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: 1092581797.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Susan Solomon" <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, IPCC-WG1 <ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, martin.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WGI AR4 LA1 Programme]
Date: Sun Aug 15 10:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Susan,
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:51 13/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Susan Solomon wrote:
Dear Phil, dear Kevin,
Thanks for your message. It's very good to hear that you are getting together and will
have time to talk about this. I will make a few points and suggestions below for your
consideration.
Safe travels,
Susan
Martin, Susan et al,
Kevin and I will be at a GCOS meeting Mon-Weds next week in Geneva, so
will have some
time to discuss our chapter. I've sent Kevin some thoughts about
boundaries between
chapters. If you can provide your views on a few issues, then it will
help us in our
discussions.
1. We have extended outlines, which clarify some issues, but how rigid
are they? I say this
wrt the overviews/visions you expect on the Monday pm of the Trieste meeting.
The extended outlines show you what the thought process was at Marrakech and Potsdam
that led to the present outlines. It's your report, and you may wish to do things
differently. Where that may involve other chapters, such work would need to be
coordinated/decided jointly but most things are not like that.
2. In Chapter 3, we have a section 3.9 on synthesis/consistency amongst
obs. Does this
involve obs such as glacier retreat and changes in sea ice, snow cover
from chapters
4-6? Chapters 4-6 don't have similar sections.
We had some discussions on that in Potsdam in particular if I recall. Dividing up the
observations into three chapters solves some problems and raises others, and this is one
of them. My own thinking has been that issues such as the consistency of glacier
retreat with observations may be better handled in the ice chapter, which presumably
will be going into a bit more depth on processes affecting glaciers from the ice physics
point of view, providing a bit deeper basis for the assessment. The consistency of
observations between the three observations chapters could then be dealt with in the
technical summary, drawing on the findings from all three. But it is probably going to
be helpful if we have a discussion on this among the three chapters and come to a common
view.
3. Chapter 1 has a section on new data and data rescue. I guess we
should be involved
in that, but also Ch 9 on attribution as it has to be worthwhile. Also
the new data and
rescued data could be useful for model validation. I expect Ch 3 to
heavily use Reanalysis-
based results.
Yes, we expected there would need to be discussion on that. It may involve a subset of
people who should be urged to get together as needed.
4. Chapter 3 has SST and all the circulation indices, so here we need to
liaise with Ch 5 and 6
and eventually with 9.
Yes, agreed, and Kevin and others tried to work that into the outline in Potsdam.
5. I agree with Kevin though on whether formal meetings of the whole of
the chapters are
needed. Might this be better done with the CLAs and you?
There will be a lot to do in Trieste and we want to make efficient use of people's time
- it is probably true that not all the people need to be involved when the points you've
made so far are discussed. The morning 1-hour sessions with all CLAs are also intended
to be a forum where some of these kinds of issues (the broader ones) could be handled.
6. Considering all the above, I reckon we need to meet with Ch 4 and 6
(on glacier retreat,
snow, sea ice and temperature), Chapters 6 and 9 on what they expect
from us and
similarly with Chapter 5 (although I feel this is clear in the extended
outline). Finally,
Chapters 1, 3 and 6 (and maybe 9) need to discuss data rescue and new
techniques.
That sounds right to me. I would add your number 7 below into that mix as well.
It's really up to you to decide how you want to handle it. But prompted by your
message, the one from Kevin below, and some others, I think it will be helpful for us to
compile a list of all such issues raised - so I am asking the TSU to do that, combining
with another set that we received in the comments from governments (they actually raised
a number of such comments, quite rightly).
7. The Appendices in Chapters 3-5 need some sort of co-ordination.
Bests,
Susan
At 11:31 11/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Martin, Susan et al:
In thinking more about Chapter 3, I believe we will have issues on who and what is
covered on
1) ENSO related stuff Chapter 3 vs Chapter 5
2) Consistency of retreat of glaciers, snow and ice vs temperatures Chapter 3 vs chapter
4.
There are probably others, but these may require some negotiation unless it is already
settled in your mind? Whether a formal meeting between chapters is needed or whether
the CLAs can meet and agree is not yet clear to me.
Kevin
IPCC-WG1 wrote:
Dear WGI CLAs and Bureau Members,
Please find attached a draft programme for the upcoming WGI AR4 First Lead Authors
Meeting, xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember 2004, Trieste, Italy. Please note the section regarding
"cross-chapter breakout sessions". We have suggested four breakouts of this type, but
would appreciate any suggestions from you regarding other cross-chapter breakouts that
you feel may be needed. We kindly ask that you provide the WGI TSU
<[1]mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx><ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> any feedback you may have by
Friday, 20 August 2004.
Best regards,
WGI TSU
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IPCC WGI TSU
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
325 Broadway DSRC R/AL8
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/5628
Email: <[2]mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
<[3]mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[4]http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
<[5]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR <[6]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>[7]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IPCC WG1 Technical Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
325 Broadway DSRC R/AL8
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/5686
Email: ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
******************************************
Please note my new email address for your records:
Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*******************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
7. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1093294138.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Yamal treeline figures
Date: Mon Aug 23 16:48:xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:08:04 +0500
From: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.00 Build 1311) Registered to Andy Malyshev
Reply-To: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Organization: IPAE
Priority: Normal
X-Confirm-Reading-To: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Yamal treeline figures
Dear Keith,
Stepan Shiyatov tell me that you need some figures concerning
Yamal chronology and tree line dynamics to show somewhere in
France.
Attached are archived files contained some figures.
File MAP - the map of region of research. Red dots - subfossil
wood sites, green marks - recent northern border of larch along
river valleys.
File FIGURES - in Excel format, contains several figures.
Sheet "Values-10" - data on northernmost position of trees and
number of trees dated for corresponding year (decadal step)
Sheet "Treeline" - dynamics of treeline in Yamal during last 7000
years reconstructed using about 1000 subfossil wood remains.
Recent treeline position is about 67
Original Filename: 1093794363.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Martin Munro <mmunro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Calibration loose ends (was Re: [ITRDBFOR] crossdating)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
This an attempt to tie up the loose ends from an earlier part of the
discussion, the idea that calibration of the radiocarbon timescale be
considered invalid, pending a better understanding of crossdating.
Some of the previous posts seem to imply that measurements of the C-14
half-life depend on the calibration; in fact it can be determined by
present-day laboratory measurements without reference to any old
material, simply by observing the decay rate in a known quantity of
the isotope. Physicists seem happy that beta decay isn't affected by
mundane external influences, so the half life should be constant. If
the amount of C-14 in a sample depends only on its age and the
(constant) half life, a calibration curve from a collection of samples
of known true age would be a diagonal straight line; but this would
imply that each sample started with the same concentration of C-14.
There are many effects that could change this concentration through
time: variations in cosmic ray sources, changing solar activity,
changes in the upper atmosphere, atmospheric circulation, uptake and
release of carbon from large sinks and sources... etc. Given enough
correctly dated samples, you can recover the sum of these variations
from the form of the calibration curve. In practice, the most
important variation appear to be on multi-millennial scales, with
smaller fluctuations (wiggles) on century/multi-decadal scales
superimposed on this.
Wood from crossdated tree rings provided the known-age reference
material used in the calibration curves, and there were two main
phases of work, the first of which roughed out the general form of the
curve and hinted at the short-period structure, the second of which
reconstructed the century-scale variations in detail using higher
precision measurements. Contamination of old samples with C-14 of
more recent origin is a widely recognized problem, addressed by
physical and chemical pre-treatment protocols for the material. A
couple of complicating effects that are of more interest from a tree-
physiological point of view. Isotopic fractionation occurs along the
entire chain of processes between carbon in the environment and its
incorporation in the specific components of the wood that end up in
the calibration samples. A ring forming in a particular year might
continue to accumulate C-14 in subsequent years. But people who work
with C-14 are well aware of various corrections for isotopic
fractionation, and the migration of carbon across ring boundaries has
been the subject of several empirical investigations, notably using
the stepwise change in C-14 concentrations following atmospheric
nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s as a tracer. The more recent phase
of calibration work was substantially complete around 15 years ago,
and was covered in an extensive series of journal articles and
symposia.
