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: 1109684442.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, myles <m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan Gillett <gillett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Reiner Schnur <schnur@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, francis <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Future Directions
Date: Tue Mar 1 08:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear All,
I've knocked Chris off this reply. There is a meeting of the CCDD program next week
in Asheville. I guess Chris wants something for this. I'm on the panel, so if you want to
add to
what Gabi and Tom have put together then let me know and I'll feed that in additionally to
what is already there.
From being at the review last week of the vertical temperature trends panel, the
issue of
reducing forcing uncertainties is important. A number of people think that agreement in
the
20th century is all doing to model tuning due to uncertain forcing with sulphates. How to
counter this is one area. One of my own pet areas is trying to reduce uncertainties in the
paleo record for the last millennium, but again this is one of convincing people that we
really
know what has happened. So much is being made of the paleo records, but are they that
important to detection when most of the work is going on with the 20th century records. Is
the
pre-20th century really that important when it comes to D&A?
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 28/02/2005, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Hi IDAG people,
Chris Miller needs some input on where detection is going and what should be funded,
appended is a list Tom and I sent him as rapid response, but it sounds like they are
still
in the process of thinking about
this, so please reply (soon) if you have additions/comments (Chris, only thought of
sending
this now, I hope results will be still helpful)
Gabi
1) extending detection to other fields, esp. U.S. possible variables are circulation,
anything hydrological (drought, average rainfall), climate extremes, storms,
all this is getting more feasible as observational data get better, reanalyses get more
reliable (although trend sstill questionable), and models get better and have higher
resolution
2) compiling "showable" scorecard of what has been detected in the system already
3) abrupt changes - Tom thinks the relevance has been overstated of past changes in the
thermohaline circulation (because of proximity of massive amounts of ice/freshwater).
However, I think it would still be useful to
find a fingerprint of predictors for thermohaline shutdown (from waterhosing
experiments), and establish
how early warning signs can be detected.
Another aprupt change that could be dealt with are events such as the mega drought
cycles in the western U.S., which our preliminary work indicates does not correspond
with multidecal peaks in warmth for zonal average temperatures.
4) using paleoclimate data for understanding regional responses to known forcings, such
as pulse of volcanism in early 19th century. tests of a model's predictability on
regional scales. this however would require ensemble runs and a fair amount of legwork,
so probably would be best as a proposal than as an IDAG project.
5) more surface temperature detection as already donw, to keep analyzing 20th century
from models as model
diagnostic and evaluating how to get most model performance information out of this
diagnostic. For this,
updates of forcing estimates, particularly reduced sulfate aerosol uncertainties would
be useful.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Directions in D&A
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Chris Miller <christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Reply-To: christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: NOAA
To: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <4216317A.7020700@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <421A4F67.1040201@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gabi, I'm looking for some quick thoughts, which probably means just you and Tom.
Obviously, the rest of IDAG would have ideas but it would take some time to poll them (I
could see it as an agenda item at the IDAG meeting). If you had a couple highlight items
by Thursday morning, that would be helpful as I have an internal meeting where this will
be discussed.
Thanks again, Chris
Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Chris, by when do you need this? From the whole IDAG or just, eg from me
and Tom?
Gabi
Chris Miller wrote:
Tom, Gabi, As you are probably aware, one of the recurring challenges for federal
program managers is to indicate to upper management what the science priorities in the
future should be. NOAA is more future-looking than it has been in the past and we are
now being called upon more frequently to respond to this question. A simplistic answer
would be "more of the same" since we are doing such good work now. This could be part of
the answer, but not the whole answer. NOAA is interested in new science thrusts, new
observational programs or analyses, new institutional arrangements, etc. (the "new is
better syndrome"). I would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to think about
this issue and send me a few bullets on where you think the community should be going on
D&A, for both continuing and new investments (from the perspective of the work that IDAG
has been involved in to date).
Thanks for your help and look forward to the next IDAG mtg.
Chris
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the
Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [1]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the
Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [2]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the
Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [3]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
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.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
2. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
3. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
Original Filename: 1110150877.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "olgasolomina" <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Glacier box - comments and suggestions
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:14:37 +0300 (MSK)
Reply-to: olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Valerie, Keith, Eystein and Peck,
Here are my comments on the glaciers box and suggestions for some improvements. I apologize that I am commenting the text that I was supposed to write myself, but we all know the reason
Original Filename: 1110909006.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: last millennium
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Peck,
Thanks for your message. I'll look forward to hearing what you and
your colleagues think.
Susan
At 9:26 AM -0700 3/15/05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Susan - thanks for sending these along with some interesting
>ideas. I'll cc this email to Keith Briffa, along with Eystein, to
>see if the three of us could chat about the issues. Personally, I
>think the idea of showing the instrumental data near the paleo sites
>is excellent - but we have to see what Keith thinks since it would
>be his (and CA Tim Osborn's) job to do this. But, it makes lots of
>sense. I also like having the composite (average) lines (paleo and
>instrumental) for the simple reason that they connects back to all
>the other reconstructions, and thus make the point that these other
>recons are not so "misleading" after all.
>
>Funny coincidence - Julie and I have been working on the coral trend
>story, and just yesterday decided to do what you are suggesting in
>terms of instrumental data. I'm learning that the coral data are
>trickier than I thought, but this is a good way of figuring out what
>we really can or cannot say with these time series.
>
>More soon, thanks again, Peck
>
>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>X-Sender: ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>>From: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>Subject: last millennium
>>Cc: Martin Manning <Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=7 tests=BAYES_50
>>X-Spam-Level:
>>
>>Hi Jonathan,
>>Here's some cool plots that Tom Crowley whipped up, as per our
>>phone discussion. He indicated that it was OK to send to you.
>>
>>It seems to me that showing these records explicitly will address a
>>lot of the issues in the temperature records for the last
>>millennium. One might or might not choose to try to construct the
>>composites (see slide 2 versus 3 in the attached). To be totally
>>consistent, it would be nice to show individual records for the
>>twentieth century near the sites of the tree ring/cores as well,
>>rather than just the mean over that period. If one did that, the
>>resulting diagram would avoid any averaging (is it really needed to
>>make the point?). A remaining issue would be the calibration of the
>>paleo proxies and how that affects the spread (or lack thereof, in
>>the overlap period).
