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: 1116611126.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>
Subject: Empire Strikes Back - return of proper science !
Date: Fri May 20 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Just reviewed Caspar's paper with Wahl for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good.
Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM have gone wrong. Should keep
them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume
you know all about this. Should make Keith's life in Ch 6 easy !
Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer have admitted
at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong !! They used the wrong
sign for the diurnal correction ! Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface
but within error bands. Between you and me, we'll be going with RSS in Ch 3
and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models. Should make Ch 3
a doddle now ! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then.
RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake !
The skeptic pillars are tumbling !
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: 1116646247.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Urgent-next step
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 23:30:47 +0200
Cc: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Andr
Original Filename: 1116902771.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: IPCC - your section
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith - thanks again for the help in Beijing. We hope you found a
fabulous clay pot or at least some good views of China.
We know it's going to be extra hard on you to get everything done on
time, but we're hoping you can more-or-less stick to the schedule we
just sent around. Your section is going to be the big one, and we
need to make sure we have as much review and polishing as possible.
If we don't we (especially you) will pay heavily at FOD review time.
Lots of work now saves even more work later. Or so the real veterans
tell us.
Lastly, we wanted you to know that we can probably win another page
or two (total, including figs and refs) if you end up needing it.
Susan didn't promise this, but she gave us the feeling that we could
get it if we ask - but probably only for your section, and maybe an
extra page for general refs (although we're not going to mention this
to the others, since we're not sure we can get it). Note that some of
the methodological parts of your sections should go into supplemental
material - this has to be written just as carefully, but it gives you
another space buffer. All this means you can do a good job on
figures, rather than the bare minimum. We're hoping you guys can
generate something compelling enough for the TS and SPM - something
that will replace the hockey-stick with something even more
compelling.
Anyhow, thanks in advance for what is most likely not going to be
your number 1 summer to remember. That said, what we produce should
provide real satisfaction.
Best, Peck and Eystein
--
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: 1117120511.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: Ch 3
Date: Thu May 26 11:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin,
I'll broach it with the UK people. Need to consider timing in November, once we
get the comments or maybe after the ChCh meeting. Been to Boulder in Jan and Feb
before so know what to expect ! Early Feb would seem best. Not thought about
going to the AMS so won't.
A few problems with Figures today. Hopefully they will get resolved in the not too
distant future. Dave E has at least sent one email.
Seeing our granddaughter on Saturday, but should have some good time for
the Chapter on Sunday and Monday (at home).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:11 25/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I am attaching the updated Fig 3.4.? I have also in .ps that can be converted if need
be.
Dennis has also plotted the Fu data and I'll send a version a bit later. But need to
have consistent colors.
I am encouraged that the text is getting a lot better. The FOD is approaching close to
what will be final, we should find. After that point the figs should only be updates
and minor changes, and the text is modified to respond to comments, that we will have to
address more systematically next time. The SOD does become close to final: still
subject to all the reviews and late breaking material.
Key thing is for you and me to make sure we converge, and don't do a wholesale
replacement of a section without careful checking.
I have decided not to attend AMS AGM next year in January so that I can work on the
SOD. I would be glad to invite you to come for a visit for a week and I suspect we can
also come up with some funds to help: at the price of a seminar. e.g. we could split it
by you doing airfare and we do local accommodation or vice versa? This summer Tom
Stocker is here and working with Jerry on chap 10. I think it could be worthwhile, main
question is best timing. Perhaps late Jan or early Feb? That time of year can be cold
here: usually not that much snow or if it does snow it does not last long in Boulder:
great skiing nearby if you are interested in that. Mean T in Jan is about 0C but highs
not uncommon about 10C, and have been over 20C with chinook. Cold at night. So good
idea.
Cheers
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
Things seem to be coming in. Will work on 3.5-3.7 tomorrow. 3.2 and the Appendices
now back with David. The Appendices read pretty good - lots of useful background
material. It will be shame to lose it to a web site. Once David gets these back these
should be almost good enough to go out to all on July 15 (or whenever we said).
A thought kept recurring - there must be a better way to do this ! Although the FOD
reviews will be different from the ZOD (and many more), I'm prepared to come to Boulder
for a week
in early 2006 if needed. I think I can get the money from the UK to do this. Question
is
will be it be worthwhile. Better if we were both locked away somewhere other than one
of our institutions, but then we wouldn't have the infrastructure, support (email,
printers
etc).
Anyway, give it some thought. You'll know more than I do about some much the FOD
and SOD change. Q is whether a week or a fortnight is sufficient. If we knew that a
few of the
key people in the chapter were at their desks, the text should show a marked
improvement.
Assuming here the majority of the Figures set by then - just a few need updating.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:03 24/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
Thanks for update: monday is a holiday here: Memorial Day, seems weird that Brian is
working?
My approach to the revisions at this stage is not to take the material sent and
wholesale replace it, but cautiously compare and insert if it makes sense. i.e. you and
I need to act as editors with a fairly strong hand. I suspect 3.7 may have some useful
material but it could degrade the section by further adding material that is not
especially relevant. I'll bet it does not shorten it, which is desired still.
I am clearly not on same page as Brian wrt clouds and radiation, and I am interested in
his take on it all, given the new material and changes. I am not a fan of Norris'
stuff. We have updated Fig 3.4.1 on water vapor thru 2004: the ocean trend drops to
1.2%/decade. So you can help a lot by putting your take on the 3.4 stuff: it may also
require some careful wording to accommodate different views if we can't see eye to eye.
For instance, on the dimming, the recent Pinker paper uses ISCCP and I simply don't
believe the trends from ISCCP at all. Saying Wielicki and ISCCP agree actually damns
them both. Or similarly saying Norris and ISCCP agree causes problems (this relates to
upper cloud, which Norris gets from total minus lower, but those two sets of data are
not homogeneous: there is not a lower cloud ob for every total; using means, esp zonal
means without differencing each ob potentially causes major problems).
Dennis is starting on the 3.6 figs today plus the Sahel one.
Cheers
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 [1]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [3]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. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1117134760.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "David Easterling" <David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fig. 3.7.1
Date: Thu May 26 15:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmzhai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dave,
Thanks for the update on the maps. Can you calculate a CRU time series from
what you have? Exactly which dataset do you have? Is it CRU TS 2.0? If this is it
then OK. This is the infilled one, so variance may be a little low in early years.
Hopefully your calculations will agree with Aiguo. I don't have anyone here to do this
at the moment. There seem a lot of deadlines at the moment here, which is making
it hard for me to find quality time for Ch3. Luckily there is a holiday weekend coming
up and I hope to use that to get 3.5-3.7 looked over. 3.2 is now done and agreed
with David. I'll tweak anything when I get your spatial maps. I came in with good
intentions today, but have been answering emails and seeing students.
