 1996 meetings on greenhouse signal.
Provide a summary report on the preliminary analysis of ?????? on or
before September 30, 1996.
Also, for your information the current plan for the meeting is for September 17-
18, 1996 at the Courtyard by Marriott - Greenbelt, 6301 Golden Triangle Drive,
Greenbelt, MD. (3xxx xxxx xxxx, fax: (3xxx xxxx xxxx. Government room rate is
$89/day.
When you provide your cost estimate, it would be appreciated if you could
provide your hourly rate, in addition to travel estimates for the September
meeting. To expedite the process, it is very helpful if can include
documentation to support your hourly rate.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. My phone number is xxx xxxx xxxx
2861, fax is xxx xxxx xxxx.
Thank you,
Karen
Original Filename: 837094033.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Alan Robock <alan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn't published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define "utter prat" for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I'm not so sure.
I'm doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I'm going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I'm looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Department of Meteorology Fax: (3xxx xxxx xxxx
University of Maryland Email: alan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
College Park, MD 20xxx xxxx xxxx http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We'll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all's well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it's Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he's
> an utter prat but he's getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He's not all bad as
> he doesn't have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he's not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Original Filename: 837197800.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Neil Loader
Subject: Cambridge details
Date: Fri Jul 12 14:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:05:15 +0100
>To: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Cambridge details
>Cc: Neil Loader
>
>At 08:47 17/06/96 +0500, you wrote:
>>Dear Keith,
>> I have bought the tickets from Moscow to London and back. My arrival
>>to London (Heathrow Airport) is by flight SU 245 (Aeroflot Company) on
>>July 19. Departure from Moscow is at 20.10 (local time), arrival to London
>>is approximately at the same local time. As I know, Evgeny Vaganov did not
>>bay tickets until now, but he informed of my dates and can bay tickets the
>>same flights. My depature from London to Moscow is on August 1 by the
>>Aeroflot Company flight SU 244 at 09.00 of local time.
>> Please, inform me how can I arrive at Cambridge from London? Is
>>there the program of this meeting? We must be ready to do some reports?
>>For example, I can prepare a report about the progress in developing the
>>Yamal supra-long chronology and together with Evgeny about dendroclimatic
>>investigation in the Ural-Siberian subarctic.
>> Rashit Hantemirov and Alexander Surkov will go soon to the Yamal
>>peninsula (June 24). This summer they want to collect subfossil material
>>from areas which are much more remote and situated at higher latitudes.
>>We hoped to use some money of the ADVANCE project. But we have not received
>>this money until now and the program of collecting during this summer will
>>be reduced.
>> Some days ago I received an information that the INTAS-RFBR project
>>was rejected. The competition was very high.
>>
>> Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Dear Stepan ,
> I have sent your message on to Neil Loader who is organising
>the logistics for the Cambridge meeting. By the time you arrive you could
>still get the underground to London and take a train to Cambridge. This will take about 3 to 4 hours and so you will not arrive until very late. You may
>wish to stay in a hotel near Heathrow - for the night and take a train in
>the morning. It will not be advisable to go into London and search for a
>reasonable hotel at that time . If you go to information at the airport they
>will arrange for a hotel and courrier service to and from the hotel. It is
>best to ask when you arrive. You could also phone me and/or Niel to let us
>know your situation. My home phone number is (01xxx xxxx xxxx). Niel will
>probably give you a contact number in Cambridge. You will need money only for
>your travel and hotel expenses until you get to Cambridge. I will refund this
>and give you additional funds when I arrive on Saturday evening. If you need
>to, you will be able to change money in Heathrow when you arrive.
> Please let me know if any of this is not feasible. Perhaps Neil or
>someone here can book you a hotel room if you decide whether or not to go
>to Cambridge the same night you arrive.
> I will send this message to Neil and he may contact you seperately.
>Let me know your thoughts on this .
> As for the meeting - if you wish to give a presentation on the Urals
>and Taimyr work that would be good. The main reason you are coming is to meet
>everyone and to discuss further work plans - so do not worry about a talk.
> It's up to you. After the meeting I thought you might like to come back
>to my house near Norwich for a day or two or have a holiday in and around
>Cambridge. We can discuss this later. Fritz Schweingruber will not now
>come to Cambridge.