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>--
>>******************************************
>>Please note my new email address for your records:
>>
>>Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>*******************************************
>>
>
>
>--
>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>
>Mail and Fedex Address:
>
>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>
>Attachment converted: Discovery:crowley.mwp.mar.14.ppt (SLD8/PPT3) (000F0F48)
--
******************************************
Please note my new email address for your records:
Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*******************************************
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1111085657.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ray <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: New row on climate 'hockey stick'
Date: Thu Mar 17 13:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
On Horizon, I'm supposed to be called in a few minutes by someone. Not sure who
yet. This program is generally good. They did something on global dimming a few months
ago and now want to do something on the truth about global warming, IPCC and
skeptics.
That's all I know so far. Person's name is Paul Olding. Should be calling
at 2pm, so 5 minutes time.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:21 17/03/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Phil,
I agree-like all of these sources (e.g. boreholes, tree-rings, etc.) each one has its
own potential weaknessses--in this case, I think cold-season precip could be playing a
greater role w/ the mid-latitude glaciers than Oerlemans cares to admit. Not clear that
should give a systematic bias towards underestimating temperature variations though,
which is the argument you'd need to make if you're a boreholer.
The important thing is that it is entirely independent of everything else that has come
before, and looks remarkably like the Bradley and Jones/Mann et al/Jones et al/Crowley &
Lowery/Mann & Jones type reconstructions. Somehow the word hasn't really gotten out on
this.
I've got a call in from a different BBC reporter today, Ben Dempsey, who seems much
better. He's doing something for "Horizon" on climate change.
Do you know anything about this?
Thanks,
mike
At 08:02 AM 3/17/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Reporter was Paul Rincon ("Paul Rincon-NEWSi" <Paul.Rincon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>).
No-one seems to have picked up on Oerleman's paper yet. You did send me that
earlier, so I should have told him about that.
Sarah Raper here has some doubts about Oerleman's work, but it does
reproduce the curve very well. Need to be objective though in interpreting it.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:48 17/03/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Yes, BBC has been disappointing in the way they've dealt with this--almost seems to be a
contrarian element there.
Do you remember the name of the reporter you spoke to?
Thanks,
Mike
p.s. Interesting that they also don't seem to be aware of the Oerleman's paper, which
reproduces the "Hockey Stick" using completely independent data and method (glacial mass
balance). I've attached in case you haven't seen...
At 03:26 AM 3/17/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Ray,
I tried to convince the reporter here there wasn't a story, but he went with it
anyway.
At least he put in a quote from me that there are loads of other series that show
similar-ish series to MBH and MJ. Had to mention the Moberg et al series to achieve
this.
The reporter said he'd not seen Moberg et al., and it wasn't flagged up by Nature
to them at the appropriate time. Odd ! Then why are you running with this GRL paper
as there are 10s issued each week. Well, it turns out, not surprisingly, that MM have
issued numerous press releases themselves - using their networks.
Waterhouse is at Anglian Polytechnic Uni (APU) - it's in Cambridge and Chelmsford.
Keith said what does John Waterhouse know about paleo - my thoughts also !
We've worked with John several years ago on an isotopes in trees project, that didn't
produce much. APU is OK when it comes to counselling studies. Ruth works for them
teaching at Yarmouth !
His quote is typical of many I get to here. Pity the reporter didn't mention this
to me.
My response would have been what is the point of doing any more paleo work, if we
are constrained by the answer we are allowed to get. If we don't have the MWP and LIA
then we are wrong. We have orders of magnitude more data than when these came into
vogue in the 1960s, but we still are expected to find them.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 17:20 16/03/2005, you wrote:
ray saw this story on BBC News Online and thought you
should see it.
** Message **
Anglia Polytechnic?!!!!
** New row on climate 'hockey stick' **
New controversy has erupted over one of the most provocative symbols of the global
warming debate: the so-called "hockey stick" graph.
< [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm >
** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/dailyemail/ >
** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this
e-mail, and anything said in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect
the BBC's views.
If you don't wish to receive such mails in the future, please e-mail
webmasters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx making sure you include the following text: I do
not want to receive "E-mail a friend" mailings.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
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
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
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://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dailyemail/
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1111417712.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: Stuff....
Date: Mon Mar 21 10:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
I will be at Duke. Get to the airport about 6.30pm on the 29th. Looking forward to
seeing you there.
I should have signed off on the CCSP report by Easter. We have to get everything
done by March 28. We had a conf. call last Friday.
I can see the argument about an assessment and 'new information'. It is a similar
thing in IPCC. Glad to hear you're going to submit it for a paper, because I think it
is important. It will unlikely change some peoples views, though.
Just had a long call with Chris Folland. He says that the next CCSP vtt meeting is
going to be scheduled for Chicago for the week we should be doing the HC review !
Hope you're still going to come to Exeter. You should have less to do than all the
other chapters !
See you on the 29th late or more likely for breakfast on the 30th.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:16 18/03/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Sorry about the delay in replying to your email. I picked up a chest infection while I
was at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii, and it proved to be very persistent. I think a
weekend's rest will do me good.
It was great to see you in Chicago, even though the meeting itself was quite difficult
to sit through. As may have been apparent, Roger and I really rub each other the wrong
way. Working with him on this CCSP Report has been a very unpleasant experience.
I am taking your advice, and trying to write up the "amplification factor" stuff that I
showed in Chicago. I presented this in Hawaii, and it sparked a lot of discussion. Just
between you and me, Susan Solomon argued quite forcefully that this new information
should NOT go into the CCSP Report, and that we should not be performing science in
support of an assessment. She was concerned that the CCSP Report might be subject to
unjustified criticism if key conclusions of the Report relied on unpublished work. I
have considerable sympathy with this view. It does seem important to get this work
submitted to a peer-reviewed publication as soon as possible, and then worry later about
whether the material should or should not appear in CCSP.
Are you going to the Duke IDAG meeting? If so, I look forward to seeing you there.
Best regards to you and Ruth,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 1112622624.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Brohan, Philip" <philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: HADCRUT various
Date: Mon Apr 4 09:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Peter Thorne <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Philip,
I'm not unhappy at all. If I am it is more about HadCRUT2 and 3.
I read through the report to DEFRA and will be sending some comments later
today. I also commented on what Harry has written as a report for you. I've
left those comments with him as he's away this week and I'm off April 6-15.