Let's suppose we have been provided with a demonstration that
crossdating is invalid: what would be the consequences for C-14
calibration? One of the most alarming would be that we would have to
come up with a convincing explanation of how independent tree ring
chronologies could be in error in precisely the same way---the
known-age reference samples are not just from bristlecone pines, and
crossdating within the network of oak chronologies is completely
independent of the bristlecones. Both are completely self-supporting
chains of inferences anchored in living trees and extending back into
sub-fossil wood. There are published comparisons of paired
calibration curves, with the absolute dates and C-14 concentrations
based on oaks in one case, and on bristlecones in the other. My
understanding of tree physiology is rudimentary at best, but surely
when two such vastly different wood anatomies are involved there must
be differences in the physiological constraints on wood formation. If
potentially unidentified missing rings are supposed to be the most
serious problem with the bristlecone chronologies, the oak
chronologies should not be affected in any case, since they almost
never include missing rings in this sense (although that's not to say
they have no anatomical ambiguities that can confound crossdating).
The crossdating error could not be merely a shared systematic bias;
not only does the long term trend in the calibration curves derived
from the two chronologies share a common non-linear trend, but the
short-term fluctuations in C-14 concentration (wiggles) match between
the two curves. There are small differences between calibrations
derived from different geographical regions, but these have themselves
formed the basis for further research and geophysical modeling.
The strengths of the two sets of chronologies are complimentary. Oaks
may have almost no missing rings (sensu stricto) and provide larger
volumes of wood for C-14 analysis, but the individual samples are only
a few hundred years long, showing significant variations in growth
with increasing pith age, and (particularly in the case of the
sub-fossil wood) there will be uncertainties about the environment in
which the tree was growing. Bristlecone pines give a much better
chance of finding wood that has grown over periods of many centuries
with no marked age-related trends, and there's a compelling continuity
between the living trees and the remnant wood lying on the ground
nearby.
An account of wood formation from a physiological perspective would
undoubtedly be a beautiful thing in its own right, even if it had
little to contribute to dendrochronology. Moreover one of my pet
peeves is seeing people manipulate data as mere collections of numbers
divorced from any underlying model---and in the case of
dendrochronolgy the model has to be biological. But I'd number myself
amongst those who can't see why our use of crossdating must await a
reasonably complete physiological model of wood formation. By
analogy, if the doctors in some traditional society are using a human
physiology based on the balance or imbalance of the four humours, but
they have a treatment for a particular disease that results in an 80%
survival rate, as opposed to a %40 survival rate if it goes untreated,
you're obviously better off slurping down their bitter potion first
and working out the explanation in current Western physiological terms
afterwards (if that's the only treatment option).
So even if at present our understanding of crossdating is largely
limited to statistical phenomenology, that may be good enough to live
with until something better comes along. That's not to imply that we
should be credulous, and automatically accept current practices simply
because great authorities have taken the same route: astronomers were
at one time expected to work as astrological consultants, casting
horoscopes for rulers and interpreting signs in the sky in terms of
current political affairs. There's no necessary reason to follow
Douglass' crossdating methods any more than we should follow Kepler's
example of casting horoscopes---unless they work. Although the seeming
effectiveness of crossdating could in principle be invalid, it
has been applied so widely that we would need presented with a very
strong critique before abandoning it.
I'm not really qualified to discuss crossdating and C-14 calibration
from a point of view of someone active in current research, but was
fortunate to be sitting on the sidelines of the oak calibration work
in the 80s, and just the other day Tom Harlan dropped by with the
oldest known absolutely dated bristlecone sample, so will offer
this as a kind of correction by proxy until any of the people
who've done the real work care to comment
---Martin.
Original Filename: 1094483447.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: question
Date: Mon Sep 6 11:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Professor David Taplin <coliemore@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tom,
Ben should have seen the ERA-40 Report # 18. You can forward the JGR paper.
WRT 1, it is difficult to say as it depends who's produced the values. For HadCRUT2v, I
think I've convinced the HC that the globe is (NH+SH)/2. If Peter Thorne did the
calculations
then this will be the case.
There is another issue. Sometimes the trends over Jan79-Dec03 are calculated from the
300 months rather than the 25 years. Christy does this, I think.
NCDC's Globe is probably the one domain. I've been doing some work with Russ Vose at
NCDC, which he's still to write up. Most of the differences were due to how the globe
was calculated. It is more informative to also include NH and SH as well as globe in such
tables. I'll forward a plot Tom Peterson produced a week or two ago.
ERA-40 (2 )comparisons are discussed in the ERA-40 report # 18 and the JGR submitted
paper.
This also has comparisons by continent, which again are more informative. There is a plot
in that work from the full globe vs the CRU coverage. I wouldn't believe their tropics.
Also
Antarctica is way off as well - at least where the surface data are located, so I wouldn't
have much faith in their values for the unmonitored parts.
On (3) I did some comparisons ages ago with Jim Angell's surface data from sondes. Jim's
data was just noisier and I suspect LKS would be also. I've not done anything like this
for
ages. The closest would be the ERA-40 comparisons, which is much more extensive than
the LKS network.
I might have a chance to do an LKS comparison if Dian sends me the co-ordinates.
Comparisons over 1xxx xxxx xxxxwill be much more realistic, but the ERA-40/NCEP degrade
prior to the 1960s. LKS would be better here. All sonde data look odd in the late 1950s to
the early 1960s. The jump around 1976/77 has always intrigued me. It is bigger in some
regions than others - I think it gets more credence because it is large over western North
America. Kevin had a paper on this in BAMS in the late 1980s.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:57 04/09/2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
On Sept. xxx xxxx xxxxI will be at a meeting at the Met Office to do with
a report we are writing on trends in vert temp profiles as part of the
US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). It involves all the
usual suspects. Seven chapters, the last of which is equivalent to
a summary for policy-makers -- for which I am the lead author.
Various people are updating data sets and doing calculations of
trends, etc. Some of the surface numbers I found to be a bit
disturbing -- so I am asking for your opinion. These are trends
per decade for Jan. 1979 thru Dec. 2003 ......
SOURCE GLOBE 30S-30N
HadCRUT2v 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.127
NCDC 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.146
ERAxxx xxxx xxxx 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.032
LKS 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.056
(1) CRU and NCDC are consistent within the noise, but I have one
question -- how do both calculate GLOBE?
(2) ERA40 is marginally OK (relative to CRU) in GLOBE, but
the tropics is alarmingly different. (The diff here accounts for the
GLOBE difference.) Why is this? Which is better? Is this discussed
in your paper with Adrian?
(3) LKS is the surface data from the corrected LKS radiosonde data
set. The difference here must be partly due to coverage issues. But
I recall that years ago we saw a difference between surface sonde and
CRU data. Have you done a like with like comparison (i.e., selecting
the LKS sonde sites and extracting the corresp CRU (and NCDC, and
ERAxxx xxxx xxxxand (if possible) NCEP) data? This seems to be a pretty
basic sanity check on the sonde data -- so, if you have not done this
already, could you do it for me please?
I think there is a nice little GRL paper here. For the CCSP we are also
giving trends, etc. over 1xxx xxxx xxxx. So the real need is for a full time
series comparison over this period -- i.e., not just trends. In other
words, what I would like you to produce is the monthly time series
for the various data sets for the LKS coverage. If you don't know
the LKS site locations, I can get these for you.
Re going back to 1958, the sonde trop data have a well known (but
not well explained) problem over roughly 1958 to 1964/5. I am curious
as to whether this shows up in the LKS surface record. I am also
curious about the apparent 1976 jump -- some people have made a
lot of noise about this, but I don't see it as a major item in the global
surface data. So the Q here is, is is apparent in the restricted coverage
of the sonde data?
I hope you can help. I am leaving here on Sept 7 to spend a few days
with a friend of mine in Plymouth -- you could contact me thru him (I
am copying this to him so you can see his email).
Thanx,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1094495798.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Sahel IJC paper
Date: Mon Sep 6 14:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
You've probably seen this response to a truly awful paper in IJC. Aiguo did a really
good
job. Apparently, these two jerks have submitted a response to the comment. Wonder what
they will say ? Adrian Chappell still thinks his analysis is correct !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1094752345.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu Sep 9 13:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
Program and the input LKS file. Program is adapted from one I had. Ended up a little
convoluted. Should work with any of the 4 CRU temp data files (CRUTEM2(v), HadCRUT2(v)).
For the Russian, grid point, changing xxx xxxx xxxxto xxx xxxx xxxxwill give a box with data in from
1929.