> Thats all for now - I look forward to hearing from you
> best wishes
> Keith
>
Original Filename: 839635440.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: John Daly <daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Climatic warming in Tasmania
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:04:00 +1100
Cc: Ed Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, NNU-NB@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike Barbetti <mikeb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, zetterberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Neville,
You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle
did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some
ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.
Have you tried this approach?
Load "Mathematica" into your PC and run the following set of instructions -
data = ReadList[ "c:sydney.txt", Number]
dataElements = Length[data]
X = ListPlot[ data, PlotJoined-> True];
fourierTrans = Fourier[data];
ListPlot[Abs[fourierTrans], PlotJoined -> True];
fitfun1 = Fit[data,{1,x,x^2,x^3,Sin[11 2 Pi x/dataElements],
Cos[11 2 Pi x/dataElements]},x];
fittable = Table[N[fitfun1], {x, dataElements}];
Y = ListPlot[fittable, PlotJoined -> True];
Show[X, Y]
The reference to "c:sydney.txt" is a suggested pathname for the following
set of data - which is Sydney's annual mean temperature.
16.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.1
16.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.5
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.8
18.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.1
18.6
So Far so good.
"Mathematica" first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)
The first part of the instruction set lets "mathematica" do a Fourier Transform
on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is
shown on Attachment 2.
The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder
what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it's
waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform
in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term
Sydney warming easily evident.
Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year
periodicity.
It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.
(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU
must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).
Stay cool.
John Daly http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSydney.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachFourier.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar1.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar2.gif
Original Filename: 839858862.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: dgm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Your help, please?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:07:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, boville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, branst@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kiehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, francisb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjcicero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, covey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, curry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pdadd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gates5@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, graumlich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barafu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, liu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sloman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rcm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berrien@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dickm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, neelin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, newell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, north@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, obrien@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, randall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, erasmu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, njrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sarachik@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schneide@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, esmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rsomervi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, turco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, waliser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, walsh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "P.D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Barnett <tbarnett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jfein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <bsanter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, dgm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Doug,
In response to Jay Fein's e-mail re den-cen, here are some points (which
may merely echo where you are already).
(1) Why study den-cen? Reason is: improve understanding of climate
system to aid in detection and prediction. You should read Ch. 8
(detection) of IPCC WGI SAR in this regard.
(2) How to study den-cen? Models and observed data are equally
important. Models (coupled O/AGCMs) can only give the internal component
of variability, instrumental and paleodata give internal-plus-external.
(3) How useful are paleodata? I support the continued collection of
such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community
try to oversell their product. A specific example is the ice core
isotope record, which correlates very poorly with temperature on the
annual to decadal timescale (and possibly also on the century
timescale)---question, how do we ever demonstrate the usefulness or
otherwise of ice core isotopes on this timescale?
There are other well known proxy data issues that need careful thought...
(a) Sedimentary records---dating. Are 14C-dated records of any value at
all (unless wiggle matched)?
(b) Seasonal specificity---how useful is a proxy record that tells us
about a single season (or only part of the year)?
(c) Climate variance explained by the proxy variable--close to zero for
ice core isotopes, up to 50% for tree rings, somewhere in between for
most other indicators. How valuable are such partially explained records
in helping explain the past?
(d) Signal-to-noise problems---a key issue is, what role has external
forcing had on climate over the past 10,000 years. There is a tendency
to interpret observed changes as evidence of external forcing---usually
unjustifiably. Few workers in the area realize that paleo interpretation
has a detection aspect, just like interpreting the past 100+ years---only
much more difficult. More work is needed on this.
(e) Frequency dependence of explained variance---the classic example
here is tree rings, where it is exceedingly difficult to get out a
credible low frequency (50+ year time scale) message. Work in this area
could reap useful rewards.
(f) Coverage---what about den-cen data from the oceans? We need much
more of this, especially in regions that might provide insights into
mechanisms (like NADW changes).
(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic
aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more
work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to
understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally
to solar forcing.
I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful
Cheers,
Tom
P.S. I've added Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Ed Cook, Keith Briffa, Malcolm
Hughes, Ray Bradley and Phil Jones to your mailing list.