It is a bit odd with HadCRUT2 that the problem has surfaced now and my
old mask hasn't made any difference.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:33 01/04/2005, Brohan, Philip wrote:
Phil.
I've just had a chat with Peter Thorne about HadCRUT2 and 3, and I get the
impression that you are concerned, so we thought I should clarify what is going on.
In particular I want to assure you that we are not trying to change the system
without your approval.
To make things quite clear, we have two HadCRUT systems here:
1) Peter is running HadCRUT2. This is our operational system which produces
the new data every month that we send to you and everyone. This is a fixed
system, it does exactly what you agreed with Peter a couple of years ago. We
don't plan to change it at all.
We did, unfortunately, make a mistake while running the system; we think a
land-mask file was changed. This is what Peter's recent messages have been about.
We're still not quite sure how this happened, but whatever fix we apply will be
to restore the system to the original, agreed state.
2) I am coordinating HadCRUT3. This currently encompasses Harry's work on the data,
Simon's work on blending, John Kennedy's work on variance correction, and my work on
errors and gridding. Some combination of this work will become the new dataset.
I have a clear picture of what I think should form the new dataset. However, we
won't produce HadCRUT3 unless you (and all the other contributors) agree. If I
can't persuade you of the value of a change, it won't happen. In particular, I
see the land station data as entirely under your control, both now and in the
future.
If I (or Peter) misread the vibes and you were not worrying about any of this,
please don't start. There are not serious problems with either system.
Have fun,
Philip.
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: 1112670527.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: last millennium - responding to Susan
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc:
Original Filename: 1113941558.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Chapter 3.4.1
Date: Tue Apr 19 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: David Parker <david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Brian Soden <bsoden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'David R. Easterling'" <david.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
I plan to look through your 3.4.1 draft tomorrow or later this week. At the same
time I also plan to have a go at section 3.2. David has sent me some new figures
and there are two new papers to add in. I am having difficulty finding some quality
time at the moment, but hope this will come later this week.
I did read all the CCSP report. The review group are having a conf call tomorrow
on this, but they have chosen your afternoon, so I can't take part. There were 6
reviewers of the review and one other almost wrote as much as you. Most were
positive on the review saying that the report authors have a lot to do, particularly for
Chapters 1 and 6. How all this pans out is impossible to tell. The next meeting of the
authors is being scheduled for the week after Beijing.
I agree some of their figures are useful, but I too doubt whether we will have
much useful for the FOD we have to write. We will likely be doing them in parallel -
which is hardly ideal.
I wouldn't send our 3.4.1 to Tom at this time - at least wait till Brian, David and I
have been through yours. Also I wouldn't want Tom passing it on to the CCSP VTT
authors. I think they will have a lot of hard thinking when they get the NRC review, to
worry too much about what we're doing. We do need to have our chapter and their
report meshing at some time, but this might have to wait till the SOD (by which time
their report might be finished).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:35 18/04/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Kevin
Thanks. You have saved me some work because on my journey back from
Geneva I also studied the comments on 3.4.1 (on paper) and was
considering making an electronic revised section. I came to the
conclusion that 3.4.1 should say that there are 2 schools of thought
about Fu et al and other aspects of the temperatures-aloft issue: the
jury is still out. That would be a assessment (as opposed to a review)
of the current state of the science. Fu may not be correct as he seems
to imply upper tropospheric warming rates well outside the error-bars
implied by the radiosondes (though I am aware of their problems too). I
have not yet read your attachment but will consider it in the next few
days.
I looked at the surface temperature comments too and feel it may be best
to wait until in Beijing, as most comments are about what diagrams to
choose. I could try to re-order the urban warming section as reviewers
suggest, but we may still wish to contact Tsutsumi (who didn't reply to
my email a couple of months ago) to write something.
Regards
David
On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 17:13, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Phil and David, and Brian
>
> I believe you three are probably closest to the satellite temperature
> record issue and so I am sending this to you. I have thoroughly gone
> over all the comments we received and I have prepared a revised 3.4.1
> which is attached. This is the cleaned up version. The actual
> version has tracking turned on but the changes are so extensive that
> they are very hard to follow. As you know, I have read the entire
> CCSP report and commented extensively on it. I know Phil was on the
> review team and David was there as a lead author. However David and
> Phil may not be as familiar with the whole report.
>
> Obviously this remains a controversial topic. Many of the comments we
> received were diametrically opposed to one another. The rhetoric was
> disappointing (especially from Peter Thorne). In fact Peter's
> comments are mostly not useful and reveal very strong biases against
> Fu and reanalyses. Previously, you'll recall that David provided most
> of the text and I edited it and updated it with the Fu material in a
> somewhat ad hoc fashion that got almost everyone mad. Probably a good
> thing to do in retrospect, as this next version will look so much
> better. Note that I have done nothing with the appendices at this
> point, so that needs to be addressed. I have taken out all the
> tables??
>
> You will see even in the current text that I have 2 sections I would
> like to delete.
>
> While individual comparisons of radiosonde station data with
> collocated satellite data (Christy and Norris, 2004) suggest that the
> median trends of radiosonde temperatures in the troposphere are
> generally very close to UAH trends and a little less than RSS trends,
> trends at individual radiosonde sites vary and root mean square
> differences of UAH satellite data with radiosondes are substantial
> (Hurrell et al., 2000). Moreover, as noted in 3.4.1.1, comparisons
> with radiosonde data are compromised by the multiple problems with the
> latter, and there are diurnal cycle influences on them over land. In
> the stratosphere, radiosonde trends are more negative than both MSU
> retrievals, especially RSS. [DELETE THIS?]
>
> The problem here is the rhetoric of Christy et al. In his
> contribution Christy justifies the UAH record by saying that "median
> trends agree with those of sondes". But he actually sent to us his
> Fig. 2 showing the lack of agreement in general. It is only the
> median that agrees, the agreement with sondes individually is not good
> and this is just for trends. [Hence the median depends on the
> selection of stations]. It is even worse if rms differences are
> examined (as in Hurrell et al 2000). The only reason to include this
> is to rebut Christy's claim. For most other readers it has no
> business being there. Your suggestions appreciated. Maybe this
> should go in the appendix?