3rd file is my unix run file - for files to channels.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:20 09/09/2004, D M R Taplin wrote:
Phil,
Thanx. Looks very interesting. I will look more when I get back to Boulder. It would
help if you sent the program (just to Boulder). Also what are the numbers listed at the
end of the LKS file?
Will you be reading email while away?
Tom.
====================
Professor David Taplin DSc
Coliemore House
Down Thomas Plymouth PL90BQ UK
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: Professor David Taplin <coliemore@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: question
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:44:44 +0100
Tom,
Here are some files to look at and think about. John Lanzante has sent me the
locations of
the 87 stations in the LKS dataset. I associated these with CRU 5 deg grid boxes and
calculated NH (based on 54 sites), SH (32) and Global (as one domain), so to get the
globe
the CRU way you need to average the NH and SH series (all to 3 deg places). The second
line in all the results files is the count of stations. I can do this as % area if you
want.
The CRU data I used is the file hadcrut2v, so this includes SST anoms over the
ocean.
I can repeat this with the land only file. Used the variance corrected version.
There are 4 files
1. The LKS stations. This is what John sent with the lat/long identifiers for the grid
boxes on
the front.
xxx xxxx xxxxNH, SH and Globe as one domain results.
The first file has a fix in it. This is to pick up the 5 deg square (85-90S, 5W-0)
that has
the South Pole data. This square is where I've always put this data.
For the NH there were 54 sites and for the SH 32. Site 9 (WMO ID 21504) is always
missing,
even with hadcrut2v. The site is located on an island in the Laptev Sea. There isn't a
surface
site anywhere near it. I could move the location and pick up the nearest CRU box, but
it will
be over 5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long away. It's somewhat unusual for sonde sites not
to have
a surface site near them. I guess it just doesn't report its surface data.
I'm here until Sept 15 then away for much of the time until end of October. I could
send you
the program, which should run with crutem2v or the non-variance adjusted versions,
which you
could pick up from the CRU web site.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:57 04/09/2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
On Sept. xxx xxxx xxxxI will be at a meeting at the Met Office to do with
a report we are writing on trends in vert temp profiles as part of the
US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). It involves all the
usual suspects. Seven chapters, the last of which is equivalent to
a summary for policy-makers -- for which I am the lead author.
Various people are updating data sets and doing calculations of
trends, etc. Some of the surface numbers I found to be a bit
disturbing -- so I am asking for your opinion. These are trends
per decade for Jan. 1979 thru Dec. 2003 ......
SOURCE GLOBE 30S-30N
HadCRUT2v 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.127
NCDC 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.146
ERAxxx xxxx xxxx 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.032
LKS 0.xxx xxxx xxxx.056
(1) CRU and NCDC are consistent within the noise, but I have one
question -- how do both calculate GLOBE?
(2) ERA40 is marginally OK (relative to CRU) in GLOBE, but
the tropics is alarmingly different. (The diff here accounts for the
GLOBE difference.) Why is this? Which is better? Is this discussed
in your paper with Adrian?
(3) LKS is the surface data from the corrected LKS radiosonde data
set. The difference here must be partly due to coverage issues. But
I recall that years ago we saw a difference between surface sonde and
CRU data. Have you done a like with like comparison (i.e., selecting
the LKS sonde sites and extracting the corresp CRU (and NCDC, and
ERAxxx xxxx xxxxand (if possible) NCEP) data? This seems to be a pretty
basic sanity check on the sonde data -- so, if you have not done this
already, could you do it for me please?
I think there is a nice little GRL paper here. For the CCSP we are also
giving trends, etc. over 1xxx xxxx xxxx. So the real need is for a full time
series comparison over this period -- i.e., not just trends. In other
words, what I would like you to produce is the monthly time series
for the various data sets for the LKS coverage. If you don't know
the LKS site locations, I can get these for you.
Re going back to 1958, the sonde trop data have a well known (but
not well explained) problem over roughly 1958 to 1964/5. I am curious
as to whether this shows up in the LKS surface record. I am also
curious about the apparent 1976 jump -- some people have made a
lot of noise about this, but I don't see it as a major item in the global
surface data. So the Q here is, is is apparent in the restricted coverage
of the sonde data?
I hope you can help. I am leaving here on Sept 7 to spend a few days
with a friend of mine in Plymouth -- you could contact me thru him (I
am copying this to him so you can see his email).
Thanx,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< lksdata.out >>
<< lksnh7003v.dat >>
<< lkssh7003v.dat >>
<< lksgl7003v.dat >>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1096382684.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: mann's thoughts
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
that is a useful way to look at it.
again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability
same as variability during period used to calibrate your method.
so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that.
is that right?
At 09:40 AM 9/28/2004, you wrote:
>Dear Andy,
>
>our schematic figure is attached.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
Andrew C. Revkin, Environment Reporter, The New York Times
229 West 43d St. NY, NY 10036
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx(via www.efax.com, received as email)
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1096645745.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stefan Rahmstorf <regentage@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Ch6-Climate Sensitivity
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:49:05 +0200
Reply-to: stefan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi co-authors,
here are some thoughts on what to say on climate sensitivity in our chapter - this is an
attempt to focus on the main, simple messages for policy makers. (I think we should try
retaining those important messages and not lose sight of them amidst all the details,
complexity and caveats.)
The main policy-relevant question could be phrased as follows: Does the past climate
history tell us how sensitive the climate system is to CO2?
I submit that the answers to this we get from different time periods are the following.
Deep Time:
Reconstructions are too uncertain (and boundary conditions too different, e.g. continents
in different places, different ocean circulation) to draw quantitative conclusions about
sensitivity to CO2, but there is clear evidence that times of high CO2 in Earth history
tend to be ice free (Royer et al. 2004). A second piece of evidence is the Late Paleocene
Thermal Maximum, which shows that the climate has responded by warming to a large carbon
release into the atmosphere. Just how large this carbon release was is not known, since
several origins of the carbon are possible, which have different isotope signature and
would thus imply different amounts. But the temperature response was large (6K), and if
anything this response would point to a high sensitivity.
Glacial-Interglacial Changes:
We have by now sufficiently good quantitative reconstructions of CO2 and other forcings as
well as temperatures in order to derive useful quantitative estimates of climate
sensitivity. LGM was the most recent time in history in which CO2 concentration differed
greatly from pre-industrial values, by as much as it does now. It is the closest test case
for response to CO2 changes that we have.
There are two basic methods to derive climate sensitivity:
(i) Based on data analysis - e.g. Lorius et al. 1991 (concluding sensitivity is 3-4 K).
This method has the caveat that this sensitivity applies to colder climate, which may
differ somewhat from that which applies in present climate as the strength of feedbacks is
expected to depend on the mean climate (e.g., stronger snow-albedo feedback in colder
conditions).
(ii) Based on combining data and models - e.g. Schneider von Deimling et al. 2004. Does not
have the above caveat, but depends on models.
Lag of CO2 behind temperature does not imply a lack of CO2 effect on climate, since the lag
is small (centuries, not millennia).
Holocene, last millennium
??
Overall conclusions
Qualitatively, climate history is at least consistent with the accepted CO2 sensitivity.
There is no evidence for much lower or much higher CO2 sensitivity (note that CO2 is not
the only forcing). The more recent climate history (as far back as ice core data go) does
allow quantitative inferences. The results of these estimates all lie within the IPCC range
and provide strong support for this. Paleodata may even allow to reduce this range, since
at least one study argues that values above 4K are very likely inconsistent with the
reconstructed LGM climate: for high CO2 sensitivity, tropical cooling in the glacial should
have been larger.
Cheers,
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
Original Filename: 1097078296.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: past 1000 yr
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
SEE CAPS
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Tom - I'd be happy to contribute if I have something worth
> contributing! I'm a bit rushed today and away tomorrow, but can
> respond to further emails later in the week.
>
> At 14:31 03/10/2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>> Caspar Ammann and I plan to publish some MAGICC
>> results for the past 100 years.
>
>
> Presume you mean 1000 years, hence relevance of ECHO-H/von Storch.
OOPS! YES.
>
>
>> Part of the reason is the new
>> solar forcing, as in my Science note with Peter Foukal.
>
>
> Yes I saw that. With a brief scan I didn't realise that you were
> presenting a new forcing history, just discussing reasons why
> long-term changes may be lower than previously estimated. But
> presumably you can use such reasoning to develop a new forcing history
> - or, better, a range or even a PDF of such histories. And then
> extend it using 14-C or 10-Be, or a combination?