As for smoothing, we didn't agree. For temperature we are going with the HC
'approximate' 20-year binomial. I'll attach a figure David's produced to let you see that.
I reckon if you did a 13-year binomial you'll get something like it. Remember to send
David all the series for trend estimation when you have them.
I am assuming Bin Wang did 3.7.1. Can you clarify with Dave exactly what 3.7.1
is? Give him the method to calculate it. Also clarify the two Chen's.
I see that David has emailed his reading of the
English. I was about to wright something like this. It is definitely the difference
between
two period averages and not extremes years in the periods. The caption obviously needs
a lot of work - I'll have a go at that when I get to it.
If the 3 of us are having difficulties, what hope have we for the readers. If you can't
get
anything remotely like it I would suggest we drop it - but try David's English translation
first !
Cheers
Phil
At 14:11 26/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
We will have the maps redone next week and I have started reworking the text for 3.3
Do you have a CRU global pcp time series for 1xxx xxxx xxxxyou can send or should
we calculate? I have the numbers for the figure Aiguo Dai sent.
Also, we never decided on a standard smoothing routine. My preference is for
a 13 or 9 point binomial with reflected ends, but we need to decide.
Last, it is still not clear who did figure 3.7.1, was it Bin Wang? The two Chen
papers are by different authors, the 2004 EA monsoon paper is by T-C Chen of
Iowa State U., and the 2002 paper and data set creator is Ming Chen at NOAA/CPC.
I have requested the PREC/L data set from CPC. But I am not even sure exactly what
3.7.1 is, the title says change in mean annual range between the two periods, which I
interpret to mean the difference between the highest and lowest years for the post 1976
period
minus the difference between the highest and lowest from the pre-1976 period giving a
measure
of change in year to year consistency of monsoons. Also, there is a reference in the
text that
Chen et al. (2004) compiled PREC/L, but that is not the case, it should be Chen et al.
(2002)
as creator, but with an update to 2003.
Dave
Phil Jones wrote:
Dave,
I still don't understand why Bin Wang is involved in this ! Have you contacted
Chen? Maybe it was Bin Wang. Have you looked into trying to reproduce it?
Panmao has sent me a revised 3.7.3 using HadSLP2. I'm going to contact
Rob Allan about this one as he's been involved in developing HadSLP2.
Will you be in a position to send revised Figures soon? Any date also
when you'll be working on the text of 3.3?
Cheers
Phil
At 19:44 25/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
I am trying to track down the source of Fig. 3.7.1 the epoch difference in
monsoon rainfall map. It has a reference of Chen et al. 2004, which is
the J. Climate paper on the east Asian monsoon, but this figure is not in the paper.
Someone must
of plotted it using their data, but not sure who. Do you know?
Dave
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28xxx xxxx xxxxUSA
V: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
David.Easterling@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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28xxx xxxx xxxxUSA
V: xxx xxxx xxxx
F: xxx xxxx xxxx
David.Easterling@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: 1117757977.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Georg Kaser <Georg.Kaser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Olga Solomina <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: glacier bullet, glossary, structure
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:19:37 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Val?rie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Oyvind.Paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Olga,
I deeple apologize for haveing not read your e-mail earlier. I was so
overburden with other obligations when coming back from Beijing
that I gave myself the deadline of June 1 to start with IPCC work. As
usual, circumstances have forced me to postpone this "dedaline" to next
Monday. For this, I had not realised that Chapter 6 has its first deadline
tomorrow. I have now gone through the "Glaiers during the LIA" and
"Glaciers during the MWP" paragraphs as well as through the "glacier
bullet" you send today.
I think the LIA paragraph fits well into the Chapter 4 as a supplement to
the "Observations" we concentrate on. The MWP is a bit out of focus
(Observations!). As I mentioned earlier, I would be glad if chapter 6
could give glaciers approprate space as being the only climate proxies
which are exclus
Original Filename: 1118866416.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: updated MWP figure
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Eystein
tried phoning on your mobile - no luck - Don't like this Figure , but still having trouble
working on ours. Have cut large bits out of my text and suggestions for cutting other bits
, but will be a little late sending these bits. Can you ring to discuss (and IMPRINT)
tomorrow ?
Keith
At 06:28 15/06/2005, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
enclosed for your consideration.
Eystein
Envelope-to: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: J Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
"Jansen, Eystein " <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: updated MWP figure
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: 0 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
Hello,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from xxx xxxx xxxxin decadal std.
dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four are from
the w. hemisphere, four from the east. I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites
and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and also
why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
clustering of the individual sites.
use or lose as you wish, tom
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All
Original Filename: 1118949061.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>
Subject: An idea
Date: Thu Jun 16 15:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
I will reply to Yasmine and say no tomorrow. Don't want to do it too soon.
Keith and I and Tim have been having loads of discussions about Ch 6 for IPCC.
Keith has to submit his latest draft tomorrow for better for worse.
What I'm thinking is that sometime when the three of us here have some spare time
- which may be some ways off, we'd like to do some experiments with different
proxy combinations. Would you be happy sending us all the proxies you have
(or Scott - the rookie) is putting together? If so can you arrange it. There is no
rush. We won't pass any on or put on web sites etc.
If we ever did get some time then we could do something - it will be slowly, not for
this IPCC and unlikely to get written up or started until well into 2006.
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: 1119534778.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Anders Moberg <anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Reminder
Date: Thu Jun 23 09:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Isabelle Gouirand <isabelle.gouirand@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Anders,
Sending again. Your server rejected this because of the extensions
so changed them. Hoep you get them.
Phil
Anders,
Thanks for the files. I was aware that the EGU was starting a new paleo journal.
I don't think there have been any issues yet.
I thought Keith had put those two series on our web site, but I can't find them
either. However, I found them ages and put them with some of the other long
tree-ring series. So here they are with others.
The ones you want should be in columns 1 and 2. The file starts in 1628BC, so
it takes a while to get to them. They start in AD 500. I vaguely recall chopping off the
xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxxyears because of sample size. Keith has more trw series now,
so they could be improved. Keith should have a reconstruction from the Grudd et al. (2002)
paper in The Holocene, but they must be on his machine.
I hope the papers for the two Fennoscandian series tell you what the base period
is. Given the publication dates I would suspect it is 1951-80.
There are newer series for Jasper and Tasmania and I wouldn't bother doing anything
with the two South American series.
Have a good summer break. Ruth and I have sat out every night this week so far.