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, it was written:
> Dear Colleague:
>
> Doug Martinson is the Chair of the NAS, Climate Research
> Committee's Dec-Cen panel. He and his Panelists are drafting a
> Decadal-Century Climate Variability Science Plan (a US CLIVAR
> contribution). Doug and his Panel are trying to get the broadest
> possible scientific input for this Plan. Doug's approach is one
> that I strongly endorse. In this reagrd he asked me to solicite
> your comments on highest priority science questions and asks also
> for some help regarding examples of published work that would be
> useful for the Plan.
>
> I know you are busy, but urge you to think about this and comment.
> Doug's committee meet in mid-September, so to be of most use to
> him, your comments should be received by the end of August.
>
> Please email to Doug with a cc to me.
>
> Doug Martinson: dgm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Jay Fein: jfein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
> Thanks very much. Jay
>
Original Filename: 841293339.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (by way of Tim Osborn <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>)
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:35:39 +0100
From: CPCMB::Fxxx xxxx xxxxJUL-1995 10:53:56.46
To: MX%"pierce@xxxxxxxxx.xxx"
CC: F055
Subj: Re: Hi and questions
Dave
You're right, smoothing the P-E field is a much bigger change than adding
a bit of noise, or the statistical model feedback. But some papers give the
indication that the strong instability/variability of the thermohaline
circulation under traditional mixed boundary conditions cannot possibly
occur when a more realistic SST condition is used. Yet that's not true
of some current models - e.g.:
- some LSG/EBM configurations still oscillate,
- the Manabe & Stouffer 1988 coupled model had two stable states,
- Mikolajewicz and Maier-Reimer 1994 still could collapse NADW even with a
reduced coupling of 16 W/m**2/K (I note your caveat about the lack of scale
dependence though),
- the Stocker et al 1992 zonally averaged coupled model had multiple
equilibria,
- the OPYC/ECHAM2 coupled run (Lunkeit et al) shows what appears to be a
temporary collapse of NADW.
The answer is that the stability depends on the relative buoyancy forcing of
heat and fresh-water, as you've pointed in both you're papers. Freeing up
the SST increases the stabilising (not static stability, but stability of the
model's state) effect of the heat flux - but doesn't GUARANTEE that it will
be stronger than the fresh-water flux effect. To be realistic, the fresh-water
flux used should ideally be the observed flux - I agree that a diagnosed field
hides model errors. Its similar to the flux correction or no flux correction
dilemna of coupled models - do you want a realistic state with unrealistic
processes, or a possibly unrealistic state with realistic processes. Either
way, the response of the model to perturbations cannot be guaranteed to be
realistic. The best current way is to do both. Then, with luck, the real
world will lie between the two answers obtained.
The SALFLU_EBM file is not readable yet, although it is there.
You have some interesting papers on your WWW page - the Marginal Sea model
looks very innovative. Also, the LSG/EBM experiment with the open Panama
Isthmus shows good results. What P-E forcing field did you use for that run,
and what small-scale coupling coefficient?
Cheers,
Tim Tim Osborn, CRU, UEA, UK
Original Filename: 841418825.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jean-Claude.Duplessy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Jean-Claude Duplessy)
Subject: Re:
Date: Fri Aug 30 11:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
At 13:52 27/08/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>
> I have been asked to write a white paper on the possibility for the
>paleo community to interact with CLIVAR.
>
> Evidently part of the jow has been made during the Venice meeting,
>but I would like to know if you have somme recent recent work of yours that
>I could include in this paper.
>
> Any suggestion woulmd be welcome.
>
>Best regards
>
>jean claude
>
Dear Jean-Claude
It is good news indeed that these initiatives are now meaningfully
underway to join the palaeo , pure climate , and modelling communities.
I will join the short CLIVAR/PAGES meeting (24/25 Oct.) and a colleague -
Tim Osborn will attend the larger meeting from Oct.28-Nov.1. As for question
about new results , Ed Cook and I have a paper in press describing an
initial attempt to reconstruct a North Atlantic Oscillation index back into
the 1700s using tree-ring chronologies in Europe and North America. I will
have a copy sent to you. Otherwise we have a paper soon to come out in an
American book describing our early analyses of the growing Russian data.