WE SAY *NO* LOW FREQ FORCING. C-14/Be-10 ARE PROXIES FOR MAGNETIC FIELD
CHANGES. THERE
IS NO ADEQUATE THEORY RELATING THESE TO LUMINOSITY CHANGES -- IN FACT
THEORY SUGGESTS
THEY ARE *NOT* RELATED. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT FORCING
HISTORY, WITH
IMPLICATIONS AS IN THE FIGURE. NO SOLAR-INDUCED LIA, IN ACCORD WITH THE
PROXY CLIMATE
RECONSTRUXIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS SOME RECENT WORK SUGGESTING THAT PART
OF THE
C-14/Be-10 CHANGESW ARE DUE TOCHZNGES IN THE *EARTH'S* MAGNETIC FIELD.
>
>
>> So we
>> address both forcing and senstivity uncertainties. In
>> addition, the drift due to incorrect initialization is an issue.
>
>
> Surely not so in MAGICC? But yes, it is in GCMs and particularly so
> in ECHO-G.
OF COURSE WHAT I MEAN IS TO USE MAGICC TO QUANTIFY THE INITIALIZATION
'DRIFT'.
>
>
>> I have not yet read the Storch paper or your comment -- but
>> did you mention this problem?
>
>
> We said that ECHO-G had a redder spectrum than other model simulations
> (there was no room to say that it showed greater fluctuations, but we
> cited the Jones/Mann paper which has an intercomparison figure in
> it). We didn't talk about the reasons for this (drift early on,
> strong solar forcing throughout and no tropospheric aerosols to
> mitigate recent warming) because we'd already said that the simulation
> didn't necessarily represent real climate history.
>
>
>> Also, can you remind me just what was done with the ECHO
>> run?
>
>
> Main problem in terms of introducing "drift" (or "adjustment") was
> that they used a control run with present day CO2 as initial
> conditions. Although they allowed a 70-year spin-up (prior to AD
> 1000) to adjust back to pre-industrial CO2, this doesn't look long
> enough and the adjustment probably goes on for the first 400 years of
> the run - i.e. there is gradually disappearing cooling trend over this
> period. All based on MAGICC runs, but still fairly convincing
> (including non-zero heat flux out of the ocean in ECHO-G itself).
SEE THE STOUFFER PAPER IN CLIM DYN 23, 327 (2004).
>
>
>> If you have something to add on this, you can join as a co-author.
>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you plan, nor the input you need, but
> hopefully I can help.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SPURIOUS
INITIALIZATION EFFECT IN
TERMS OF FORCING.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1097159316.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: More vertical profile plots
Date: Thu Oct 7 10:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Thanks for the plots. I gather from Karl that you'll be in Seattle and not at the HC
review.
I'll be in Seattle also and am missing the HC review, so we can catch up on things.
Last week was the first LA meeting of AR4. You have likely been contacted by
Kevin and also maybe by Brian Soden about writing something on tropopause heights.
It would perhaps be useful to send them these figures and maybe also to David Parker.
For our chapter Kevin is co-ordinating the U/A and circulation sections. I'm doing
the surface T/P and extremes and the final summary. I've been too busy to think about
anything
yet ! We have a mix of abilities in the LAs, but Brian, David P, Dave Easterling and
Albert
Klein Tank of KNMI are solid. The Iranian, Argentinian, Romanian, Kenyan don't seem up to
too much, but this is life in the IPCC - remember Ebby !
The fact that HadCRUT2v is close to PCM may be fortuitous, but good nonetheless. If
you
subsample PCM with CRU coverage, you say the PCM trend will reduce. The paper and report
with Adrian shows that if you look at the full ERA-40 surface T data, then the reverse
happens.
Not a large increase though. Most comes from the SH, so there are issues of what ERA-40
is doing over the Southern Oceans, Antarctica and Australia are key. I'll be talking about
this
work in Seattle.
I don't have any IDAG work to give you - not done a lot. Plan to look at the 1740 event
in Europe, when time permits. If you want any of my ppt for your IDAG talk, you can look
through in Seattle.
Good to catch up in a weeks time. Hope you and Nick are well. Away next week in Delhi
at a GCOS workshop.
Cheers
Phil
At 01:50 07/10/2004, you wrote:
Dear Jerry, Ram, and Jim,
Here are the profiles of zonally-averaged atmospheric temperature change that
you requested. As I mentioned in yesterday's email, I've prepared a couple of
different versions of these plots. First, there are two different analysis
periods: January 1979 through to December 1999, and January 1958 through to
December 1999. Second, temperature changes are expressed in two different ways:
in terms of linear trends per decade, and in terms of the total linear changes
over the two analysis period. So there are four different vertical profile
plots:
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 194436 Oct 6 16:27 ccsp_vp_lt_1xxx xxxx xxxx.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 142312 Oct 6 16:27 ccsp_vp_lt_1xxx xxxx xxxx.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 201997 Oct 6 16:43 ccsp_vp_tlc_1xxx xxxx xxxx.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 198109 Oct 6 17:04 ccsp_vp_tlc_1xxx xxxx xxxx.ps
All the relevant information is encoded in the file name: "lt" denotes linear
trend, and "tlc" denotes total linear change. Personally, I have a preference
for the total linear change plots. If you compare panel f (the PCM ALL forcing
case) of the "tlc" plots for 1xxx xxxx xxxxand 1xxx xxxx xxxx, the much larger total
changes over the longer analysis period are visually obvious. This is not the
case if changes are expressed in degrees C/decade.
I note that (as requested by Roger Pielke in Exeter), the plots are
appropriately area weighted.
All profiles of zonally-averaged atmospheric temperature change are ensemble
means. Each ensemble mean was calculated from four individual realizations.
There is no subtraction of control run drift, which probably is not a
significant factor at this point in the perturbation experiments.
I've also updated the two plots that I sent you yesterday, which show
global-mean and tropical-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature change. These
plots now include observed near-surface temperature trends, estimated from
HadCRUT2 and HadCRUTv (the latter is the variance corrected version of
HadCRUT2). PCM ALL and HadCRUT near-surface temperature changes are in good
agreement, both for global- and tropical averages. I'm pretty sure that in the
global-mean case, subsampling PCM ALL results with HadCRUT coverage would yield
a slightly warmer PCM ALL 2m temperature trend (in view of the muted warming of
2m temperatures at high southern latitudes in ALL; these areas are not well
sampled in HadCRUT).
It would be nice to show these plots of global- and tropical-average changes in
Chapter 5. I think they make some useful points.
Hope all of this is helpful,
With best regards,
Ben
(P.S.: I'd like to acknowledge the assistance of Charles Doutriaux and Mike
Wehner in producing these plots. Considerable data processing was involved in
generating these six figures).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1097540855.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:27:35 +0200
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
I can take a stab at the THC bit (not strong
evidence so far for linkages to
multidecadal/century scale changes, but cannot be
ruled out) the marine evidence from the North
Atlantic (14C chronological control), and some
aspects of tropical/high latitude linkages.
Eystein
At 17:00 +0xxx xxxx xxxx, Keith Briffa wrote:
>Friends and authors ( especially Ricardo, Olga,
>Fortunat, David, Ramesh, Zhang, Dan, Eystein and
>Valerie)
>Now back from travels (until Wednesday when off to Austria for a few days)
>I thought it best to suggest a break down for
>the writing of the data section for the last
>2000 years of the IPCC palaeoclimate chapter.
>Please see the outline produced at the meeting.
>We have 4 IPCC pages . I will write a short
>intro linking to the instrumental data with
>links to Chapters 3-5. I will coach this in a
>general introduction to this section that
>addresses the points listed in the initial notes
>( namely how we use the various high , and few
>low, resolution data to construct regional and
>large-scale temperature variability , and where
>possible, gain insight into hydrologic
>variability. I will say we use models to get
>insight into methodology and to explore regional
>coverage and seasonality issues and we use
>control and forced model runs to look at
>sensitivity and detection issues , but also use
>date to test model variability and sensitivity .
>I can first go at the NH (SH) Spaghetti diagram
>discussion and hopefully you will pick up the
>regional aspects of the temperature and
>precipitation (moisture) variability .