>
> You will see that I have stolen 2 figures from the CCSP report. I
> made up the 3rd figure from data provided from the CCSP report plus
> extra material (only the global is in the current draft). It would
> also be nice to include a spatial map of trends at the surface and for
> the troposphere (T2 corrected as from Fu) but no such figure exists
> anywhere, yet. We can get trends from RSS and UAH for T2. It would
> be good to have access to the originals so we can modify them and
> clean up the terminology. {On that score, I don't think the CCSP
> terminology is tenable given the new retrievals of Fu et al (2005) and
> ours, using T2, T3, and T4 is much easier).
>
> At present the CCSP report is not very useful to us. Some figures are
> useful. It may become so, but I actually have my doubts, given the
> vested interests of the authors.
>
> I am tempted to send this to Tom Karl in his role as editor of our
> chapter, and of course he is head of the CCSP effort, but I would NOT
> want him to use it for CCSP (except that it might highlight the
> differences in assessments). What do you think? Via Tom we might get
> better access to the figures and updates? Also I'l l cc David
> Easterling.
> This would be the main basis for FOD.
>
> Ideally also it is desirable to get the figures updated thru 2004, but
> can we?
>
> Please read this version and let me know what you think? (Please be
> kind, I have put in a LOT of work on this)
>
> Best regards
> 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
--
David E Parker
A2_W052 Met Office FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
email: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Global climate data sets are available from [2]http://hadobs.org
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/
2. http://hadobs.org/
Original Filename: 1114008578.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter Lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed Apr 20 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST, snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there, with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005) work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the degree
of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
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. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
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/
2. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/
Original Filename: 1114025310.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Kevin - ah yes, good fun. Talked w/ Susan about some of this, and we're hoping that Keith
Briffa might be able to participate in "Cluster B" while the rest of our chap 6 team
discusses things that bore Keith. I'll forward this to relevant chap 6 folks. Thx, Peck
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ <http://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. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
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 <mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1fde5ff.jpg
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
<http://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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR 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
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones [1]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: Kevin Trenberth [2]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [5]<42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [7]<42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere. This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: [8]mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [9]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [10]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. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: [11]plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
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 [13]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untitled 2
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [14]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [15]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 [16]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [17]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [18]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
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
Embedded Content: Untitled 2.jpg: 00000001,648cb53d,00000000,00000000
References
1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
11. mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/
13. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
16. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1114040791.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "Martin Manning" <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:46:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Peter Lemke" <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Susan Solomon" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil?
Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts. Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
>>Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through
>>> parts of Chapters
>>> 4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
>>>
>>> First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets
>>> broken into two parts.
>>> Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental
>>> record including
>>> borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
>>> snow/temperature.
>>> OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by
>>> Chs 5, 3 and 4.
>>> The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
>>>
>>> Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo
>>> records, particularly
>>> how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental
>>> records is believed
>>> by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few
>>> other regions it
>>> exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century
>>> is, I believe, the key
>>> to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more
>>> should be made of
>>> this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed.
>>> Europe may be a
>>> small continent, but the xxx xxxx xxxxyear 'perfect proxy' records (which
>>> have all seasons!) need
>>> to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text
>>> should be there, with
>>> perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
>>>
>>> Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent
>>> Oerlemans (2005) work
>>> - attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg)
>>> comparing this with most other
>>> reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece
>>> of
>>> work should be with
>>> all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this
>>> getting the right base level
>>> is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the
>>> boreholes. Also, the degree of
>>> smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway
>>> message.
>>>
>>> Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
>>>
>>> Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a
>>> web site (distributed?) where
>>> the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not
>>> just the smoothed/plotted
>>> series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes
>>> back
>>> also to a consistent way
>>> of smoothing time series.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
>>>>Dear Martin,
>>>>I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done
>>>>a very good job in listing the most important issues.
>>>>Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this
>>>>on the weekend.
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I will do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Firstly on cluster A:
>>>>>I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing
>>>>>from water vapor (or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
>>>>>So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean,
>>>>>cryosphere. This may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
>>>>>Issues:
>>>>>*Consistency of:*
>>>>>
>>>>> * sea ice with SST
>>>>> * snow cover with snowfall and temperature
>>>>> * glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
>>>>> * borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
>>>>> * overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
>>>>> * salinity vs precipitation
>>>>> * ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
>>>>> * sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
>>>>> land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
>>>>> radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation
>>>>>records (don't use NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
>>>>>
>>>>>Points of contention:
>>>>>1) consistency
>>>>>2) overlap and redundancy
>>>>>3) where to place integrated assessment?
>>>>>
>>>>> * sea level: Chapter 5
>>>>> * snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
>>>>> * paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
>>>>> * overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
>>>>> * T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
>>>>> retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
>>>>> level rise.
>>>>> * Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E,
>>>>> snowfall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please see the draft of 3.9.
>>>>>
>>>>>So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
>>>>>1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
>>>>>2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in
>>>>>particular, that 3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters
>>>>> that
>>>>>follow.
>>>>>The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on
>>>>>cross-chapter issues.
>>>>>Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
>>>>>
>>>>>Peter may wish to add or change this?
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin Manning wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Kevin and Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author
>>>>>>meeting on May xxx xxxx xxxx. We will shortly be sending out some more
>>>>>>details on the plans for the meeting and in particular would like to
>>>>>>clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster meetings shown
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the program on Wednesday 11th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the
>>>>>>session on Overlap Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering
>>>>>>observed climate change" and which will involve discussion among
>>>>>>chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the last
>>>>>>page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the
>>>>>> ZOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if
>>>>>>you agree, we would like to ask that you each to specify what in your
>>>>>>view would be the 2 or 3 most important issues to resolve during the
>>>>>>overlap cluster session. We will then use your input to draw up a
>>>>>>specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
>>>>>>CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a
>>>>>>shared understanding of the most important overlap and consistency
>>>>>>issues and the corresponding key decisions that will have to be made
>>>>>>in Beijing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to
>>>>>>help us with this by Wednesday 20th.