We watched birds the last two days denuding the cherry tree of cherries.
Cheers
Phil
At 07:52 23/06/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Here are the data we used in our Nature paper, minus Indigirka and Lauritzen. All series
are interpolated to annual resolution. Brief info in file headers. The details are found
in the online supplementary info on nature.com
Lauritzen's email:
"S. E. Lauritzen" <stein.lauritzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
The Finnish diatom series and all eastern tree ring series have been sent through
personal contacts. The rest comes from the web, apart from GRIP which comes from you.
Could you, in return, send me the data file for the Fennoscandian summer temperature
reconstruction from either Briffa et al (Nature 1990) or Briffa et al (Clim Dyn 1992) -
or both? I could not find any of these series on the CRU website.
I realize that Isabelle Gouirand will have to discuss these two papers. Starting from
there and try to point out something new as regards the work done by Isabelle. By the
way, do you know anything about this journal:
[1]http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cp.html ? I did not know it existed, before I was
told about it yesterday.
Tomorrow starts my summer holidays, which last over the coming four weeks
Cheers,
Anders
At 10:xxx xxxx xxxx+0100, you wrote:
Anders,
When I got back the bus was still here and the driver had disappeared.
Hope the train came and you got to Stansted OK.
No rush for the paleo data - just when you have a few minutes.
Hopefully these colour plots are OK. I think I was going to pay something
so forward any bills or tell Michelle to send to me.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:29 16/06/2005, you wrote:
Dear Michelle,
Thanks for your message. I expect your letter to arrive early next week, and I should be
able to answer quickly.
Best regards,
Anders
MTheakst@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Dear Anders
We have just posted you colour proofs of your paper - when you receive
these, please contact me to confirm whether we can proceed to publication.
We will be publishing your paper as part of Volume 25, Issue 9.
Best Wishes
Michelle
######################################################################
The information contained in this e-mail and any subsequent correspondence is private
and confidential and intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named
recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any
attachment, or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received the e-mail in
error, please notify the sender and delete
the e-mail.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender,
unless otherwise stated. Although this e-mail has been scanned for viruses you should
rely on your own virus check, as the sender accepts no liability for any damage arising
out of any bug or virus infection.
######################################################################
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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cp.html
Original Filename: 1119628345.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: First draft of FOD
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi gang - I still have to weigh in on the great
figs/text that Keith and Tim have created, but
here's some feedback in the meantime.
I agree that a mean recon isn't the thing to do.
Let me think more before I weigh in more on the
fig. Working to get other LAs to get their stuff
in.
As for the Southern Hem temperature change fig
(and caption and a little text), I agree that you
(Ricardo in the lead) should do it as you've
proposed. We need a clear S. Hem statement, and
although it should stress that the data are too
few to create a reliable S Hem recon, we should
show the data that are available. Thus, PLEASE
proceed Ricardo on this tack. Also, can we
include the borehole recon series from S. Africa
and Australia (e.g., Pollack and Huang, 98)? I'm
sure Henry Pollack would provide fast - cc Huang
too, since he might be even faster. Keith and
Tim, does that make sense?
Please note that I think we can find room for the
above, regardless, if it is compelling enough.
As for ENSO, we will need to address for sure -
based mainly on the more direct coral data rather
than teleconnected (e.g., tree-ring)
relationships. The latter don't seem to be
definitive enough at this time - as I think we
discussed in China. The same holds true for
NAO/AO/PDO etc., and I think that we (Keith and
Tim) will need to have this in their section - in
a appropriately short manner. I'll provide more
feedback on this soon, so don't sweat it for now.
Main thing is to go ahead on the S Hem temp
fig/caption/short text., independent of ENSO etc
discussions.
Thanks, Peck
>Eystein and Peck
>very quick initial response - as have not seen
>Tim today. The Figure legends with very detailed
>explanations is at the end of the text I sent
>you already. The forcings ARE the ones that went
>into the models , appropriately colour coded for
>direct comparison - it was partly the difficulty
>of getting all of these prescribed or diagnosed
>forcings sorted out for each model that took Tim
>so long.The uncertainty levels are a compromise
>that chose came up with - see description in
>caption , but we are considering other things .
>Will get back to re the colours. Producing a
>mean reconstruction is not in my opinion a
>sensible thing to do so we will have to talk
>about this. The question of space is crucial
>regarding the Figure and reworking needed on
>Regional stuff Ricardo and I need to know how
>the space is panning out , and you opinions on
>the reative importance of a SH regional Figure
>versus an ENSO Figure.- and what about Monsoon
>Peck? By the way, please clarify the space re
>the Medieval Warm Period Box. Does this have to
>come down , thought it was short enough?
>Keith
>
> At 09:03 24/06/2005, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>>Hi Keith and Tim,
>>Lots of thanks for your hard work.
>>I have gone through the FOD draft and the
>>figures. Will send comments on text later today.
>>Here some comments on the figures.
>>I did not see the figure captions so it is not
>>entirely transparent to me what went into the
>>figures, hopefully all is material that is or
>>will be published before the end of 2005. But
>>anyhow, I think these figures are very good and
>>in my view give the different reconstructions,
>>the combined uncertainty as well as
>>reconstructions and simulations brought
>>together. I assume you have the Moberg et al
>>reconstruction included, but not the Oerlemans,
>>which will be treated in Ch. 4 (needs a x-ref).
>>Concerning the way of displaying the
>>uncertainties, it is not transparent to me how
>>the white and grey areas are produced. Would it
>>be viable to make a single curve of the mean of
>>the reconstructions to accompany the
>>simulations? The white area underlying the
>>simulations seem a bit weak, in the sence that
>>a superficial reader might wonder if it
>>displays something without content, perhaps a
>>different shade or colour would be better.
>>Conserning the simulations, it needs to be
>>clarified that the simulations did not
>>necessarily use the forcings displayed above,
>>hence it may be misleading to place the
>>forcings and simulations into the same figure.
>>Concerning the forcings, I am a bit surprised
>>that the amplitude of these are so close to
>>each other. Although I haven
Original Filename: 1119901360.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: First draft of FOD - figures
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein is going to chat with you tomorrow, and my
goal is to get as much as I can to you guys today and tomorrow.
First, off the figures are great (!) - that was tough job, and I'm
very impressed. Of course, I can already start to sense what the
debates will be, but we can address that in the text. Here are some
comments with respect to the figures - some are relevant to the
text...
1) they really are great
2) is the instrumental series on the first fig (top and bottom) the
same as featured in chapter 3? Need to say that.