>Rather than me say - I would like you to come
>back with the major areas you will cover , but
>these may best be done in terms of
>climatologically meaningful regions - ie
>relating to the ENSO, NAM, PDO , AAO, monsoon
>areas - then we could fill in the remaining
>regions if significant non overlap in areas is
>apparent (Eurasia, non-monsoon china etc) . We
>do not want a list of every paper ever written ,
>but a selection of (the better) work that you
>feel has regional relevance (and some length
>presumably). THe other alternative is just to
>divide up the world to our own regions and then
>discuss the climate indices separately. This
>would likely be easier to do . Let me know what
>you think. Either way , we also should have a
>specific discussion of forcings at high
>resolution , and Fortunat, Valerie could cover
>solar and volcanic , perhaps Eystein discussing
>what evidence there is for THC change . The
>knotty issue of THC versus NAO and the link to
>model theories/models could go here - or
>perhaps later in the section 6.4.3.2 ? Davis
>what say you about this? The same is true of
>ENSO links to terrestrial precipitation patterns
>and temperature?
>I don't like the idea of dealing wit quasi
>periodicities separately , but rather wit the
>regional discussions eg North American drought.
>The question of LIA , MWP will come up in the
>large scale average discussion but you can also
>address it in the regional discussions , but in
>a critical and quantitative way. I would like to
>see the evidence for extremmes/abrupt change
>from the regional syntheses and then see if we
>have enough to define and discuss the issue
>separately. Olga could you pick up on the
>glacial variations (perhaps with links to models
>also?)
>
>So come back to me asap to let me know
>impressions and regional/variable focus you all
>wish to pick up. Ricardo will obviously do North
>South linkages as per the PEP1 transect , but
>what about along PEP2 and 3/ WE may have to pick
>this up in the light of the regional data. Can
>you also let me know if/who you might be asking
>to help with writing . Peck , I would still
>rather have Mike Mann in , so what is the story
>here - can I ask him? Suggestions for summary
>Figures still welcome - I would like to have a
>High lat , mid lat , low lat transect type
>figure for temperature , possibly along each PEP
>transect - with longest instrumental data . A
>forcing diagram is also a must - but could
>combine Holocene and "blow up " last 2000 years.
>
>Best wishes
>Keith
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>_______________________________________________
>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All
Original Filename: 1097785771.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: comment Von Storch?
Date: Thu Oct 14 16:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
FYI.
I met this guy in Utrecht last week at Albert Klein Tank's PhD ceremony. It appears from
many media reports that people really believe that their run is an ALTERNATE to yours -
based
on no proxy data. Even Hans has sent an email around to this effect, but he obviously
isn't
making it as clear as I've just done to this Dutch journalist. I think he might be being
clear with
fellow scientists and economical with the truth with journalists, i.e. not directing them
down the
correct path when he sees them going down the wrong one.
I should see Ray next week in Seattle at a DoE meeting.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Karel,
I have only got back from a meeting this morning. I see you have also had a long reply
from
Mike Mann about the von Storch paper.
Basically the von Storch et al paper is a discussion of the methodology used in the
Mann,
Bradley Hughes papers from 1998, 1999. It doesn't contain any new nor any observed proxy
data. It is entirely a model study. Therefore, it cannot produce a record for the last
millennium,
it cannot claim that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, nor that the Little
Ice
Age may have been colder than MBH says.
It is really alarming that many media people (including yourself) have been taken in.
What the
von Storch et al paper is about is a climate model run - just one simulation. All it uses
is
an estimate of past variations in solar forcing and volcanic eruptions and more recently
anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols.
As I said the paper in a methodological critique of MBH, nothing more than that. It IS
NOT
an alternative to MBH. It also not based on ANY paleoclimatic data. If you believe it, you
are putting everything on the model being correct and that their best guess at the past
history
of forcing as being correct.
Regards
Phil
At 15:28 13/10/2004, you wrote:
Dear professor Jones,
(We met ten days ago in Utrecht, when Albert Klein Tank got his PhD).
I am a science journalist of the Dutch daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad in Rotterdam
([1]www.nrc.nl).
I try to write an article about climate (surface temperature) reconstruction as far back
as the year 1000 - the well know Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1998 and 1999) research.
The reason is, of course, the publication of the article of Von Storch, Zorita, c.s. in
Science-online (30 september). Von Storch claims that the statistical approach of Mann
c.s. produced a serious underestimation of the low frequency (long term) oscillations
in global temperature. The conclusion could be that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact
warmer than today. And the recent warming is - after all - not so special.
Can you in a few words - and for a general public - give a comment on the paper? Does it
make sense? It seems pretty convincing to me.
Can you help me?
Waiting for your reply,
sincerely yours,
Karel Knip
NRC Handelsblad
Rotterdam
e-mail knip@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone xxx xxxx xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.nrc.nl/
Original Filename: 1098294574.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John.Birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg.beer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,A.Lotter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hufischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,dan.charman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, karin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sigfus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,guiot@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ian.Snowball@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,antti.ojala@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atte.korhola@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Sandy.Tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,eavaganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rick Battarbee <r.battarbee@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, brazdil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,benito@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hutterli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, carin.andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Richard.Telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, basil.davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ddj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, heikki.seppa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, colin.prentice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cbrunsdo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jerome@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , Elsa Cortijo <Elsa.Cortijo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.holmes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, harrye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jgoqam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IMPRINT Budget (Work package 1)
Date: Wed Oct 20 13:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Partners in Workpackage 1 of IMPRINT,
today is the deadline by which Eystein requested input as regards the
reworked (and necessarily much shortened), proposal document. We have also been making some
effort to consolidate the indicative budgets that most of you have sent to us.
We now need to transfer these figures to Eystein , even though a few partners have not
supplied numbers to us , though they may have sent them to Eystein directly.
It is clear that we are now close to 30 partners in Workpackage 1 alone, and have
indicative budget requests totaling well over the nominal 5 million Euro originally
allocated. In fact , the likely total with all partner requests included is likely to be
nearer to 10 million!
We have been given a (very unofficial) hint from Brussels that an "appropriate" total
project request of about 17 million for IMPRINT might be sensible , with a final figure ,
if the project ever gets accepted, of 15 million being possibly awarded (subject of course
to referees' comments and subsequent reorganisation of priorities).
The simple message is that Eystein will now have to make an executive decision as to the
total amount requested .
If we ever get that far, reorganised budgets will have to be decided on the basis of very
specific
work plans that will need to formalised for a second submission - especially as they relate
to the justification for field work and new data analyses. We also need to budget for the
involvement of non-partners , possibly using a mixture of workshop and minor funding awards
to facilitate data collection etc.
It has been made clear that new practical work campaigns would not be sanctioned across all
Tasks
in Workpackage 1 . Rather, the bulk of work would involve re-dating/interpretation of
mostly existing data and reconstructions of forcings and climate . Specific cases will have
to be made to justify sampling and processing of new data.
Thanks to all of you for your help and thanks to Eystein for taking on the enormous task of
organising this proposal .
Keith and Tim
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1098388401.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Rob Wilson" <rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <K.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: data - Quaternary Science Reviews 19 (20xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:53:21 +0100
Reply-to: "Rob Wilson" <rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Keith,
When would be a good time tomorrow (or next week) to phone you about the data you have
available at your website from your QSR 2000 paper.
I am particularly interesting in using the long chronologies from the Polar Urals (Yamal)
and Tornetrask.
This is for Gordon's and Rosanne's NH temp recon update, so I thought I should have a chat
with you before using the data.
all the best
Rob
Original Filename: 1098472400.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: MBH
Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
Just got the Science attachments for the von Storch et al. paper for Tim and Keith, so
I thought you might like to see them. I've just sent a reply to von Storch as he claims
his model is a better representation of reality than MBH. How a model that is only given
past forcing histories can be better than some proxy data is beyond me, but Hans seems
to believe this. The ERA-40 report and JGR paper are relevant here. ERA-40 is not of
climate quality. There are differences and trends with CRU data before the late 1970s
and again around the mid-1960s that should include other variables that are calculated.
It is so bad in the Antarctic that ERA-40 rejects most of the surface obs (because they
get little weight) and they don't begin to get accepted until the late 1970s. Conclusion
is that
you can't consider ERA-40 for climate purposes. Maybe the next generation, with a
considerable
efforts in getting all the missing back data in and changes to weights given to surface
data might
mean the 3rd generation is better.