This work, developing the density network is progressing well and we have
some very good reconstructions of growing season degree days- excellent
spatial maps over western siberia going back several hundred years.
We recently published a paper in Nature describing a 1000-year summer
temperature reconstruction in the northern Urals and a brief but interesting
paper demonstrating a strong volcanic influence in the tree-ring density
data when they show extreme low density over large areas. We have very
interesting developments from these areas of work but they are only now
being written up.
The usefull thing to stress is that these researches are in progress
and the development of the tree-ring network is continuing well and is already
providing patterns of past climate variability in northern Europe/Russia
and at a number of special locations- nortern Sweden/Finland, Yamal, and
Taimyr we have already got continuous 2000-year chronologies and have the
potential (indeed we already are) to build xxx xxxx xxxxyear series at ech location.
I will send you some reprints/preprints and an overhead that shows
the present state of the northern chronology network. Any stress on the
importance of future collaboration btween us and the Russians would be wellcome.
I have just heard that a proposal I submitted to Copernicus to do just this
was to my amazement ruled not relevant to the programme!
I look forward to seeing you in October. Very best wishes. Needless to say, if I can offer any help with drafting the white paper or similar
I am happy to oblige.
cheers
Keith
Original Filename: 842992948.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gary Funkhouser <gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: russian data
Date: Tue Sep 17 16:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Gary,
it's great to hear from you. The stuff you are doing is very interesting
to say the least. From the details you give the precip. stuff looks the more
relevant for the Holocene though I note that you don't have a manuscript
yet. The other stuff is of course interesting but I would have to see it
and the board would want the larger implications of the stats clearly
phrased in general and widely understandable ( by the ignorant masses) terms
before they would consider it not too specialised. I suspect that this
might not be straight forward. Are you not being (in the time honoured Don
Graybill fashion) too demanding of the response function results when you
say deriving a transfer function is not justified? We all strive for
perfection but does it exist? Seriously , it would be easier as regards
publication policy to get the Editor to accept a reconstruction/reconstruction
based paper than one describing chronology inferences.
I don't know whether this is any use but I hope you'll send us something.
I also hope life going O.K. for you these days. I can't see me getting to
Tucson for some considerable time and I don't suppose you have any plans
for cruising this way so I'll see you when I see you.
keep in touch and let me know what you you decide.
the best to you
Keith
At 16:44 11/09/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>Keith,
>How's it going?
>
>I've been working on some of the data that Don collected with
>Shiyatov, Mazepa and Vaganov in the late 80's and I was wondering
>if you thought any of it might be appropriate for The Holocene - or
>if you have any ideas about where we could go with it.
>
>I already have a fair draft dealing with the Kyrgyzstan juniper
>chronologies. Although I wasn't able to get any climatic
>reconstructions out of it, the material has some interesting
>properties similar to some of our long-lived trees in the southwest
>US. For example, autocorrelation in the series increases as a direct
>function of stand elevation, there is a shift from high to low
>frequency variation with increasing elevation, and the
>intercorrelation among the highest elevation stands is greater
>than that for the lower stands.
>
>Maybe this means that the lower altitude sites are responding
>to more local conditions (precipitation), while the higher stands
>are responding to a more regional (temperature) signal. Response
>function analyses with the indices may suggest this, but again,
>it's not strong enough to justify developing a transfer function.
>
>The draft is about 2500 words plus figures and tables. Stepan hasn't
>seen it yet, but I can't imagine that he will change it very much -
>I know that Valeri didn't find any great climate responses either.
>
>There are also 12 chronologies from central and southern Siberia, some
>which are pretty close to Jacoby's Mongolian sites. I was able to
>build 3 precipitation reconstructions - one has about 50% explained
>variance for a May - June season. I haven't composed a draft yet and
>although Gordon's dealing with temperature, a couple of the
>chronologies are of comparable length and I want to look at our
>low frequency variation relative to his.
>
>Jeff Dean and I are headed to the White Mountains this Friday for
>a little 5-day collection trip. Thanks for your time, Keith.
>
>Cheers, Gary
>Gary Funkhouser
>Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
>The University of Arizona
>Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
>phone: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>e-mail: gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>