3) rather than clogging up the caption with all the notes on each
curve, how about a table for each of the two figures. Then you can
include some more info on each recon - e.g., number of sites, types
of proxies??) I'm thinking mainly that the captions are not pretty,
but you may be able to include more summary info on each curve also
4) should we make all the series in their original and modified for
the figure form available on a www site so that reviewers can play
with the data and make sure they get their two cents in before this
thing is all said and published? The WDC-A is ready to help w/
posting of data and figs (see below).
5) I like the expanding time axis, but I'd be prepared to have a
second one with a linear axis. In fact, I'd put it up on the www page
at the same time with the data. The more we do to help others
understand, the better?
6) Also, it would be good to see both the data and the figure w/o the
Gaussian-weighted filtering. What do doe these look like, can we make
them available as suggested above. At the least, I'd like to see the
fig w/o the filtering, even though I know it will be a mess. How
about a series of time series plots (same x and y axes as the big fig
1) - in each you show both the filtered and unfiltered series. I know
this is a pain for Tim, but we really have to make sure we're not
missing anything in the data. And also - that we anticipate what
others will do, ask us to do, or squawk about.
7) On the forcing fig (fig 2) - why don't we see all the different
experiment curves (e.g., dotted red) in the forcing plots a, b and c?
Need to say why in the caption - and if they have the same forcing,
so you can't see it on the plot, need to say it. This could be much
easier in a table that indicates "same as X").
8) On fig 2 - does the recalulated envelop of reconstructed temps
also include instrumental temps? Think so, but you should say it in
the caption. Why doesn't the envelop go up to present? Can it? Might
look better, and be more consistent w/ fig 1. If the envelop can't go
to present, then maybe include the instrumental curve as in Fig 1.
9) reminders for the text (I'll think about these as I read a second
time for editing) -
9a) need to explain why the recons don't continue going up w/
instrumental data at the end (post 1990?) - might what to mention
something in caption, if you can shift all the other stuff to a table.
9b) there will be lots of discussion (during and post AR4 drafting)
about what recon series (Fig 1) should or should not be believed.
Thus, I think it is critical for us to same more about each recon -
that is to INCLUDE what you wrote in blue, and perhaps to enhance.
Need to really convince the reader that while not one recon is alone
the truth (and hence Fig 1), they all have important strengths and
weaknesses. But, the former outweigh the latter, so we've included
them.
9c) I'm sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal
editorial - they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve - with the
good old MWP and LIA etc (Lamb view? - I don't have the FAR w/ me).
The way to handle the hocky stick might best be to put it in an
historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show
your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then -
after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our
understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of
the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR) to the current view, and while
doing so, play down the controversy (s) - especially the hockey
stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news
is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will
hopefully get the point that it doesn't matter...
10) lastly (almost), I'm sorry to ask again, but I still want to know
what is wrong with Tom Crowley's latest plot with all the recons
shown together back through the Med W Period? I need to send you my
edits on the MWP box, but it seem to me that Tom's fig could go in
that box - to help make the point that - sorry, guys - the MWP wasn't
much compared to the recent GLOBAL warming...
11) lastly (promise) - don't foget that Eystein and I think we can
get a page or two extra for your section in the end. This means you
can do all the above, and I can help (next) with the modes and
extremes sections, and we can get it all in.
Great job!
Thanks, Peck
--
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: 1119924849.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, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: the Med Warm Period Box - Peck comments/edits
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Gentlemen - attached is the ZOD Med Warm Period Box with my
edits/comments. I don't see anything sent since then, so hope I'm not
editing the wrong thing. In any case, the Box was pretty nice as is,
so I only made a few changes. Obviously, some updating w/ new studies
is needed. The big issues are two:
1) the recent Wall Street Journal editiorial that is creating all the
crap in the US actually showed a time series from the IPCC FAR - if
you don't have it, or Eystein can't send, I can scan it in (my
Republican Dad sends me these things, although he's an increasingly
rare breed of moderate Republican). My thought is that it might we
worth adding a couple lines documenting how the view of the MWP
changed with each assessment and new knowledge. In doing so, it could
be made very clear that there is a reason that scientists don't show
those old plots anymore. We need to move the debate beyond the FAR,
SAR and TAR on this issue!
2) it would be cool to have another figure that made the point about
no single synchronous period warmer than late 20th century. This is
where I get soft with respect to Tom's plot. If it is published to
the extent we need it, and if the composite or large-area average
recon is the same as you are showing in your great new Fig 1, then it
seems that it would be reasonable to show Tom's fig as part of the
Box - just to show the same thing in a different way, and to hammer
in one more nail. That said, I'm not sure if my two conditions above
are met (I emailed Tom, no response yet - you might have insight),
and I believe you just don't like Tom's fig for some - probably good
- reason. But, I wanted us to think extra hard about whether there is
SOME fig that might work?
That's it for tonight. Will finish editing your main text next work
session tomorrow I hope.
Best, Peck
--
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>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMWP_box_textjto.doc"
Original Filename: 1119957715.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Keith,
Thanks--yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario,
this backfires on these thugs...
The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/ lawyers,
etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful...
thanks for both your help and your support,
mike
At 05:48 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
Mike
just in and seeing this for time - will digest - but do not like look or implications of
this at all
Keith
At 17:00 25/06/2005, you wrote:
Tim/Keith/Phil,
Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below,
it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a
formal response.
Thanks in advance for any help,
mike
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Organization: NCAR/CGD
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: NEED HELP!
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. It is
a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already,
but you have many supporters.
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just another
set of referees' comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. On the science
side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded.
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you
personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming
science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives.
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there
has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level.
The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse
view. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been
reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case,
but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these
papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and
request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly
defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing
in the literature be investigated.
The lever here is that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce is suggesting that your papers are
bad science and asking (their point 8e) for the identity of people who reviewed
your work. In response, it is completely fair and justifiable to point out that it
is the papers that criticize your and related work that are bad science, and that,
through the Subcommittee you can request the identities of the reviewers of all
of these critical papers -- starting with M&M.
When you respond, there are a number of items that require a direct response
from you alone. There are also a number of scientific points where you could
give a multi-authored response. There are many people who have expertise in
this area and familiarity with the scientific issues who I am sure would be willing
to join you (I would be happy to do so).
At this stage, however, I would keep the group small. A few others could be added
to the original email list nevertheless. I took the liberty of copying your plea and
the Subcommittee's letter to Caspar Ammann, primarily because I think he can
help with the scientific aspects better than most people. After all, he has been
able to follow your method and reproduce your results, he has shown the flaws
in M&M's work, he has investigated the bristlecone pine issue, and he has made
all his software available on the web.