I shouldn't rabbit on about this as I have to go home to drive with Ruth to Gatwick
for
our week in Florence. A lot of people criticise MBH and other papers Mike has been
involved in, but how many people read them fully - or just read bits like the attached.
The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in virtually
everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used in the
Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing this -
only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrong
year/decade.
I wasted a few hours checking what I'd done and got no thanks for pointing their mistake
out
to them.
If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site
[1]http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/
It will take a while to get around these web pages and you've got to be a bit of nerd and
know
the jargon, but it lists all the mistakes McKittrick has made in various papers. I bet
there isn't
a link to this on his web site. The final attachment is a comment on a truly awful paper
by
McKittirck and Michaels. I can't find the original, but it's reference is in this. The
paper didn't
consider spatial autocorrelation at all. Fortunately a longer version of the paper did get
rejected by IJC - it seems a few papers are rejected !
Point I'm trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a
way of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the work in the
Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith's
reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike's may have
slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper et al),
but
he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little to the
summer
and none are truly annual - I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1xxx xxxx xxxxmean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:
Phil,
I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work -- an opinion I have held
for some time.
Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? -- or is it?
I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/
Original Filename: 1101133749.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Adrian.Simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: K&C (fwd)
Date: Mon Nov 22 09:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Adrian and Ben,
Roger Pielke did send this to me over the weekend, so he's being honest
in one respect. I still think he's reading far too much into NCEP1. The bottom panel
of their Fig1 shows both CRU and GHCN (-ERA40) having no difference over the period
from the late 1960s. If the obs assimilated before 1967 (even in the US) were improved,
the apparent drop before might disappear.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:35:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
From: Roger Pielke <pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
cc: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: K&C (fwd)
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Phil-
FYI; thank you for sharing your paper. I have circulated the attached to
our CCSP Committee with the permission of Eugenia and Ming, and want to
also share with you.
The conclusion from my own work with the NCEP reanalysis is that it is
appropriate for trend assessments if integrated metrics are used
(thickness for example), and for regions where the regional trend signal
is quite large. We have published on both of this issues. One value-added
of reanalyses is that since the winds are monitored independently of the
temperatures, they provide information on the horizontal layer averaged
temperatures in the mid- and high-latitudes, which helps adjust, to some
extent, biases in the temperatures.
Also, as we have shown with regional data (e.g. Florida) and others have
shown elsewhere (e.g. Andy Pitman for Australia) there is a clear land use
change signal on surface temperature. This provides independent evidence
that the Kalnay and Cai results should be expected.
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx,
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, Email: pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [1]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [2]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:04:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
From: Roger Pielke <pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors
<CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Eugenia Kalnay <ekalnay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ming Cai <cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: K&C (fwd)
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi All
I requested to Ming Cai and Eugenia Kalnay that they respond to the
comments regarding their work. The response is forwarded to you in this
e-mail.
This debate, of course, should really take place in the literature. There
has been, however, in my view an unfortunate change over time where
reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection of
subsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the
different perspectives on a science issue. Our report has to make sure it
is inclusive, in order to avoid this pitfall.
An unbiased discussion of the K&C results, and ways to resolve the
disagreement through hypothesis testing, should be included in the
appropriate chapters.
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx,
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, Email: pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [3]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [4]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: cai <cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Roger Pielke <pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Ming Cai <cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Y. K. Lim <yklim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Eugenia Kalnay <ekalnay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: K&C
Dear Roger,
Attached is the preliminary summary report on our recent work on the
estimate of land-use-change climate impact using the reanalysis. Very
fortunately, we had secured a one-year funding from NSF starting last
August. Despite a short time period, we have already produced sufficient
results to confirm the robustness of our original work using different
datasets that have the state-of-art quality.
Here I just want to add one more comment about Simmons et al. paper.
Basically, they claimed that the difference between the ERA40 and CRU is
very small and therefore, our method is not applicable if the reanalysis
is as good as the ERA40. There are two things that are incorrect in their
claims. First of all, if the reanalysis were made to be exactly the same
as the observations, by definition, there would be no difference between
reanalysis and the surface observations. Since the ERA40 was obtained by
directly assimilating the CRU surface observations whereas the NNR didn't
use any surface temp. observation, it is natural to expect that the
difference between the surface observation and ERA40 is small. Second,
Simmons et al. manually reduces the difference between the ERA40 and CRU
by setting the mean difference between the ERA40 and CRU from 1987 to 2001
be ZERO. As a result, the difference "LOOKs" very small in recent years.
However, the difference from 1961 to 1985 has to be larger (otherwise,
they would make an error in their plot). In other words, by doing so, the
gap between the ERA40 and CRU appears decreasing in time rather increasing
in time as shown in KC and in the new figure 1 in the attached file (which
is the same as Simmons et al. paper except we reset the 1xxx xxxx xxxxto be zero
in order to see how the POSITIVE gap increases in time). If we closely
examine their figures, we will see by applying their treatment, the gap
between CRU and reanalysis is a NEGATIVE one (e.g., CRU is below ERA40
from 1960 to 1980) and such a NEGATIVE gap decrease in time is equivalent
to that the POSITIVE gap increases in time as found in KC from the NNR
data (e.g., the CRU becomes more above the ERA40). So Simmons et al's
results actually CONFIRM our findings rather discredit our finding. We
actually reproduced Simmons et al calculations and confirm that their
results are correct (see the second attached figure, which is identical to
Fig.1 in our preliminary report except the NEGATIVE gap is used and 1-year
running mean was applied as in Simmons et al). But their interpretations
are incorrect.
I appreciate if you could also forward the email to the CCSP authors.
Let me know if you want to me to reply to Tom and CCSP co-authors
directly.
Regards.
Ming
The report:
The replica of one of the key figures in Simmons et al.
On Nov 18, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Roger Pielke wrote:
Tom-
Since we have not seen the paper, we cannot make any judgements on the
robustness of that paper in showing that the Kalnay and Cai work is
"flawed". I expect to have a summary by Eugenia and Ming tomorrow,
however, which will address the published concerns on their work, and
will
forward to the Committee. Please forward us a copy of the Simmons et al
paper.
I also would like a response to my MWR Florida paper where we
specifically show the dominant role of documented land use change in
peninsular Florida in the 20th century on July-August surface air
temperature change. Or Andy Pitman's work who shows a major effect on
temperature trends in south-western Australia due to land use change.
This work, and others like it, support the conclusions of Kalnay and
Cai
on a major role of land surface processes on surface temperature
trends.
How do you reconcile those independent conclusions with the paper you
list above?
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx,
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, Email:
pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [5]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [6]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: CCSP Authors <CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: K&C
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Folks,
Roger makes the point that there is no comprehensive assessment of
this
paper.
There is ... It is in a paper that has, I believe, been accepted by
JGR
atmospheres.
A.J. Simmons, P.D.Jones, et al. "Comparison of trends and
low-frequency
variability in CRU,
ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR".
I think the conclusion is that the K&C paper *is* flawed.
Tom.
Ming Cai
Associate Professor
Department of Meteorology
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32036
Email: cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx, FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
2. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/
3. http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
4. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/
5. http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
6. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/
Original Filename: 1101243716.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: v.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: first go
Date: Tue Nov 23 16:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: v.shishov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Viv
attached is the text you sent with some suggestions and comments (track changes must be
on).
I am also sending a small piece of text that could be expanded if needed (this to be
inserted where you describe the treering input) - but at this stage I think you need to
have a look at comments and consider the specifics of the lake and tree sampling (the
latter if any).
I thought it best to send these comments rather that plough on doing stuff you don't want.
I think the "hook" needs to be the important opportunity to assess recent changes in lake
and tree productivity and see if any evidence for response to climate , as well as
searching for unprecedented evidence of climate change. I realise this is predominantly a
lake project with a link to trees and models , but the links must be more than token . I
can provide more background as to where we are with tree-ring work in Euro-Siberia if
needed . I think the model stuff also needs specific justification . Is Simon going to
contribute here?
Don't get hung up on the "decline or changing sensitivity issue" in trees . This is NOT a
great problem in Scandinavia, Ural/Yamal and is anyway a divergence in trend and quite
subtle and evident in wood density mostly. We are also of the opinion that it could be
partly a statistical processing artifact - we are exploring this now.