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>*Recommended Email address:
>>>>>><mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>>*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
>>>>>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>>>>>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> 4479
>>>>>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>>>>
>>>>>-- ****************
>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
>>>>><mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>NCAR
>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>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. Dr. Peter Lemke
>>>>Alfred-Wegener-Institute
>>>>for Polar and Marine Research
>>>>Postfach 120161
>>>>27515 Bremerhaven
>>>>GERMANY
>>>>
>>>>e-mail: <mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
>>>>FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>><http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de>http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
>>>>****************************************************
>>>
>>>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
>>><mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>NR4 7TJ
>>>UK
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>d85f1d.jpg
>>
>>
>>--
>>****************
>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
>><mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>NCAR <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>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
>>
>
> --
> Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
> Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/ALxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Original Filename: 1114088225.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Martin Manning" <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Thu Apr 21 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Peter Lemke" <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Susan Solomon" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Martin,
You are right, it should just be the two of us and as Keith is just across the corridor
we can have the meeting beforehand or on the way together. If you add this though to
your list of possible meetings you might find that some others are interested. This
meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so during Cluster B. There
does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide where Oerlemans
work is best located within AR4.
There is also the issue of Ch 9 as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch 4 using an NCEP
temperature series for the Arctic, there might be issues with some other chapters
using observed datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or saying things about
them that differ from what we do. Hopefully all these sorts of issues which get flagged
when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at LA3 and LA4).
Cheers
Phil
At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil?
Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts. Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
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: 1114113870.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>
Subject: Fwd: Input for Chapter 6 in AR4
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:04:30 +0200
<x-flowed>
>Hi Keith,
got this paper from Jens Hesselbjerg. Interesting
with respect to the von Storch story.
Eystein
>A few comments in English:
>We have used a different version of the MPI
>coupled modeling system from that described by
>von Storch et al. to simulate the last 500
>years. The model we have used has a different
>ocean component (OPYC in stead of HOPE) and a
>higher resolution in the atmosphere (T42 in
>stead of T31 - by many considered to be a
>substantial improvement in terms of representing
>synoptic behavior). Moreover, we have used
>different reconstructions of the external
>forcing. All these differnces leads to somewhat
>differnt behaviours compared to von Storch, and
>yet the model does seem to depict many of the
>observed major climatic events. Details are
>given in the paper.
>
>venlig hilsen
>Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen
>
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All
Original Filename: 1114130226.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith and Phil - Thanks. I read this to say that the issue of
pre-1860 instrumental data is figured out ok? Plan outlined below
sounds good if ok with you both.
Best, Peck
>Peck
>FYI
>Phil and have have talked about the need t adress (even if briefly)
>the pre 1860 climate data - and both feel that the overlap with the
>paleo records (see our 1st Figure) in the 2000 year section , is one
>place to address this - though more needs to be done about the
>regional bias in these data
>
>>X-Sender: f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:05 +0100
>>To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Martin Manning" <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
>>Cc: "Peter Lemke" <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> "Susan Solomon" <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
>> k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>
>>
>> Martin,
>> You are right, it should just be the two of us and as Keith is
>>just across the corridor
>> we can have the meeting beforehand or on the way together. If you
>>add this though to
>> your list of possible meetings you might find that some others are
>>interested. This
>> meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so
>>during Cluster B. There
>> does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide
>>where Oerlemans
>> work is best located within AR4.
>> There is also the issue of Ch 9 as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch
>>4 using an NCEP
>> temperature series for the Arctic, there might be issues with some
>>other chapters
>> using observed datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or
>>saying things about
>> them that differ from what we do. Hopefully all these sorts of
>>issues which get flagged
>> when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at
>>LA3 and LA4).
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>>Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
>>>involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
>>>well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil?
>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Kevin and Phil
>>>>
>>>> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
>>>> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
>>>> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
>>>> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
>>>> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
>>>> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>>>>
>>>> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
>>>> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
>>>> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
>>>> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
>>>> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
>>>> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
>>>> meeting in Beijing.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>>>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>>>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts. Last
>>>>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>>>>> and
>>>>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>>>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>>>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>
>>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
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>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/
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1114607213.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago. I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.
Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:
(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
A new paper ([3]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf) from the St. Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick. Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on
correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few
good" series.
Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp
Original Filename: 1114785020.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: HC
Date: Fri Apr 29 10:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Tom was here yesterday. He said you were going to the CCSP meeting for a day
in Chicago, then flying on to the UK for the HC meeting May xxx xxxx xxxx(and 17th evening).
Do you still want to come on up to Norwich afterwards?
Glad to hear from Tom you've been writing up your CCSP chapter and extending
it significantly. He gave me a brief summary. I signed off yesterday on the CCSP
report. You should be getting it through Tom Karl later today, or by Monday. As I did
Ch 5, if you want to check anything with me feel free to. I wasn't able to stop some
comments being put in by Lindzen, but Tom has a paper as does Myles which are
enough to ignore his and the Douglass papers.
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: 1115294935.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: Re: ppt for LA2
Date: Thu May 5 08:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
Apologies
Phil
Kevin,
Finally gotten around to putting thoughts down. Mostly on the challenges slides
at the start. Maybe you would have said these things.
1. As well as suggesting the model chapters rank models (I don't think they will
go with this - even though it is what we should be doing, and there are a whole raft
of issues as to how to do it) should we also be dismissing observational papers
that are clearly wrong (or a distortion of the facts and emphasizing the wrong issues).
In some parts of our chapter, we omit the poor papers. Just stressing that we are
doing an assessment and not a review. An assessment is our expert view of the science
at the present.
For space limitations we must omit many papers, but we must do this objectively. In the
NRC review I made the point that most of the papers reviewed were the author's own. It is
difficult and we must not fall into that trap. All this again comes back to
assessment/review.
With 3.4.1 we mustn't get caught up in having to agree with the CCSP VTT report. We're
either doing OUR assessment or we might as well give up.
Gone on for long enough on that one.
2. I think we both believe we should be saying somewhere what we should be measuring
(how accurately, where and with what). If we don't say this somewhere, AR5 will be in a
worse state. Susan is against this, but I think on this point she's wrong. IPCC has a lot
of clout - much more than GCOS and/or WMO. It should be saying something about what
we should be doing.
3. Minor point, just land warming more than ocean, not much more.
4. I guess you've expanded on linear trends enough
5. The CCSP diagrams are good, but I'm not keen on running means. I guess though they
wouldn't be too different with a better smoother.
6. I guess you'll raise map projections. Could add in the new one Dave has done for precip
to show the 30E edge.
The additional slides. Most of these are from a talk I have to give in Bern next month.
They relate
mostly to issues with Ch 6. Maybe you can add a couple of them.They relate to the issues
of:
- making full use of the instrumental records to compare with proxy records
- changes in seasonality
- was the few hundred years before 1850 always colder than the post 1920 period.
The first 2 are the longest European records. The period I'm interested in is the rise
up
from the late 17th century to the 1730s and then the year 1740. No volcanoes for 20-30
year period may be a factor, solar also, but nothing explains 1740. It is not just in CET.
1730s at CET and De Bilt is the warmest decade until the 1990s. Producing these sorts
of things in proxy data is a key.
3rd slide is just some of these longer records filtered. They don't agree that well, so
why should proxy series agree. We have more to learn from the early instrumental period.
4th is just a simple example of instrumental/proxy overlap. Highlights seasonality
differences.
and 5th just shows how unusual the central European summer was in 2003 - if we
wanted a figure for the box.
The interface with Ch 6 and the early instrumental period is crucial. 60% of the
comments
on Ch 6 were on the 3-4 pages on the last millennium ! Ours weren't that distorted to
one
of our sections.
Issues at UEA and CRU haven't helped me get to 3.2 yet. I hope to by the end of the
day.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 03/05/2005, you wrote:
Phil
Did you look at and have comments/suggestion on the ppt for the last day in Beijing?
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: 1115297153.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Aiguo Dai <adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: more on section 3.7 and Marengo
Date: Thu May 5 08:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jim Renwick <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Panmao Zhai <pmzhai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matilde Rusticucci <mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'David R. Easterling'" <david.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin et al,
The diagram looks too good to me. CRU's data are reasonable over Brazil for
some of the period, but poor in others, particularly recently. So we would have
difficulty in updating this because of station numbers and quality. We could try
using the GPCC dataset. They have huge numbers of stations for Brazil, but only
for specific regions and periods, so likely problems there also.
We have a couple of papers in submission to J. Hydrology on flows in the
subcatchments of the Parana river, which are well reproduced by rainfall,
evaporation and a catchment model. Agree with your concerns about the Amazon
flows not agreeing with the rainfall. Do the NAR and SAR regions fully encompass
the enormous catchment though.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:36 03/05/2005, Aiguo Dai wrote:
One can use the Chen et al. and CRU to produce similar type of plots to validate
Marengo's result.
He did use the CRU rainfall data set, but not for this particular plot.
Aiguo
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
As you know we got some manuscripts from Jose Marengo to be considered in our chapter,
and he is a LA on another chapter and will be in Beijing. He has offerred to be CA.
My question concerns how good his data are? I asked Aiguo Dai to comment:
====
One of the interesting results from Marengo's work is that he found the Northern and
Southern Amazonia have opposite phase of decadal rainfall variations (see attached Fig.
from Marengo 2004, Ther. Appl. Climatol.): In the northern Amazonia, rainfall is above
normal during ~1xxx xxxx xxxxand below normal during ~1xxx xxxx xxxx; and it is opposite in the
southern Amazonia. He suggested warmer SST in central and eastern Pacific contributed to
the dry conditions in the northern Amazonia during 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
As noted in Betts et al. (2005, JHM, in press), Marengo's basin integrated rainfall
index does not correlate well with Amazon river flow during the recent decades (worse
than Chen et al.). This large multidecadal signal seems, however, robust.
=====
Certainly the attached figure is striking. Are we sure it is not due to changes in the
way observations are made? Do other datasets replicate this? The lack of relation with
river flow is a substantial concern. Matilde, can you provide informed commentary? If
the figure is good then maybe we should include it?
Kevin
--
Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : xxx xxxx xxxx
P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/
Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
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/adai/
Original Filename: 1115843111.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Polychronis Tzedakis" <P.C.Tzedakis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Rainer Zahn" <rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thomas Stocker" <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Atte Korhola" <atte.korhola@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: commission performance alpha 5
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:25:11 +0100
Cc: <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <john.birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Carin.Andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ulysses.ninnemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Astrid.Bardgard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <richard.telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear all,
First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the transparency of the EU funding process might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM
To: Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola
Cc: Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; john.birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Carin.Andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; ulysses.ninnemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Astrid.Bardgard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; richard.telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: commission performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly, it
surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and there
are many issues involved some of which have been named in the recent
emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been named but
which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the EU FWP front.
Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve here and there,
but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much rather than sitting
back and keeping going with business as usual, a business that soon may go
out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done. On
my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting to see
that those from the modeling community and other groups present obviously
had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the planned ICON IP)
was part of Imprint, and they were not overly favourable to listen and
expand their views. So in a sense, even within our own consortium there
was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and understanding as to what a
palaeo-component is about and will have to offer. In the end I am now left
with the impression that ICON would have stood a good chance to survive on
its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult
today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks,
topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so more
difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift through
the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I also feel that
this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is not an easy task
to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide range of expertise
envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the whole process in my view
confirms the notion that the concept of IPs has fundamentally (and to a
large degree predictably) failed. This concept reflects a substantial lack
of insight on the side of those who were, presumably still are involved in
designing research policies in the commission about what science is about
and how it works. Those parties should not be where they are, and they
certainly should not be involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are living
up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality of
proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process is
ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the reviews
that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted last year) are
mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail, beyond anything I
would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time and tax payers'
money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute to and put work and
effort into that proposal. As for the Impront proposal we now are faced
with the prospect that the only IP proposal, Millennium, that is competing
with Imprint from the outset was received more favourably than our own
proposal. With this I could live were it not for the fact that in
Millennium everything is named as a strategy and work plan that we were
being advised to not do. This speaks a language of its own and to me
reflects a fundamental lack of enthusiasm, professionalism and competence
with those who give advice and organize the evaluation process. Obviously,
the vision set out by our programme manager(s) never made it to the
reviewers who seemed to follow quite different guidelines, if any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean
club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in Brussels
wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial impression
rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals. It is ever so
disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to depend more on who
we know than the quality we present. Last time when programme managerial
posts in the commission were reshuffled the primary concern around here was
that "we now lose our contacts". This is wrong, a disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU
proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these
conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science policy
and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited and then
turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to do with the
science presented. There is also the notion that within the commission
climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons not known to
many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do not have the
right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute to
such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of the
commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a full-grown
Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Instituci
Original Filename: 1115887684.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Denis-Didier.Rousseau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: RE: commission performance alpha 5]
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:48:04 +0200 (MEST)
Dear all IMPRINT colleagues,
Being away from Europe, this was a very bad news that I got this morning
listening about the rejection of IMPRINT. Eystein did a great job by being
able to gather the European paleo community under a common umbrella and he
desereves a lot of our consideration.
Concerning now the review process, I have been involved several times in
Brussels and I have been able to see the evolution of the evaluating panel
session after session.
I am not please with this evaluation and I already addressed my comments
to Andre Berger. It is not normal that entering the room where you are
supposed to meet the other "panelists" you would not know those who are
supposed to be representative of your community, this is my first comment.
Second, the way the referees are selected is somehow strange and involve a
political issue which is very sensitive as I'm sure you will understand
that a country fair representation is not enough in our field which better
involves expertise.
Third and last, having set a consortium of the leading Europe institutions
and scientists, how can you expect appropriate expertise? I have been
approached to join the evaluating panel but refused as being an IMPRINT
member to respect some ethic. If, what I wish, we all didi that way, they
one can sincerely expect the worst as I already experienced in a recent
past.
Forth, complaining to the commission is a waste of time as these
administrative people, even if this is you right, will always provide you
with arguments to justify the decision. I complain once to the director of
the programme who just retun me that the referees of my proposal were
relevant, what I know was not the case unfortunately. However I totally
support the initiative to question the commission on the way the
evaluations are performed, but also how the referees are selected.
Fifth, you all are waiting for the reviews. I agree with Rainer that the
comments that are provided are useless and in somehow offending the PIs.
This is mostly due to the review process and this again must be changed.
Furthermore what we receive is the consensus report which passed in the
European officers hands to be cleaned of any agressive sentences or words,
and must remain politically correct. So effectively these reports are
useless. It would be interesting to get also the individual reports on
which the consensus one has been established and would better show the
real work of every referee, and we would be very surprised sometimes.
Finaly to follow Thomas, Rainer and Eric, I would suggest to continue what
has been launched with IMPRINT which is to my sense unique in gathering
all the European paleo community under the same umbrella. May be the
proposal was too broad, but this was following the commission's aim. The
"Millenium" proposal benefited of several consecutive EU supports which
apparently helped a lot. Their lobbying seem to have ben very efficient,
not only in Brussels but in the journals and meetings. The Utrecht
initiative was a good one which must stop today. We have the opportunity
to gather regularly at least once during the EGU that we all are
attending, why not using such opportunity to reinforce the initiative
during such meeting?
All the very best to all of you
cheers
denis
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Betreff: RE: commission performance alpha 5
Von: "Polychronis Tzedakis" <P.C.Tzedakis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Datum: Mit, 11.05.2005, 17:25
An: "Rainer Zahn" <rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Thomas Stocker" <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Atte Korhola" <atte.korhola@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear all,
First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much
time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the
Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU
officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that
perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the
growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the
transparency of the EU funding process might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM
To: Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola
Cc: Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; john.birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Carin.Andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
ulysses.ninnemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Astrid.Bardgard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
richard.telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: commission performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly,
it surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and
there are many issues involved some of which have been named in the
recent emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been
named but which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the
EU FWP front. Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve
here and there, but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much
rather than sitting back and keeping going with business as usual, a
business that soon may go out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done.
On my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting
to see that those from the modeling community and other groups present
obviously had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the
planned ICON IP) was part of Imprint, and they were not overly
favourable to listen and expand their views. So in a sense, even within
our own consortium there was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and
understanding as to what a palaeo-component is about and will have to
offer. In the end I am now left with the impression that ICON would
have stood a good chance to survive on its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult
today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks,
topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so
more difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift
through the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I
also feel that this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is
not an easy task to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide
range of expertise envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the
whole process in my view confirms the notion that the concept of IPs
has fundamentally (and to a large degree predictably) failed. This
concept reflects a substantial lack of insight on the side of those who
were, presumably still are involved in designing research policies in
the commission about what science is about and how it works. Those
parties should not be where they are, and they certainly should not be
involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are
living up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality
of proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process
is ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the
reviews that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted
last year) are mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail,
beyond anything I would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time
and tax payers' money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute
to and put work and effort into that proposal. As for the Impront
proposal we now are faced with the prospect that the only IP proposal,
Millennium, that is competing with Imprint from the outset was received
more favourably than our own proposal. With this I could live were it
not for the fact that in Millennium everything is named as a strategy
and work plan that we were being advised to not do. This speaks a
language of its own and to me reflects a fundamental lack of
enthusiasm, professionalism and competence with those who give advice
and organize the evaluation process. Obviously, the vision set out by
our programme manager(s) never made it to the reviewers who seemed to
follow quite different guidelines, if any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean
club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in
Brussels wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial
impression rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals.
It is ever so disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to
depend more on who we know than the quality we present. Last time when
programme managerial posts in the commission were reshuffled the
primary concern around here was that "we now lose our contacts". This
is wrong, a disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU
proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these
conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science
policy and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited
and then turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to
do with the science presented. There is also the notion that within the
commission climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons
not known to many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do
not have the right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute
to such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of
the commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a
full-grown Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Instituci
Original Filename: 1116017259.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Katarina Kivel <kivel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Stephen Schneider's request for review of Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH Robustness for Climatic Change
Date: Fri May 13 16:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Katerina,
I will be able to review this, despite just coming back from IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:04 12/05/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Attached is a letter from Steve Schneider requesting review of the above referenced
paper, which is also sent as an attachment (ms and four figures).
Please acknowledge receipt and let us know if you need a hard copy.
Regards,
Katarina
Katarina Kivel
Assistant Editor, CLIMATIC CHANGE
Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94xxx xxxx xxxx
TEL xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX xxx xxxx xxxx
EMAIL kivel@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: 1116363805.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: URGENT : IMPRINT en RTN ?]
Date: Tue May 17 17:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Eystein
We have now heard from Hans Brelen that Millennium will definitely be funded . This means
that the very worst case scenario has been realised - because it means that the EU are not
likely to call for any palaeoclimate in the next funding round.
I have to say that though there is normally an unfortunate element of randomness in the
refereeing of EU proposals , that to a large extent is unfortunate but inevitable, I
believe strongly that the system has let us down very badly in this case. It is clear that
we, the IMPRINT community were misled ; first by Ib Troen's direction (given publicly in
Utrecht) that we should produce a proposal which was of the scale to unify the whole
Palaeoclimate community , with a specific role to bring data and modelling foci to bear on
the issue of climate predictability; that we should be careful to not to over-emphasise the
collection of new data but rather work mostly to consolidate and jointly interpret existing
data , and that we should formulate a scheme were these fed directly into a hierarchy of
modelling that would address model viability and issues of probability of future climate
and its causes.
Secondly, We were misled by the accepting , on the basis of the published call, that the EU
required IP proposals of ambitious scope , large enough to move the science of European
palaeoclimate forward as a whole and with relevance to globally important issues, with
aims clearly beyond the scope of "slightly bigger STREPS" . On reading the cursory
referees' responses to our proposal , I am also moved to express my own opinion that they
are an insult to the community of researchers that constitute IMPRINT , and an indictment
of the failure of the referees to address their assessment to the generally publicized aims
of the IP concept. To describe the whole proposal as "too complicated", and to state that
there is " no value" in the first four workpackages , and most of all to rate the quality
of the consortium as 4 out of 5 , all require explicit justification well beyond the few
lines with which we are presented.
While I have no ill will at all regarding the competing proposal Millennium , I feel that
the extended IMPRINT community can justifiably ask very serious questions regarding the
apparent lack of equitable assessment of the two proposals in the light of the published
call requirements - the efforts of the IMPRINT consortium over recent months at least
deserve answers as to how , for the sake of 0.5 of a mark , that proposal will be funded
when it clearly did not address the scope of the original call - in terms of community
integration, emphasis on wider data consolidation, scope of model hierarchy, and specific
addressing of the data/model integration towards the issue of climate
sensitivity/predictability.
Expressing these concerns should not be considered "sour grapes " . They are not and I
congratulate the MILLENNIUM team on having succeeded . Rather these comments are justified
because the review process has not taken account of the scope of the IP concept, and the
need to invoke a research plan with the necessary breadth and expertise (and proven
managerial ability - as can be gauged by the assessment of the CARBO OCEAN coordination
plan) , and because the success of the much more limited MILLENNIUM project has already
been cited by European officials as justification for the lack of any need to fund
palaeoclimate research in the next call - effectively cutting off the wider paleoclimate
community from EU research support for the next few years.
I believe we are justified in questioning the operation of the IP concept , beyond the EU
administration, which has , in my opinion has done a serious dis-service to our community
and palaeoclimate in general.
At 08:26 16/05/2005, Val
Original Filename: 1116365074.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IMPRINT
Date: Tue May 17 17:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ib Troen
Eystein
We have now heard that Millennium will definitely be funded . This means that the very
worst case scenario has been realised - because it means that the EU are not likely to call
for any palaeoclimate in the next funding round.
I have to say that, though there is normally an element of randomness in the refereeing of
EU proposals , that to a large extent is unfortunate but inevitable, I believe strongly
that the system has let us down very badly in this case.
It is clear that we, the IMPRINT community were misled ; first by Ib Troen's direction
(given publicly in Utrecht) that we should produce a proposal which was of the scale to
unify the whole Palaeoclimate community , with a specific role to bring data and modelling
foci to bear on the issue of climate predictability; that we should be careful to not to
over-emphasise the collection of new data but rather work mostly to consolidate and jointly
interpret existing data , and that we should formulate a scheme where these are fed
directly into a hierarchy of modelling experiments that would address causes of climate
change, model viability and issues of probability of future climate and its causes.
Secondly, We were misled by the accepting , on the basis of the published call, that the EU
required IP proposals of ambitious scope , large enough to move the science of European
palaeoclimate forward as a whole and with relevance to globally important issues, with
aims clearly beyond the scope of "slightly bigger STREPS" . On reading the cursory
referees' responses to our proposal , I am also moved to express my own opinion that they
are an insult to the community of researchers that constitute IMPRINT , and an indictment
of the failure of the referees to address their assessment to the generally publicised aims
of the IP concept.
To describe the whole proposal as "too complicated", and to state that there is " no value"
in the first four workpackages , and most of all , to rate the quality of the consortium as
4 out of 5 , all require explicit justification well beyond the few lines with which we
are presented.
While I have no ill will at all regarding the competing proposal Millennium , I feel that
the extended IMPRINT community can justifiably ask very serious questions regarding the
apparent lack of equitable assessment of the two proposals in the light of the published
call requirements - the efforts of the IMPRINT consortium over recent months at least
deserve answers as to how , for the sake of 0.5 of a mark , that proposal will be funded
when it clearly did not address the scope of the original call - in terms of community
integration, emphasis on wider data consolidation, scope of model hierarchy, and specific
addressing of the data/model integration towards the issue of climate
sensitivity/predictability.
Expressing these concerns should not be considered "sour grapes " . They are not and I
congratulate the MILLENNIUM team on having succeeded . They will do valuable research.
Rather these comments are justified because the review process has not taken account of the
scope of the IP concept, and the need to invoke a research plan with the necessary breadth
and expertise (and proven managerial ability - as can be gauged by the assessment of the
CARBO OCEAN coordination plan) , and because the success of the much more limited
MILLENNIUM project has already been cited by European officials as justification for the
lack of any need to fund palaeoclimate research in the next call - effectively cutting off
the wider palaeoclimate community from EU research support for the next few years.
I believe we are justified in questioning the operation of the IP concept , and questioning
it in fora beyond the circle of EU administration, which has , in my opinion has done a
serious dis-service to our community and palaeoclimate in general. At the very least , the
"goalposts" regarding IP proposals seem to have been moved and the time of many researchers
has been wasted.
Please feel free to forward this message to the rest of our group .
At 08:26 16/05/2005, Val
Original Filename: 1116426671.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: wishing to talk
Date: Wed May 18 10:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
so can you give me a number where I can reach you - after your meeting . I am in and out
trying to do various things , but wish to discuss "next steps" . Did you get my email last
evening?
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: 1116440198.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>
Subject: Fwd: imprint
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:16:38 +0200
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
for your information, I have enclosed the letter
received on the outcome of phase 1, and the
guidance for Stage 2. We will dig up more.
I also talked with Christoph Heinze who said this
definately has the flair of someone in the
review panel having an agenda of revenge, and
that this could be an element of a formal
complaint.
More later,
Eystein
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All