The others who could be added at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm
Hughes, your 'co-conspirators' -- and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim
Osborn. I do not know how 'powerful' these alien opinions may be in the present
parochial context, but I note that the instigators of all this are Canadians and that
the science has no national boundaries. Phil, Keith and Tim are useful because they
have demonstrated the flaws in the von Storch work -- which is, I assume, the
Science paper that the Subcommittee's letter referes to.
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo
reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my
version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although
these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to
1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.
I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate model parameters
(DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc. -- see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the
runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC
with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally
generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick
is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the
best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey
stick shape. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and
critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models
get the same result.
Of course, von Storch's model results do not show such good century timescale
agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for
the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject
of Tim Osborn et al.'s submitted paper).
This is a pain in the but, but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun
--
sorry). Good science will prevail.
Best wishes,
Tom.
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
Michael:
This is outrageous. I'll contact some people who may be able to help right away.
----------
From: Michael E. Mann [<[1]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>[2]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27 PM
To: <[3]mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[4]mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[5]mailto:dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[6]mailto:jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[7]mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[8]mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; <[9]mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: NEED HELP!
Importance: High
dear all,
this was predicted--they're of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need
immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: <[10]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX:
(4xxx xxxx xxxx
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[13]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[14]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Eomichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Ejhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Esanter1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
13. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
14. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1119967865.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: updated MWP figure
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith - might be worth talking on the phone - you, me and Eystein
- after you get back. You could be right, but it is a powerful way to
look at the issue. The question is whether the normalization could be
preventing a warmer than late-20th century signal from appearing?
Should we instead update the Bradley Science graphic? That's not as
effective in my opinion.
So, let's talk next week?
Going to a tree day meeting or a three day meeting - it has to be
tough looking at tree data all day.
have fun, thx, peck
>Jonathan and Eystein
>I am leaving very early for a tree day meeting in Swansea , and will
>be away til Monday. Presently buried in EC Reporting and other stuff
>- but the reason I dislike the MWP Figure is that the simple
>normalization of series as done , (regardless of regional selection
>of specific proxies) gives a largely random amplitude to the various
>records , depending on their spectral character, and of course,
>equal weight to all regardless of the strength of their link with
>local or NH temperatures). I will think about this - you are the
>ultimate arbiter anyway .
>sorry to be so abruptly communicative
>Keith
>
>At 16:10 28/06/2005, you wrote:
>>Hi Tom -- thanks for the extra effort. I'm pushing others on the
>>author team to think hard about such a figure (space may end up
>>being the hardest part), and I should have something to discuss w/
>>you soon. Thanks for being willing to shift priorities if needed.
>>
>>FYI - I just got reviews back from an EOS piece that took over a
>>1.5 months to get. And of course, they want some edits. Not the
>>speedy venue we once knew a loved, although I bet if you really
>>keep it short and sweet it might go faster.
>>
>>Best, more soon, peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>>>Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>Subject: Re: updated MWP figure
>>>
>>>Hi Jonathan,
>>>
>>>let me answer the last question first - there are actually not
>>>many records that go back that far and I have used, I think, every
>>>one except Quelcaya, which being from the southern tropics makes
>>>for a lonely but potential future inclusion (which makes no
>>>difference on the conclusion).
>>>
>>>several of the sites include multiple time series - e.g., western
>>>U.S. time series, w. Siberia time series, e. Asia, and w.
>>>Greenland. I did not want to overweight any site though because
>>>of the need for a geographic balance -- note that there are four
>>>sites each in the w. hemisphere and e. hemisphere, and that the
>>>distribution of sites in each hemisphere represents a good scatter.
>>>
>>>for almost all of these sites the references are easily imaginable
>>>based on the location of the site, but they can be provided if you
>>>are interested in including the figure.
>>>
>>>can you think of any long sites I have not included? right now I
>>>cannot.....
>>>
>>>in the overlap interval of 1xxx xxxx xxxxour composite has highly
>>>significant correlations with the Mann, Jones, and Briffa
>>>reconstructions that contain much more data -- thereby suggesting
>>>that use of only long time series provides a "reasonable" estimate
>>>of the last 1100 years.
>>>
>>>I have not submitted this for publication but if you are
>>>interested in including this in ipcc I can knock off a tutorial
>>>note to eos on short notice.....
>>>
>>>I am attaching the figure in several different alternate formats -
>>>cannot easily do the two you suggest from my mac, but again I can
>>>get that done with more work if you are interested - let me know
>>>where to go next - note that I originally sent this along fyi,
>>>only to be used if you thought the figure was worthwhile -- if not
>>>I will just reorder the priority of writing it up as a note,
>>>tom
>>>
>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Tom - thanks for sending this plot. I'm a bit late in
>>>>responding since we were moving to (and still into) our
>>>>sabbatical digs in SW CO.
>>>>
>>>>Would you be willing to provide more on this plot in order for me
>>>>to understand it better? I personally like the plot quite a bit,
>>>>but between the space restrictions and other's assessment,
>>>>whether we use it or not will take some real thinking.
>>>>
>>>>For example, it would help to have
>>>>
>>>>1) a higher resolution version - eps or ai?
>>>>2) a caption or text that would spell out which records are
>>>>included, and their origins (references)
>>>>3) a bibliography for those refs.
>>>>4) perhaps, you have a paper with this included? If so, can you
>>>>send a prerprint?
>>>>5) some discussion of why you used the series (sites) you did,
>>>>and not others - more specifically, what's wrong with others?
>>>>
>>>>If you don't mind helping here, I'll promise to get it in the mix
>>>>for serious discussion. Of course, it's already in the mix since
>>>>Eystein forwarded to Keith, and you Tim, but I want to weigh in
>>>>as informed as possible. Trying to keep track of a lot, so your
>>>>help is much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks! Peck
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable
>>>>>nature of the medieval warm period - the attached plot has eight
>>>>>sites that go from xxx xxxx xxxxin decadal std. dev. units -
>>>>>although small in number there is a good geographic spread --
>>>>>four are from the w. hemisphere, four from the east. I also
>>>>>plot the raw composite of the eight sites and scale it to the
>>>>>30-90N decadal temp. record.
>>>>>
>>>>>this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to
>>>>>the composite and also why the composite has no dramatically
>>>>>warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm clustering of the
>>>>>individual sites.
>>>>>
>>>>>use or lose as you wish, tom
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>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: 1120014836.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] abrupt and Important thoughts on References
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:13:56 +0200
<x-flowed>
Hi all,
Two things:
1. Concerning the 1470k pacing of DO-events.
There are revisions underway in the
layer-counting of the Greenland Ice Cores. A
meeting in Copenhagen in August co-ordinated by
Sigfus Johnsen will discuss the issue at length,
but there may not be many papers out from the
meeting that are citeable for IPCC. There is
already the Shackleton paper which indicate that
Greenland Ice Cores in MIS3 have an age model
that are off by some millennia, and the
preliminary data on the new age models indicate
substantial revisions as far as I hear from talks
given at various meetings. My thinking is that
we neither can ignore the fact that current data
indicate a 1470 pacing for some time interval of
the ice cores if one apply the existing age
scales. I think it would be foolish not not refer
to it, I think the possibility that the system
has the ability to enter into specific cycles is
intriguing, and is a result that is well known
and IPCC should not pretend we haven
Original Filename: 1120017435.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Val
Original Filename: 1120236419.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: What's up with your paper with Eugene?
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Caspar and Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go
- if the paper is in press by the first week of August, we'll cite it
in the Chapter 6 of the FOD, but otherwise I guess it'll have to wait
- that's ok too.
But... keep us posted (and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck
>Hi Peck,
>
>you might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right
>now... Mike-Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from
>the House of Representatives...
>
>Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by two reviews
>of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting
>on the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for
>additional information over the course of the review so far, I hope
>no other one is required that delays the process. I cc Steve, he
>might give you the best perspective on the progress. Gene is going
>to be at NCAR in early July and we will finish with revisions ASAP.
>
>I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in Rome at a meeting on
>Sun-Climate links,
>Caspar
>
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>
>>Hi Caspar - we're working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you
>>could pls update us w/ the status of Wahl and Ammann? Most
>>important - will it be in press by the end of the month?
>>
>>Thanks! Peck
>
>
>--
>Caspar M. Ammann
>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>1850 Table Mesa Drive
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
--
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: 1120528403.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Gene - good to hear from you. What you list below seems like it
must be pretty good to me. Of course, we'd like to include all we can
in the FOD, hence the interest in knowing if it's in press or not
before the end of the month.
Just keep us updated, and if you feel comfortable sharing the ms.
that'd be great, but only if you feel ok about sharing it. The key
people are me, Eystein Jansen and Keith Briffa - we won't share it
with others.
Thanks for keeping us up to date. Best, peck
>Hello Jonathan:
>
>Thanks for this info. Could you clue me in--I had heard through the
>grapevine (ultimate source, Jerry Meehl) that the actual in-press
>deadline for IPCC citations in the AR would be Jan 1 of 2006. On
>the IPCC website I see mid-December for the Christchurch meeting.
>
>I assume this the same situation for Chapter 6, and thus the early
>August deadline is for the FOD. Is this getting it correct?
>
>Let me know if viewing the submitted text would be of use to you,
>and I'll ship at once.
>
>
>Hope you are well.
>
>Peace, Gene
>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
>Alfred University
>
>xxx xxxx xxxx
>1 Saxon Drive
>Alfred, NY 14802
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
>Sent: Fri 7/1/2005 2:46 PM
>To: Caspar Ammann
>Cc: Eystein Jansen; Stephen Schneider; Wahl, Eugene R; Keith Briffa
>Subject: Re: What's up with your paper with Eugene?
>
>
>
>Hi Caspar and Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go
>- if the paper is in press by the first week of August, we'll cite it
>in the Chapter 6 of the FOD, but otherwise I guess it'll have to wait
>- that's ok too.
>
>But... keep us posted (and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck
>
>>Hi Peck,
>>
>>you might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right
>>now... Mike-Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from
>>the House of Representatives...
>>
>>Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by two reviews
>>of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting
>>on the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for
>>additional information over the course of the review so far, I hope
>>no other one is required that delays the process. I cc Steve, he
>>might give you the best perspective on the progress. Gene is going
>>to be at NCAR in early July and we will finish with revisions ASAP.
>>
>>I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in Rome at a meeting on
>>Sun-Climate links,
>>Caspar
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Caspar - we're working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you
>>>could pls update us w/ the status of Wahl and Ammann? Most
>>>important - will it be in press by the end of the month?
>>>
>>>Thanks! Peck
>>
>>
>>--
>>Caspar M. Ammann
>>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>>Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>>1850 Table Mesa Drive
>>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>>email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>--
>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/
--
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: 1120593115.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Christy <john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
Also this load of rubbish !
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily
I don't live in Australia.
[1]http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-look-at-scs-msu-vn52.html
Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very na
Original Filename: 1120676865.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Neville Nicholls" <N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Neville,
Mike's response could do with a little work, but as you say he's got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I'll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:21 06/07/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I had seen the estimates of 0.12C for UAH 5.2, but wasnt sure if the version producing
these trends had all the months corrected, and that John was happy with the corrections
(I had heard that his initial estimate was that the change made a major difference to
the trends, but that later calulations didnt support this). I think I have a pretty good
idea now of the trends in the various data sets.
I have seen the Mears/Wentz paper, but will watch out for John's paper (I know I could
have asked John about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and
harrassed at the moment, and I didnt want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks for
passing this stuff on to me).
I thought Mike Mann's draft response was pretty good - I had expected something more
vigorous, but I think he has got the "tone" pretty right. Do you expect to get a call
from Congress?
Neville Nicholls
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
9th Floor, 700 Collins Street
Docklands,Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA 3001
Phone: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 7/6/2005 5:57 PM
To: Neville Nicholls
Subject: Fwd: Misc
Neville,
Here's an email from John, with the trend from his latest version
in. Also
has trends for RATPAC and HadAT2. If you can stress in your talks that it is
more likely the sondes are wrong - at least as a group. Some may be OK
individually. The tropical ones are the key, but it is these that least
is know
about except for a few regions. The sondes clearly show too much cooling in
the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must
also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
Happy for you to use the figure, if you don't pass on to anyone else.
Watch
out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.
Also, do point out that looking at surface trends from 1998 isn't very
clever.
Cheers
Phil
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
>From: John Christy <john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4)
>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Misc
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
> SpamAssassin (score=-5.8, required 5, BAYES_01 -5.40,
> RCVD_IN_ORBS 0.11, SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE -0.49,
> USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA 0.00)
>X-MailScanner-From: john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-Spam-Level: /
>X-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Hi Phil:
>
>I've been getting round-about versions of rumors concerning our newly
>adjusted version 5.2 LT dataset. I believe I had indicated earlier to you
>that the correction was within our published margin of error. In any case
>here are the numbers that describe various aspects of v5.2
>1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>Global Trend +0.115 UAH, +0.125 RATPAC and +0.137 HadAT (note, when
>subsampled for the same latitudes in which sonde observations are
>available, UAH and HadAT are almost exactly the same.)
>
>Update of site by site comparison of UAH LT 5.2 and SH radiosondes from
>Christy and Norris 2004:
>
>All 87 SH stations, no adjustments Raobs + 0.028 UAH +0.040
>74 best sites with adjustments Raobs +0.030 UAH +0.054
>
>These SH changes from the original publication were very minor because
>most stations were outside the tropics where the diurnal error had
>essentially no impact.
>
>A paper by Sherwood claims that Day minus Night is a legitimate way to go
>about looking at sonde problems. The real problem though is that Day
>minus Night is only an indicator of a sonde change, it does not determine
>the change itself. Most notorious is the Philipps Mark III to Vaisala
>RS-80 where the night warmed by about 0.3 C and the day by a little bit
>less, which means the Day minus Night reveals a negative shift when in
>fact both ob times have a significant positive shift (these sondes form a
>signifciant part of the LKS dataset). Similar results occur for US VIZ
>mini-art 2 to Micro-art software in 1990.
>
>I have many other sone comparisons, and all are more consistent with the
>UAH trends more than RSS and certainly VG. Indeed, I was curious to see
>that your name was on VG's latest paper. I wish I had time to fill you in
>on why the addition of the non-linear terms is a red herring (both UAH and
>RSS have performed the calculations with and without the non-linear terms
>with no impact on the trends) and why the latitudinal difference for
>calculating the coefficients leads one astray. I'm a little nervous now
>that you may have a "dog in this fight" as we say in Alabama while writing
>up the IPCC. I expect my sonde comparisons to be included in the IPCC and
>I will have further results demonstrating the problems with the Day minus
>Night technique within a few months.
>
>I've lots to do now. Thanks for listening.
>
>John C.
>
>--
>************************************************************
>John R. Christy
>Director, Earth System Science Center voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Alabama State Climatologist
>University of Alabama in Huntsville
>[2]http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
>
>Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville
>AL 35899
>Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
Original Filename: 1121103374.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: One small thing
Date: Mon Jul 11 13:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin,
In the caption to Fig 3.6.2, can you change 1xxx xxxx xxxxto 1xxx xxxx xxxxand
add a reference to Konnen (with umlaut over the o) et al. (1998). Reference
is in the list. Dennis must have picked up the MSLP file from our web site,
that has the early pre-1882 data in. These are fine as from 1869 they are Darwin,
with the few missing months (and 1866-68) infilled by regression with Jakarta.
This regression is very good (r>0.8). Much better than the infilling of Tahiti, which
is said in the text to be less reliable before 1935, which I agree with.
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: 1121294040.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Bette Otto-Bliesner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Senstivity, LGM and otherwise
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:34:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Gabi,
Here is the section from the FOD draft that includes the new PMIP-2
results. The radiative forcings have been modified based on new
calculations. Note the PMIP-2 LGM model results included in the FOD
do not include vegetation or atmospheric aerosol changes so for
these results the radiative forcing estimate is 5.7 +/- 1.3 W/m2.
Bette
______________________________________________
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
Climate Change Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
1850 Table Mesa Drive / P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, Colorado 80307
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
______________________________________________
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>
> Hi chapter 6,
>
> I am getting a bit nervous about the sensitivity stuff, since
> chapter 10 wants our version from us (blush nowhere near there)
> for their summary of all things sensitivity - so I am in the middle
> of the pipeline....
> ALl I'd need is the text from the ZOD, if you want to update anything
> or make me aware of refs, thats fine, but not as urgent.
> Did the ZOD have the ice age sensitivity?
>
> thank you and sorry...
>
> Gabi
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gabriele Hegerl
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment
> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
> phone xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.eos.duke.edu/Faculty/hegerl.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWhat do ice ages tell us_071105.doc"
Original Filename: 1121392136.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto@u.arizona.edu
Subject: IMPORTANT - The next steps for chapter 6 enroute to THE FOD
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:48:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Hi all - in the last few emails, we have suggested that you serve as
"head" lead authors for the various sections of our chapter. One main
purpose of this email is to make sure you are comfortable with the
responsibility and have time for it. The other main goal is to
explain what is expected of each of you.
First, here's a list of who's heading what sections. We picked you
guys since you have proven to be intellectual leaders on the team,
but also because you have track records of getting the job done on
time. The one person we worry about is Olga, since she is leaving
soon for the field, but nonetheless, we'd like all her input on Box
6.3 before she leaves. We will take over after then.
Exec Summary and Section 6.1 - PECK and EYSTEIN
Section 6.2 - DAVID
Section 6.3 - STEFAN
Section 6.4 - BETTE
Section 6.5 - KEITH
Section 6.6 - FORTUNAT
Box 6.1 - DAVID
Box 6.2 - FORTUNAT
Box 6.3 - OLGA
Box 6.4 - KEITH
Second, what is needed? Here is a list that has come to mind. We'd
like you all to comment on this list (use the email list used for
this email), so that we all agree about what we're doing in the next
couple weeks.
1) Your primary job is to make sure your section (text, tables, figs
and refs) is as perfect as possible. Each of us has to be careful
about how we schedule things so that we have the job DONE by July 24.
2) Each of you should solicit feedback and edits from the ENTIRE LA
team, plus relevant CAs. This is obviously to get the best ideas
possible, but also to ensure that all on the LA team have had input.
Please create a check list and make sure that you have some sort of
feedback (at least an "OK") from each LA. We suggest you start asap,
and don't expect LAs to just respond to the emails we just sent -
many of the LAs just don't respond in a timely fashion (thankfully,
you guys are not on that list!).
2.5) Monitor all chapter listserv traffic for your input, as some LAs
prefer to communicate only in that way.
3) Please explicitly ask for feedback on the text, tables, figs and refs.
4) With respect to text, try hard to get it down to size (see below),
and to ensure that it is FOCUSED on only that science which is policy
relevant. ALL TEXT should support an Exec Summary Bullet. If it
doesn't the text should be removed, or a bullet created for
discussion with our team. Also, although it is ultimately our job to
try to make the chapter flow as one document, please do what you can
to make your section's text flow with the other sections. Look to
make sure all information is compatible across sections, and that the
same type of language/style is used (to the extent you can.
4.4) We hope that you will start your process by reading THE ENTIRE
CHAPTER carefully, and sending your comments for each section to the
"head" LA for that section. This will get things moving fast, and
help with the compatibility issues mentioned in #4 above.
5) With respect to the figures (and table), make sure each one is as
compelling as possible. To save space (see below) you might decide a
figure has to go. You might decide a new figure has to be included
(only if there is space!). Work to get the figure redrafted where
needed to be perfect - a sign of ultimate success will be that our
figs get into the TS/SPM docs. Peck will be on that team, and will
push hard, but figures MUST BE POLICY RELEVANT AND COMPELLING.
6) With respect to refs, please make sure that only the most relevant
ones are cited, and that all of the citations are complete and
entered into your copy of the master chapter endnote file. Although
we expect to cite our own work where it makes sense, please be double
sure that we're not going overboard in this regard - it won't look
good to the outside world (e.g., skeptics) if we appear self-serving
at all.
7) If you run into any debates that can't be easily solved (i.e. with
all LAs happy), please consult with us. It is our job to make the
ultimate calls, since someone has to do it. Again, it is our goal to
make sure that no one is left with a bad feeling about our product.
On the other hand, we have to make sure we stick to only the best
science.
8) We'll be asking to make sure we have all the CAs listed. Let us
know if you need to consult with any new ones. AGain, we must do what
it takes to get the science and message as perfect as possible. CA
consultation at this point is encouraged where it will help. For
example, we need to get out the Pre-Q box to some Pre-Q experts - we
are discussing w/ David.
9) At any point you need input, ask. We are happy to talk on the
phone, and can call you or a group if you want a conference call. We
are doing this already, and it can save lots of time. Or email. Both
of us will be mostly around save a day or two.
10) Size and need to cut some sections. Because of recent changes in
the TSU, we haven't been able to get the latest word, but we suspect
that our comments in the FOD draft just sent are true - some sections
have a real space issue (factor in figures), others less so. We'll
provide more on this soon, and we expect that if you follow the above
guidelines, you'll be getting things into more focus, and hopefully
less space - especially section 6.3. When thinking about Figs, Tables
and Refs, also be thinking "How can I save space?"
11) Feel free to bring in other LAs to help you coordinate. For
example, for section 6.3, Bette and Dominique (to be back soon) can
be a big help, Stefan. Keith is working with Tim and Ricardo, but
also some others to do the job he has left. Etc.
12) We will start sending more info next week, and will help reach
consensus on what we're doing, and by when if needed. Let us know
what we've missed, and what might be wrong or unclear.
Ok, that's more than enough.
Thanks again for helping us lead the next big push!
Best, Peck and Eystein
--
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: 1121439991.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paleoT
Date: Fri Jul 15 11:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom,
This Briffa series is just a three site average (trees from Tornetrask, Polar Urals
and
Taimyr) - all in northern Eurasia. It is therefore for a limited region and is likely
just the summer, whereas some of the others have regressed on annual T for
the NH (or north of 20N).
Of these 3, the first two are in most of the other series (Esper, Crowley, Jones, Mann)
and also for HF in Moberg. Not sure whether Taimyr is in any of the others.
Esper uses a different standardization approach, but should have most of the
same trees, but only TRW. The others use our reconstructions which have MXD
is as well.
Have you tried these correlations after extracting the LF trends (say residuals
from a 30 or 50 yr filter)? Would expect some of them to be much, much lower.
Keith's reconstruction that would be much better is the one that goes back to
only about 1400. Do you have this? Go here [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
then click on paleo data, then on obtaining and look for Keith's - it says 600 years in
the title. You can get the data.
Cheers
Phil
At 21:57 14/07/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
I eventually refiltered all the paleo data and have compared these
with likewise filtered MAGICC output. Very interesting results.
Can you comment, off the record, on Keith's paleo series.
Here are correlations of individual series against the 7 series average.
(Different series lengths, but essentially same results over common lengths.)
SERIES 1xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx-1995
Briffa -.xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .207
Esper .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .687
Crowley .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .902
Jones .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .861
Mann .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .822
M&J-NH .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .936
Moberg .xxx xxxx xxxx .xxx xxxx xxxx .871
Correlations with the climate model are not the same -- but Briffa is
again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Original Filename: 1121686753.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Your spaghetti figure
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:39:13 +0200
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi,
if what Tom writes is correct, then I would
think it is not necessary to have a separate
paper. But we need to be sure so as not to break
any of the regulations since this will be one of
the most scrutinized sections of the whole 4AR. I
guess it is now up to how Keith and Tim takes the
MWP box further and what ends up in the figure.
Cheers,
Eystein
At 21:xxx xxxx xxxx, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Tom - thx for the quick response. It sounds
>like you don't need to do the extra pub. Keith
>and Eystein, do you agree? Tom can help make
>sure everything is ok, and should probably be a
>Contributing Author for the effort. Is that
>appropriate, all? Tom has already given us lots
>of useful review comments, and I suspect (am I
>right, Tom) that would be willing to review some
>more, in addition to helping make sure Keith and
>Tim get the figure we're thinking about right?
>Of course, if we run into a methodological or
>space problem, the fig might still not make it,
>but Keith, Eystein and I talked and have agreed
>that it would be good to hammer home that
>available data do not support the concept of a
>single (or multiple) globally synchronous (e.g.,
>to the degree that the late 20th century is)
>warm events during anyone's definition of
>Medieval times. We also agreed that this fig
>would focus on that issue only, and not Medieval
>warmth vs 20th century. This amplitude issue is
>dealt with in the main "temps of the last 2K"
>figs that Tim and Keith produced. But, given all
>the misunderstanding and misrepresenting that is
>going on wrt to the Medieval Warm Period, we
>concluded that it's worth the extra space to
>address the issue in more than one way - hence
>the decision to try to do something along the
>lines of your figure.
>
>It's in Keith and Tim's hands for the next step - they're working away.
>
>Thanks again to all, best, peck
>
>Thx, peck
>
>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>:
>>
>>
>>Jonathan, can do, but I am wondering if we need to - seven of the curves have
>>been processed in the way we describe in the
>>Hegerl et al paper to nature that
>>gabi sent you - s.d.s even listed in
>>supplementary file. the only exception is
>>the Alberta record, which Lockhart (sp?)
>>extended recently to about 900 - that
>>is published too - so each of the records has
>>gone through some peer-processing
>>- so should the figure itself, based on those data, still require an extra
>>reference? if so I will still do it, but I
>>wonder if it is needed. please get
>>back to me soon on this, tom
>>
>>> Hi Tom - Looks like we (Keith) is going to try to come up w/ a new
>>> version of your figure for our MWP Box. We're banking on Susan giving
>>> us the extra space for this and a couple other things, but I
>>> recommend you do that quick EOS paper you mentioned. Still ok?
>>>
>>> Many thanks.
>>>
>>> best, peck
>>> --
>>> 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/
>>>
>
>
>--
>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/
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All