If you plough through my comments and suggestions and then return the text with specific
requests of what you wish to do I will then try to oblige thursday
cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1101850440.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Martin Todd <mtodd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: NERC application
Date: Tue Nov 30 16:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Martin
in response to Nadia's message and our talk - consider the following as regards title and
objectives
Title
The precedence of Ecological Responses to 20th Century Climate changes in Arctic Lakes and
Trees
Suggested Objectives
We will quantify how the changes in 20th century Arctic climate (including mean and
variability) are reflected in recent and past lake sediment records. We will determine the
response of lake ecosystem parameters and the relationships with specific climatic
controls.
We will define the character of variability in different natural archives contained in
dated sediments reaching back over 2000 years. We will generate well-calibrated ,
high-resolution (decadal to centennial time scales) estimates of past summer climate
variability over this time in western Arctic Siberia.
We will compare the lake sediment data with evidence of tree-growth and associated summer
climate changes , based on selected updating of an extensive, existing network of
chronologies, including long sub-fossil series extending back more than 4000 years in Yamal
and Taimyr. These data (with perfect inter-annual dating accuracy) will be reprocessed to
provide summer temperatures specifically representative of annual, decadal and centennial
timescales.
We will determine (for the first time) the extent to which the independent proxy-based
summer climate histories concur or disagree and explore the extent to which they
demonstrate the precedence of recent (20th century ) climate trends in a multi-millennial
context. By comparing this evidence with the output of state-of-the-art GCM experiments ,
simulating climate changes in the Arctic over the last 500 to 1000 years, we will explore
the degree to which recent changes in Arctic lakes (and tree-growth rates) are attributable
to anthropogenic as opposed to natural climate changes.
At 13:55 30/11/2004, you wrote:
Hi keith,
The submission deadline for the NERC grant with Viv Jones is imminent.
She's getting in a bit of a panic. I wonder whether you have some text
already prepared to describe the details of the ECHO-G experiments. I
could get the information but will have to dig in the lierature. I was
hpoing you would have a summary paragraph from the SO&P
documantaton similar to the one we have written about the HADCM3 exp
Thnaks
Martin
****************************
Martin Todd University Lecturer Department of Geography
UCL (University College London)
26 Bedford Way
London WC1 8HR
email m.todd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
********************************
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1101999700.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
Date: Thu Dec 2 10:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Toms, Chris and Ben,
If large-scale is important (as said by Tom W), I can't see how microclimatic
issues that Roger goes on about can be that important. Maybe when you all
meet at the delightful Chicago Airport Hilton, you can remind him of spatial
degrees of freedom.
Is the NOAA Tsurf used the new Smith and Reynolds (2005) spatially infilled
surface dataset? If this is the case maybe Ben could do a plot of NOAA minus
HadCRUT2v?
I have a plot that David Parker produced of Smith and Reynolds (2005) over land
and Jones and Moberg (2003) land (as smoothed global averages) from 1880.
Prior to about 1960 the SR dataset is always about 0.15 warmer than JM. This looks
likely due to infilling with xxx xxxx xxxxaverages (i.e zeroes) over the Antarctic and some
continental interiors of S. America, Africa, western China and Australia (where there
are no obs pre early 1950s, 1956 for the Antarctic). SR should be OK for 1979-99
and be very similar to HadCRUT2v.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:31 01/12/2004, Roger Pielke wrote:
Tom-
One issue to sort out with respect to "VTT" remains whether there are
unrecognized biases in the surface data. This issue is very much relevant
if, as seems the case from Phil Jones's e-mail, the "raw data" that has
been used has such large overlap among the different surface analyses.
If this is the case, there are not three independent assessments of
surface temperature trends. Moreover, unlike the MSU data, there are
inhomogeneities associated with the diverse locations of each surface
monitoring site (which have microclimate changes over time).
This issue is also very much a tropical issue as this is where large
land use/land cover change has occurred in the satellite era (photographs
rather than written documentation would really help in this assessment,
as we have proposed).
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx,
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, Email: pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [1]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [2]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
> From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Roger Pielke <pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
>
> Chris et al.,
>
> I do not see this as high priority. We are supposed to be looking at
> *VTT*. Uncerts/diffs in individual data sets are relevant, of course, but
> what is currently missing is a map (maps) of sfc vs trop trend diffs.
> We are meant to be addressing a problem that we have made
> clear at the global and tropix scale -- but just *where* are the problem
> areas? (I think Carl showed us such a map previously -- we need this,
> or similar, or more, in the report since it really is the crux of the
> problem.)
>
> Ideally we need sfc minus MSU LoTrop (A), sfc minus MidTrop
> (UAH (B) and RSS(C)) to at least look at, and decide which is/are best to
> show. I imagine this will have some bearing on Roger Pielke's concerns
> re LULC. If the biggest differences are over the oceans (and from memory
> this is the case, worst in the SH), then sorting this out would arguably
> be more important than sorting out LULC effects. It would be hard to
> argue (albeit not impossible) that teleconnections from LULC in (e.g.)
> North America, or even the Amazon Basin, are responsible for trend diffs
> over the South Pacific
>
> In Ch. 1 there is a correlation map -- this is pretty useless in my
> view, altho
> it would be interesting to compare the correl map with an equiv trend
> diff map.
>
> Ch. 3 has maps of the trends at sfc, mid trop, lo strat -- so we are close
> to trend diff map. But even those who might be brilliant enough to produce
> the trend diff map in their heads will be thwarted, becoz the mid trop map
> in Ch. 3 uses the average of UAH and RSS. Good grief! This really is
> carrying political correctness too far. Please, please John L et al.,
> replace
> the mid trop panel in 3.6.2.3 by separate panels for RSS and UAH.
>
> The next in my list of related wishes is a map of the RSS minus UAH trend
> diffs (D). Eyeballing A, B, C and D together could be interesting.
>
> I would put these things right at the top of my wish list for Chicago.
>
> Tom.
> ========================
>
> Folland, Chris wrote:
>
> >Tom
> >
> >Can you get Russ Vose to look at the issues of data overlap and local
> >and regional similarity. My original suggestion was to compare trends
> >over 1xxx xxxx xxxxand 1xxx xxxx xxxxat each grid point in the two data sets and
> >also over larger (regional) areas. This would go to the heart of any
> >differences in the context of this report, is easy to do, and can be
> >plotted on a pair of maps with a third "difference in trend" map for
> >each period. Where differences are large, a more detailed look at the
> >data can be done. It might even show up errors! Even the first analysis
> >on its own should give enough information to sharpen up well the current
> >speculative text and can be done perhaps in parallel with NRC review.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >Professor Chris Folland
> >
> >Head of Climate Variability Research
> >
> >Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org
> >
> >Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Fax: (in UKxxx xxxx xxxx
> > (International) +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx)<[4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> >
> >Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of
> >East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Thomas R Karl [[5]mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >Sent: 01 December 2004 18:23
> >To: Roger Pielke
> >Cc: Phil Jones; Folland Chris; carl mears;
> >CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
> >
> >
> >Phil,
> >
> >I think we need to be careful -- the method of combining the data can
> >matter very much. It is just that despite our different methodologies
> >the results are similar on large scales. I know we could use other
> >methods and the differences are more significant, e.g, first
> >differences, homogenization of ships, etc.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Roger Pielke wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Phil
> >>
> >>Thanks for the quick feedback. This helps a lot!
> >>
> >>With Best Regards
> >>
> >>Roger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
2. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/
3. http://www.hadobs.org/
4. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
5. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1102524151.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Communication with AR4 WGI Chapter 3
Date: Wed Dec 8 11:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Susan Solomon <solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jean Palutikof <jean.palutikof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Resending. Apologies! I changed Jean's email incorrectly. This one is now correct.
Phil
David,
I will send you this once we post the ZOD on the WG1 web site in mid-Jan05. Our diagrams
are in a state of flux. Most of the temperature and precipitation trend maps are being
done
in Asheville and I should be getting them later this week or early next. We will be
showing maps
for the whole 20th century, but others will focus on the period since 1979. You might like
to
consider avoiding duplication by using these - eventually they will be 1xxx xxxx xxxx(poss
2006).
Trends of indices in extremes will likely be similar, but with +/- signs on maps. Nothing
has
been decided yet, though, and I expect a significant part of our time at LA2 will be taken
up
by discussing/improving diagrams in our ZOD.
You can help us by sending comments to WG1 on the relevant parts - which are likely
to be almost all.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 16:47 07/12/2004, David Karoly wrote:
Hi,
As you may be aware, I am an LA for chapter 1 "Assessment of observed changes and
responses in natural and managed systems" in the AR4 WGII and I have been identified as
one of the points-of-contact for interactions between WGI and WGII. The chapter in which
I am involved will depend heavily on inputs from a number of chapters in the WGI report.
Hence, I contacting the CLAs of the relevant chapters, including chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 9, by email to discuss ways to ensure effective communication between our
chapters and to avoid undue overlap between respective chapters in WGI and our chapter
in WGII.
Your chapter on "Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change" is a key chapter
in WGI and it is important that what we say in our chapter in WGII follows from and
agrees with your chapter. I would be very happy to discuss ways to ensure effective
communication between our two chapters.
Specific aspects from your chapter of relevance to our chapter include observed changes
in regional temperature and precipitation, both means and extremes. We plan to use a
figure in our chapter showing a global map of observed temperature trends over the last
30 years (?) overlaid with locations of significant observed changes in natural and
managed systems. We want to make sure that this is based on the same dataset(s) that you
will be using to show the observed temperature trends.
In practice, almost everything in your chapter will be relevant to our chapter. I would
be grateful if you could send me a copy of your ZOD after it is completed, so that I can
make sure that our chapter is consistent with yours. I am happy to send you a copy of
our ZOD, if you would like to read it.
I will not be coming to the WGI LA meetings until LA3, when I will be involved as a
review editor. It will be important that we have already established effective
communication before then.
I look forward to working with you over the next two years to ensure that the IPCC AR4
is the best possible assessment.
Best wishes, David
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr David Karoly
Williams Chair and Professor of Meteorology
School of Meteorology
University of Oklahoma phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
100 E. Boyd St., fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Norman, OK 73xxx xxxx xxxxemail: dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
USA [1]http://weather.ou.edu/~dkaroly/Personal.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://weather.ou.edu/~dkaroly/Personal.htm
Original Filename: 1102687002.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dshindell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxxbey, td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.white@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hfd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, natasha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmantua@u.washington.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jseveringhaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jcole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juliebg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dcayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atimmermann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbierbau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
'refutations' of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.
We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
contact us personally or at contrib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx for more
information.
This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of 'official' position.
We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).
Thanks,
Gavin Schmidt
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann
Original Filename: 1102948164.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Some weekend thoughts
Date: Mon Dec 13 09:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin,
Read everything over the weekend, and here are a few comments. Glad I did this
yesterday, as not thinking too well at the moment as daughter-in-law in labour for the
last 4 hours. No news yet - just waiting !
Haven't made any alterations yet. Here are my thoughts.
3.1 I'll make a few cosmetic changes - mainly to refer to the Appendices a couple of times
re significance.
Box 3.3 Reads better, will replace with this one when merge is done.
3.xxx xxxx xxxx.4.1.5 needs some work. Doesn't seem to read or flow that well.
3.4.2.1 Maybe need to expand on homogeneity tests.
3.4.2.2 4th para seems a little at odds with previous one?
3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4 OK
3.4.3 Clouds. Needs some more work to develop a clearer message. You're aware
of this.
3.4.4 Radiation. Similar comments to the cloud section. I have some specific
notes for both. Despite this, probably OK for the ZOD. Maybe all we need to
do is to highlight this to the reviewers.
3.5 Section seems overlong. I know you've reduced it a lot ! Contains a number
of sentences where English could be improved.
3.5.1. OK
3.5.2 Significance levels for Fig 3.5.1 need some discussion. We'll need to work
some on this Figure.
3.5.3 and 3.5.4 OK for the ZOD with a few better sentences.
3.5.5 and 3.5.6 Both sections seem overlong. Again know you've reduced this
a lot, but if we need reductions here is a good place.
3.5.7 OK
Box 3.5 OK
3.6 Generally good.
3.6.1 OK
3.6.2 Probably remove the impact para - leave for the moment, though.
3.6.3 OK
3.6.4 I can improve this a little. It isn't all Scandinavian glaciers that are
advancing, just those in SW Norway. Those in the north of Sweden are
retreating.
3.6.5 OK
3.6.6/ 3.6.7 Basically OK. May need more re ACW and SAM link if we can say
anything.
3.7 This is probably too long, so would be another area for some reduction.
Agree on your suggestions for deletions as repetitive.
3.7.1.1-3.7.1.3 OK though all a little long.
3.7.1.4 This is the one where there is some repetition. Not much on monsoon.
A lot here is already in 3.8 on extremes and the Dai et al (2004) paper is now
referred to in 3.3, here and in 3.8. Suggest it should just be in 3.3 and again
in 3.9 (it isn't there yet).
Your figures seem in better shape than those in my section. We will likely need
to work on the one Dennis is doing. Will need some colour. You're aware of
which need more work from your comments. We can leave these in for
reviewer and LA thoughts.
Dave has sent me a first go at the figures. Made loads of suggestions.
Dave was aware colour choices poor and will be doing more on them today.
Is Chris Landsea the only person you've removed from the CA list so
far? It seems so.
I should have time tomorrow onwards to do merging and send out the
3 files to all our LAs. Are you happy with me merging in your refs list?
I'll keep the discard ones at end in a separate list. Still hopeful of
doing all this by close of play here on Thursday. All day in London
on Friday and CRU party today week from 11am onwards. Going for
Dec 16 means I will only be able to get some of the Figures in 3.2
and 3.3 properly into the text.
Will send Dave's next Figure versions if they are much better. No point
with current one.
Still no news !
Cheers
Phil
At 21:16 10/12/2004, you wrote:
Phil
Attached are the three sections. Please use these for any suggested edits. Of the
text, 3.7 is losest and needs careful comparison with 3.3 to check for inconsistencies.
There is model stuff in there that is not quite right or incomplete: I removed some.
There is reduncdant ENSO-related stuff. A lot of the monsoon variability is linked to
ENSO and we could say that succinctly but it would decimate what the CAs and Panmao have
done. I think we will need to do this in Beijing, but I left it for now. Note the refs
has a list of discards at the end.
Suggest we keep this, perhaps in a different file, and if stuff gets deleted with
references, then the refs get moved there.
Some of the figures are not quite in order in 3.6 and their is the extra figure that
Dennis generated, not currently referred to. Key question is whether to follow up on
this and how to make the multiple figs in 3.6 more compatible. I know you have
suggestions on long time series and I urge you to keep in mind the purpose here: to show
the past variability and place recent trends in that context. A lot could be done on
indices and assoc plots, and patterns. I think we have license to do some of this as
long as the figs are in literature. But we may not be able to reproduce the results???
I have hedged a lot on clouds and radiation, and maybe clarification will come? See if
you think it is OK for now.
Note these 3 versions are dated 1210: 10 Dec. They replace entirely the 1204 versions
which you can discard.
Kevin
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1102953345.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: need to chat - important
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Keith,
I have to head out around 11:30 AM (40 minutes from now). You can try reaching me at my
cell phone after that (xxx xxxx xxxx)...
Thanks,
Mike
At 08:03 AM 12/13/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Keith,
I'll be working at home this morning. You can call me at: xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike
At 07:25 AM 12/13/2004, Keith Briffa wrote:
Mike
could you confirm a telephone number to call you on in 3 hours say
thanks
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1102956436.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #1: some background info first...
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
HI Keith,
Thanks again for your phone call, and the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can.
I'm perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for
example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.
First, "RealClimate" should be helpful. It deals w/ the skeptic claims, etc. but using the
legitimate
peer-reviewed research as a basis for the discussion.
The "hockey stick" overview should be helpful:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
as well as itemized esponses to the various contrarian propaganda/myths:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
response to their rejected Nature comment:
[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
and the discussion of the analysis in the Rutherford et al (2004) paper in press in Journal
of Climate, that independently discredits them:
[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
In the following emails, I'll attach some other materials (submitted papers) that deal w/
the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,
Please let me know if there is anything we discussed that I forget to provide you. Will
also draft an email to the small group (you, me, Scott, Caspar, Gene) about the prospective
additional RegEM/Mann et al method model analyses,
cheers,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
3. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1102956446.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #2: paper in review in J. Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
This paper is in review, and can be referred to (just clear w/ Caspar or Gene first) for
IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total
crap, and they provide an online version of the Mann et al method (and the proxy data), so
individuals can confirm for themselves...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml