Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1143137864.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melinda Marquis <Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Sounds good Martin. Keith, Tim - are you out there? Please help by ensuring we're doing the
right thing w Fig 6.13 and table 6.2

Hi Peck
Thanks for the provisional "go ahead" - we can (and so will) wait till Monday before
changing the master copy of the chapter here.
Regards
Martin
At 11:16 AM 3/23/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

Hi Martin - this seems ok to me. I hope we hear from Tim and Keith - they are the key
folks on this one. If we don't hear from them, then we go with what you have done. Seems
quite reasonable to me, and I'm sorry we caused the TSU this extra work.
Thanks again, Peck

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
<oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Melinda Marquis <Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed
Cc: ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Jonathan
Thanks for trying to sort this out quickly for us and for the information that the
Ammann et al paper is not available.
Susan and I have discussed your two options and have to say that we can not agree to
option 1 in the circumstances. Although the Jones and Mann (2004) paper shows the NCAR
simulation, the key point is that it cites it as "C. Ammann et al private communication
2003". So in effect option 1 would be bringing in material that was not peer reviewed
and not even separately documented. Anyone wanting to discredit your chapter would
highlight the fact that you appear to be depending on work done in 2003 that had still
not been peer-reviewed.
Option 2 is the only way to meet the standard that we have set all along of basing the
assessment very firmly on peer reviewed literature.
Kristen Averyt found that she could edit the EPS files that you had sent us earlier for
Fig 6.13 and take out the curves in question labelled AJS2006. The result is attached.
If you can confirm that this edited figure looks correct we are now proposing to drop
that into your chapter in place of the original one. We would also remove the [S4] row
in Table 6.2 referring to this study. We would also of course use the edited version of
the figure in the TS (Fig TS-26 in current draft).
If you can see any other implications of this approach to resolving the problem that we
need to be aware of please let me know. If the author team wants to provide a redrawn
figure that might be an improvement on the attached version we can still wait until
Monday morning for that.
Best regards
Martin
At 04:25 PM 3/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

Hi Keith and Tim - need FAST help. Figure 6.13, and Table 6.2 cite Amman et al., for the
CSM curve. Since this paper doesn't yet exist in "in press" form (I checked w/ Bette,
who is a co-author), we have two choices. I think choice one below could be ok, but want
to have confirmation from Keith or Tim, and it it's not ok, (NOTE) Tim and Keith need to
get new Fig and Table to Melinda and Martin at the TSU by Monday.
Option 1: we can cite Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia.
Reviews of Geophysics, 42(2) - this paper (already in references - there is hope!) has
the CSM simulation in its Fig 8, but of course it's not the idea original reference
describing the simulation.
Option 2: we (Tim) creates new fig 6.13, and Table 6.2 without any reference to this
simulation.
PLEASE NOTE - if Keith and Tim (or Martin) feels we must go w/ option 2, Tim has to send
the new fig and table to TSU (Melinda Marguis and Martin) by Monday AM at the absolute
latest.

Thanks for your quick help, 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/

--
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 xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

--

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/

--
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 xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

--

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/

Original Filename: 1143227779.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melinda Marquis <Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:16:19 +0000
Cc: ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,averyt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear all,

we (Keith and I) agree that it isn't appropriate to cite only Jones
and Mann (2004) as a reference for the NCAR CSM curves in figure 6.13.

Another alternative to deleting the curves, however, would be to
reference Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann (2005), which should
already be in the reference list. This might be an appropriate
reference because it includes Ammann as a co-author and provides a
more information about the simulation than Jones and Mann
(2004). However it still relies upon the submitted Ammann et al.
paper as the main reference -- so maybe still not good enough? I've
attached a PDF of Mann et al. (2005) for you to consider.

From earlier discussions (and perhaps also in relation to chapters
using new model runs of future climate), I thought that a new
unpublished run with an existing published model under published
forcing might be allowed (in the same way that updated 2005 or 2006
instrumental temperatures could be included, even if not published,
providing they were compiled following the procedures described in an
earlier paper). For instance, the EMIC runs we included as an extra
panel probably fall in this category. Maybe the CSM run falls in
this category too? Have other runs with this model been
published? And the forcing used in this run was presented in Goosse
et al. (2005; GRL 32, L06710, again it includes Ammann as a
co-author) as well as in Jones and Mann (2004). So, maybe CSM can be
included under this reasoning?

I don't want to sound as if we are arguing strenuously to keep the
CSM curves in the figure -- if the preferred decision is to drop it,
then so be it. If so, then the modified figure looks ok.

Cheers

Tim

At 02:11 23/03/2006, Martin Manning wrote:
>Dear Jonathan
>
>Thanks for trying to sort this out quickly for us and for the
>information that the Ammann et al paper is not available.
>
>Susan and I have discussed your two options and have to say that we
>can not agree to option 1 in the circumstances. Although the Jones
>and Mann (2004) paper shows the NCAR simulation, the key point is
>that it cites it as "C. Ammann et al private communication 2003". So
>in effect option 1 would be bringing in material that was not peer
>reviewed and not even separately documented. Anyone wanting to
>discredit your chapter would highlight the fact that you appear to
>be depending on work done in 2003 that had still not been peer-reviewed.
>
>Option 2 is the only way to meet the standard that we have set all
>along of basing the assessment very firmly on peer reviewed literature.
>
>Kristen Averyt found that she could edit the EPS files that you had
>sent us earlier for Fig 6.13 and take out the curves in question
>labelled AJS2006. The result is attached.
>
>If you can confirm that this edited figure looks correct we are now
>proposing to drop that into your chapter in place of the original
>one. We would also remove the [S4] row in Table 6.2 referring to
>this study. We would also of course use the edited version of the
>figure in the TS (Fig TS-26 in current draft).
>
>If you can see any other implications of this approach to resolving
>the problem that we need to be aware of please let me know. If the
>author team wants to provide a redrawn figure that might be an
>improvement on the attached version we can still wait until Monday
>morning for that.
>
>Best regards
>Martin
>
>At 04:25 PM 3/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Keith and Tim - need FAST help. Figure 6.13, and Table 6.2 cite
>>Amman et al., for the CSM curve. Since this paper doesn't yet exist
>>in "in press" form (I checked w/ Bette, who is a co-author), we
>>have two choices. I think choice one below could be ok, but want to
>>have confirmation from Keith or Tim, and it it's not ok, (NOTE) Tim
>>and Keith need to get new Fig and Table to Melinda and Martin at
>>the TSU by Monday.
>>
>>Option 1: we can cite Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate
>>over past millennia. Reviews of Geophysics, 42(2) - this paper
>>(already in references - there is hope!) has the CSM simulation in
>>its Fig 8, but of course it's not the idea original reference
>>describing the simulation.
>>
>>Option 2: we (Tim) creates new fig 6.13, and Table 6.2 without any
>>reference to this simulation.
>>
>>PLEASE NOTE - if Keith and Tim (or Martin) feels we must go w/
>>option 2, Tim has to send the new fig and table to TSU (Melinda
>>Marguis and Martin) by Monday AM at the absolute latest.
>>
>>Thanks for your quick help, 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 xxxxhttp://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>
>--
>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

</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmann 2005 pseudoproxy.pdf"
<x-flowed>
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1143661010.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Gustafson, Diane" <DGustafs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Proxy time series
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:36:50 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Diane / Mike / NRC Committee,

At 22:18 28/03/2006, Gustafson, Diane wrote:
>Dear Tim:
>
>Our National Research Council Committee on Surface Temperature
>Reconstructions has been considering your paper with Keith Briffa
>published in a recent issue of Science. Could you please elaborate
>on your criterion for selecting the proxy time series included in
>the analysis. We are interested in how you computed the correlation
>between the proxy time series and local temperature time series. Is
>the correlation based on filtered or detrended time series? How
>would you counter the potential criticism that your selection method
>tends to favor proxy time series that show a strong 20th century warming?
>
>It would be most helpful for us if you could reply in time for us to
>consider your response at our meeting tomorrow morning. Thanks in
>advance for your help.
>
>Mike Wallace

We (Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa) will first respond to these specific
questions about our recent Science paper. In addition, copied below
are some further comments by Keith Briffa on issues related to
tree-ring proxy records, that may be of interest to the committee.

The primary purpose of our paper was to implement an alternative, and
possibly complementary, method of proxy-data analysis to the methods
used in most previously published reconstructions of past NH
temperature variations. We did not want to introduce an entirely new
selection of proxy records (even if this were possible), because that
would obscure whether differences in our conclusions, compared with
published work, arose from our method or a different selection of
proxy records.

We decided, therefore, to make use of as many of the individual
records used in almost all the previously published NH temperature
reconstructions, excluding any records for which an indication of at
least partial temperature sensitivity was lacking. So, very low
resolution records for which comparison with instrumental
temperatures is problematic were excluded.

We used records specifically from Mann and Jones (2003) and Esper et
al. (2002). In addition we included records from Mann et al. (2003),
which I think just adds the van Engelen documentary record from the
Low Countries in Europe, because the others were already in the Mann
and Jones set. We excluded duplicates, and our paper explains which
series we used where duplicates were present. We did not average the
Tornetrask, Yamal and Taimyr tree-ring records as done by Mann and
Jones, because we could see no reason not to use them as individual series.

The series used by Mann and Jones had already been correlated with
their local instrumental temperatures -- using decadally-smoothed,
non-detrended, values -- so we accepted this as an indication of some
temperature sensitivity. For the other series, we calculated our own
correlations against local instrumental temperatures, trying both
annual-mean or summer-mean temperatures. In our paper's
supplementary information, we state that we used the HadCRUT2
temperatures for this purpose, which combines land air temperatures
with SST observations. In fact, we used the CRUTEM2 land-only
temperature data set for this purpose. These should be identical
where the proxy locations are not coastal. For these correlations,
we did not filter the data, nor did we detrend it, and we used the
*full* period of overlap between the proxy record and the available
instrumental record.

We excluded records that did not show a *positive* correlation with
their local temperatures. The remaining set includes most of the
long, high resolution records used by others, such as Moberg et al.,
Crowley and Lowery, Hegerl et al., Mann, Bradley and Hughes, etc. as
well as by Mann and Jones and Esper et al.

The final question, regarding the selection method favouring records
that show a strong 20th century warming trend, is a more
philosophical issue. As stated above, we did not actually use
strongly selective criteria, preferring to use those records that
others had previously used and only eliminating those that were
clearly lacking in temperature sensitivity. To some extent,
therefore, the question is then directed towards the studies whose
selection of data we used. Certainly we did not look through a whole
host of possibilities and just pick those with a strong upward trend
in the last century! And we don't think the scientists whose work we
selected from would have done this either. There are very few series
to choose from that are >500 years long and are from proxy
types/locations where temperature sensitivity might be expected. It
would be entirely the wrong impression to think that there are 140
such a priori suitable possible series, and that we picked (either
explicitly or implicitly) just those 10% that happened by chance to
exhibit upward 20th century trends.

The correlation with local temperature is an entirely appropriate
factor to consider when selecting data; these could be computed using
detrended data, though for those that we calculated, our use of
unfiltered data means that the trend is unlikely to dominate the
correlation. One would need to inspect the trend in the temperature
data at each location to evaluate how much influence it would have on
the results; but in locations where a strong upward trend is present,
it would be right to exclude proxy records that did not reproduce it,
though also correct that a proxy shouldn't be included solely on the
basis of it having the trend, especially where the proxy resolution
is sufficient to test its ability to capture shorter term fluctuations.

Finally, note that our method has not selected only those records
with a strong 20th century warming trend. Of the 14 proxies selected
(see our figure 1), 7(!) do not have strong upward 20th century
trends: Quebec, Chesapeake Bay, W Greenland, Tirol, Tornetrask,
Mangazeja, and Taimyr. Our method gives equal weight to all records,
so it should not be biased towards a single record, or a small number
of records, that do show strong upward trends.

Here are the additional comments on tree-ring issues:

I would also like to take the opportunity, if you will allow, to
comment briefly on some reports that have reached me concerning the
contribution made by Rosanne D'Arrigo to your Committee. Apparently,
this is being interpreted by some as reflecting adversely on the
validity of numerous temperature reconstructions that involve
significant dependence on tree-ring data. This is related to
Rosanne's focus in her presentation on the apparent difference
between measured temperatures and tree growth in recent decades - a
so-called "divergence" problem.
First let me make it clear that as I did not attend the Committee
meeting I am not able to comment specifically on the details of
Rosanne D'Arrigo's actual presentation, though I am aware of her
papers with various co-authors related to this "divergence" in the
recent (circa post 1970 ) trends in tree-growth and temperature
changes as recorded in instrumental data, at near tree-line sites in
the Canadian Arctic. There are also other papers dealing with
'changing growth responses' to climate in North American trees.

I have co-authored a paper in Nature on the reduced response to
warming as seen in tree-ring densitometric data at high-latitude
sites around the Northern Hemisphere, increasingly apparent in the
last 30 years or so.


First, it is important to note that the phenomena is complicated
because it is not clearly identifiable as a ubiquitous problem.
Rather it is a mix of possible regionally distinct indications, a
possible mix of phenomena that is almost certainly in part due to the
methodological aspects of the way tree-ring series are produced. This
applies to my own work, but also very likely to other work.

The implications at this stage for the 'hockey stick' and other
reconstructions are not great. That is because virtually all long
tree-ring reconstructions that contribute to the various
reconstructions, are NOT affected by this. Most show good coherence
with temperature at local levels in recent decades. This is not true
for one series (based on the density data). As these are our data, I
am able to say that initial unpublished work will show that the
"problem" can be mitigated with the use of new, and again
unpublished, chronology construction methods.

In the case of the work by Rosanne and colleagues, I offer my
educated opinion that the phenomenon they describe is likely also, at
least in part, a chronology construction issue. I am not saying that
this is a full explanation, and certainly there is the possibility of
increased moisture stress on these trees, but at present the issue is
still being defined and explored. As the issue needs more work, this
is only an opinion, and until there is peer-reviewed and published
evidence as to the degree of methodological uncertainty , it is not
appropriate to criticize this or other work . For my part, I have
been very busy, lately with teaching and IPCC commitments, but we
will do some work on this now, though again lack of funds to support
a research assistant do not help.

The matter is important but I do not believe that the facts yet
support Rosanne's contention, in her Global Biogeochemical Cycles
paper (Vol. 18, GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249, 2004) that an
optimum physiological threshold has been consistently exceeded at a
site in the Yukon. This conclusion should certainly not be taken as
indicating a widespread threshold exceedence.

It was my call not to "overplay" the importance of the divergence
issue, knowing the subtlety of the issues, in the fortcoming IPCC
Chapter 6 draft. We did always intend to have a brief section about
the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation ,
including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization
effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it is likely to
conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major
real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well
defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too
much concern at this point. The uncertainty estimates we calibrate
when interpreting many tree-ring series will likely incorporate the
possibility of some bias in our estimates of past warmth, but these
are wide anyway. This does not mean that temperatures were
necessarily at the upper extreme of the reconstruction uncertainty
range 1000 years ago, any more than they may have been at the bottom.
The real problem is a lack of widespread (and non-terrestrial)
proxies for defining the level of early warmth, and the vital need to
up-date and study the responses of proxies in very recent times.

Best regards,

Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa

--
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/



Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1143753480.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eduardo Zorita <Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Tim Osborn)
Subject: Re: Response to Wahl et al in Science
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:18:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Tim,

yes, I also found it strange. We noticed that Amman and Wahl cited their Science comment as
accepted in their manuscript that is now in press in Climatic Change.

Personally I think it is convenient that this clarification gets published but I am
somewhat disapointed by the fact that a very similar content was submitted by Buerger and
Cubasch about one year ago and it was not even sent to reviewers (it is the paper
that finally appeared in Tellus). I think that comment was of much higher quality than Wahl´s.

Science knew of the Tellus paper, since we cite it in our response. So actually
there is scientifically nothing new in this exchange, but it will be published in Science...

Anyway, I am happy to have more time now for more productive work and hope that Ritson
doe not bomb me with more mails in the future

eduardo





> Thanks for letting us know, Eduardo. It is strange that Science
> accepted the Wahl et al. comment before yours; we were told of this
> on 28-Feb and that is why you will notice, if you get to see the
> latest IPCC draft, that Wahl et al. is cited but your response is not
> cited! This will look strange, given that they will be published
> together. Maybe it can be changed later?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> At 11:31 29/03/2006, Eduardo Zorita wrote:
> >Dear Tim,
> >
> >the comment by Wahl, Ritson and Amman and our response have been now
> >accepted for
> >publication in Science
> >
> >eduardo
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>

Original Filename: 1143819006.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Brooks Hanson" <bhanson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: data request to SCIENCE for 1120514
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:30:06 +0100
Cc: "Jesse Smith" <hjsmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Brooks Hanson,

of the two additional questions/requests, the first one is quick to
respond to and so I can do that immediately.

In fact my previous reply answers the first question already, as does
our paper itself in a very clear way. It is something of a waste of
time, therefore, to have to write another answer, but here goes anyway...

We clearly state (in the SOM to our paper) what the data sources
were, and Esper et al. was not the source for the four series in
question. There is, therefore, no need for anyone to "surmise" that
this is the case, because we explicitly state it!

Further, we state in our paragraph (d) that we replaced Athabasca
with a new, "better-replicated series" from Luckman and
Wilson. "Better-replicated" clearly indicates that there are more
data in the new series than were available to Esper et al., as is
also clear from even a cursory read of the Luckman and Wilson
paper. So it should be obvious that you cannot expect to reproduce
the results using the fuller data set by using only the more limited
data available from Esper et al. -- otherwise what would be the point
of going out and collecting all that new data?

The other three series are covered in our paragraph (c), "The data
sets contain some non-identical tree-ring series derived from the
same sites; we have favoured series from (S3) because they are based
on a greater number of tree core measurements than the series
generated by (S1)". So we clearly did not use the Esper et al. data
(S1) and it should also be clear that the series we did use can not
be reproduced using the Esper et al. data because they are
"non-identical" and there are fewer tree cores in the Esper et al.
data. The source we gave for these three series is Briffa (2000).

We did not use tree-core measurement data in our paper, only
chronologies that had previously been assembled by others from core
measurement data. I don't have any core measurement data and
therefore have none to give out! And in my first reply I explained
why I didn't think that this was appropriate anyway, since I consider
that our obligation is limited to providing data to allow the
replication of the steps reported in our paper, none of which
involved any processing of core measurement data.

I will reply next week regarding the second question/request.

Best regards

Tim

At 20:35 30/03/2006, Brooks Hanson wrote:
> Dear Dr. Osborn:
>
>Thank you for your assistance in resolving the request for data for
>your recent paper. I have passed along the relevant information you
>have provided (I assure you not your email). In response, i've received
>two additional questions. I'm wondering if it would be possible to
>clarify these.
>
>In 4 cases, the Osborn site chronology differs from the Esper site
>chronology, although in the other cases the versions are identical. In
>some cases, the date ranges do not match. I do not believe that it is
>possible to replicate the Osborn version from the Esper measurement data
>in these 4 cases and surmise that Osborn used a different measurement
>data set. I therefore request measurement data used by Osborn for the
>following sites: Polar Urals, Tornetrrask, Taymir and Athabaska.
>
>The HadCRU2 data set contains temperature data for the gridcell 37.5N,
>117.5W commencing in 1870. However, the gridcell information provided
>by Osborn commenced only in 1888 and the differences are material to
>the final result (0.045 versus 0.18 reported). What is the reason for
>commencing this comparison in 1888 rather than the available 1870? Since
>there is a material difference in this example, could you please provide
>the gridcell temperature sets in a comparable format for the other 13
>Osborn and Briffa series
>
>I appreciate that the latter request may take some additional effort as
>you noted. I'm hopeful that this will provide a resolution to this
>matter.
>
>Sincerely,
>Brooks Hanson

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1144427398.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Rainer Zahn <rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "k.briffa-uea.ac.uk" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:29:58 +0200

<x-flowed>
At 18:17 03/04/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Rainer, we drafted a complaint, which Keith Briffa still sits on, and
>I don

Original Filename: 1145388731.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Henry Pollack <hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC FAR draft
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Henry - thanks for the email. Just earlier
today, Eystein and I were soliciting approval
from our team on how to best get feedback from
chapter authors - Lead Authors and Contributing
Authors alike. Since we're all authors, it isn't
appropriate to comment officially as expert
reviewers, but rather to work as a team to take
expert reviews - AND chapter 6 author feedback -
and use them to create a better finalo draft. One
key, as promised earlier, is to have a process
that makes sure we get all comments and are able
to respond to them. The other key is that we
ensure time to allow the needed debate. Eystein
and I are going to ask LAs (including Keith) to
do there work sooner in the draft cycle than
before so that we have the time for this.

So... I would suggest you keep these comments in
a safe place for a bit longer, and then send them
in to the Eystein and I when we ask (should be in
the next week). Note that the current draft has
only officially been available for a bit over a
week (indeed, I didn't see it until today since
the IPCC TSU had to check for all sorts of things
after we submitted it over a month ago), and we
won't be working on the new draft until June. So
we have time to be thoughtful and complete in the
feedback gathering process.

Is this ok? Seems more suitable than giving
review via the gov process on your own work (you
are an author of our chapter).

Also, I can anticipate one thing that is going to
come up again, and that I don't think we had your
feedback on (nor Keith's). What about the
borehole recons that you and colleagues have done
extending back beyond the last couple centuries.
I don't have my paper pdf collection here, but I
believe you have some recons going back many
centuries. Does this need more attention in the
chapter?

Thanks for being proactive and quick to send
feedback. We'll be sending our email to all CA's
soon, if you're willing to wait a couple more
days.

Thanks, peck

>Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein),
>
>I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US
>Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This
>is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly
>exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some
>small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft.
>
>Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in
>italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature
>reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell
>us?"
>
>Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press).
>This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press",
>and in the list of references the citation should include the following:
>
>J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578
>
>Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern
>hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm
>conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)"
>, and the reference therein, are both incorrect.
>
>The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT
>indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in
>Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm
>conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes
>had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for
>Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al
>(2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for
>New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript

Original Filename: 1146062963.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Ruherford et al 2005
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
thanks Tim,

I'm saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to
NCAR, NSF, NAS, IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won't ever
respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way...

I hope you're having as nice a spring as we are here. See you in June?

mike

p.s. we have some interesting new reconstructionbased on RegEM using a
greatly expanded multiproxy network (which includes the MXD data). I
hope to send you guys shortly. It is our hope that you'll consider being
co-authors. This to come soon...


Tim Osborn wrote:

> Hi Scott and Mike,
>
> as lead author and co-author on the Rutherford et al. paper, I thought
> I'd let you know that we are dealing with some requests for the MXD
> data set used in this paper, including the one copied below from
> McIntyre. We should have got this organised a bit quicker but we will
> (eventually!) get the data and its description available for
> interested parties. So if you get any more requests for the MXD data
> that were used in our joint paper, please pass them on to me.
>
> Hope everything's well with you,
>
> Tim
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:08:39 +0100
>> To: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005
>> Cc: "Andrew Weaver" <jclim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> I have just finished responding to Science about your latest request
>> to them concerning our recent paper, so I can now turn to your
>> request copied below.
>>
>> I can answer your first request immediately:
>>
>> The MXD data used in Rutherford et al. were *derived* from the
>> Schweingruber network, but aren't actually the raw site-by-site data
>> values. The reason why we didn't use the latter is that the
>> site-by-site MXD chronologies have only been processed using a
>> "traditional" approach to standardization that removes low-frequency
>> climate variations. Our age-band decomposition approach (Briffa et
>> al., 2001, JGR), which retains more low-frequency variability, had
>> only been applied at the regional-average level. So we gridded the
>> site-by-site chronologies onto a 5x5 grid and added to each grid box
>> the "missing" regional-scale low-frequency information identified by
>> comparing the age-band and traditionally-standardized results at a
>> regional scale.
>>
>> I will respond with information and/or data to your requests (2)-(4)
>> soon.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Tim, I presume that the sites used in the MXD network in
>>> Rutherford et al., Journal of Climate 2005 came from the
>>> SChweingruber network. Could you provide me with (1) confirmation as
>>> to whether this is the case; (2) identification of the sites; (3)
>>> the protocol for site selection from the larger Schweingruber
>>> network; (4) a URL for any data or dataversions not available in the
>>> Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre
>>
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1146252894.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Standardisation uncertainty for tree-ring series
Date: Fri Apr 28 15:34:xxx xxxx xxxx

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:08:05 +0100
To: philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Standardisation uncertainty for tree-ring series
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Philip,
we have three "groups" of trees:
"SCAND" (which includes the Tornetrask and Finland multi-millennial chronologies, but
also some shorter chronologies from the same region). These trees fall mainly within
the 3 boxes centred at:
17.5E, 67.5N
22.5E, 67.5N
27.5E, 67.5N
"URALS" (which includes the Yamal and Polar Urals long chronologies, plus other shorter
ones). These fall mainly within these 3 boxes:
52.5E, 67.5N
62.5E, 62.5N (note this is the only one not at 67.5N)
67.5E, 67.5N
"TAIMYR" (which includes the Taimyr long chronology, plus other shorter ones). These
fall mainly within these 4 boxes:
87.5E, 67.5N
102.5E, 67.5N
112.5E, 67.5N
122.5E, 67.5N
We do some analysis at the group scale, and for this we take the JJA temperatures from
each box and average to the group scale to obtain a single series from each of SCAND,
URALS and TAIMY.
We do some analysis at the overall scale, and for this we take these three group
temperature series and average them to get an overall NW Eurasia temperature for boxes
with tree chronologies in them.
We did also try using a wider average for the region, including all LAND temperatures
from grid boxes within a rectangular region from 12.5E to 127.5E and from 57.5N to
72.5N, but I don't think it correlated so well against the tree-ring width data (I can't
remember the exact correlations), so we didn't pursue that.
Does that give you enough information to be going on with? I'd recommend using CRUTEM3
rather than HadCRUT3, because the correlations seem to deteriorate with the inclusion of
SST data in some cases -- though of course you can look into this yourself.
Cheers
Tim
At 16:35 27/04/2006, philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

Thanks Tim.
I need to extract from the instrumental and model data the appropriate
data to calibrate the tree-rings against. Presumably this is the
June-July-August average land surface temperature for a particular
region in NW Eurasia. Could you send me the lat and long ranges of the
region?
Cheers,
Philip
On Thu, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:01, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Thanks for the nice precise description of methodology, Philip. It's
> good that we are all clear exactly what procedure is to be applied.
>
> On the train after our meeting last week, Keith and I discussed this
> a bit more. In the NW Eurasian case study, n is quite high and
> therefore it is likely that the bootstrap estimates will show
> relatively little variation and probably will underestimate the true
> error (due to additional errors in the assumptions underlying RCS, as
> discussed in London). We will do the calculations anyway, and then
> we will know for sure how large/small they are, rather than just speculating.
>
> It looks likely that Tom Melvin will have time to devote directly to
> this issue as he will probably be funded by our (that includes you,
> Simon) NERC RAPID project for a while. Once/if this is confirmed,
> then we'll get Tom to do the calculations outlined below and
> communicate directly with Philip over any implementation issues etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> At 16:02 26/04/2006, philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> >Keith, Tim.
> >
> > At our meeting last Wednesday I agreed to specify exactly what needed
> >to be done to make uncertainty estimates for standardisation of the
> >tree-ring data.
> >
> > Suppose we are making a proxy series from n cores. From those n cores
> >we can make an RCS age correction curve, and a mean proxy series (the
> >average of the cores after applying the age correction curve to each
> >one?). These are the best-estimate values for the age-correction curve
> >and the proxy series.
> >
> > We also need bootstrap estimates of the age correction curve and the
> >mean proxy series. To make a bootstrap estimate: sample, with
> >replacement, from the n cores until you have a set of n samples. (Some
> >of the cores will be in this sample once, some several times, and some
> >not at all). From this set of n samples, make an age correction curve
> >and a mean proxy series as before. These are the bootstrap estimates.
> >
> > We need a lot of bootstrap estimates. I'd like 1xxx xxxx xxxxwill probably
> >do at a pinch. So please can you make these and send me the 1001 age
> >correction curves and 1001 mean proxy series.
> >
> > I will do something similar with the instrumental series, and we can
> >then make bootstrap estimates of the regression uncertainty and the
> >uncertainty in the reconstructed temperatures.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >--
> >Philip Brohan, Climate Scientist
> >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> >Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Global climate data sets are available from [1]http://www.hadobs.org
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Philip Brohan, Climate Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Global climate data sets are available from [4]http://www.hadobs.org

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

1. http://www.hadobs.org/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
4. http://www.hadobs.org/
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
7. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1146713460.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Eduardo Zorita <Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Tim Osborn), k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Keith Briffa)
Subject: Wengen meeting
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 23:31:00 +0200 (MET DST)




Dear Tim, dear Keith,

I am writing to inform you that I have reconsidered my acceptance to attend
the Wengen meeting. In the last days I have convinced myself that under the present circumstances
a constructive discussion on reconstruction methods is unfortunately not possible.
We have another exchange on the last Journal of Climate paper by Mann et al, which is now under review. Even the editor of J. of Climate found adequate to tell us that all inflammatory comments in their response would have to be eventually deleted.
Even considering the considerable pressure that he has is
exposed to in American politics, I think Michael Mann is unable of any constructive discussion.

I am very grateful for your invitation to this meeting and I hope that we can continue our collaboration in other ocasion.

Best wishes

eduardo

Original Filename: 1147435800.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Ruherford et al 2005
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 8:10:xxx xxxx xxxx

hi tim. personally, I don't see why you should make any concessions for this moron. By the way, our supplementary site (now on scott's computer) doesn't block any ip#s. another lie.. Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subj: FW: Ruherford et al 2005
Date: Fri May 12, 2006 8:10 am
Size: 4K
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thought you might be interested in the following. I *am* going to
provide the list of MXD sites requested, but honestly haven't had
time to put it together this his request. Clearly the 2-week delay
was too long for him! Still, at least I'm not (yet) described as
"juvenile"! :-)

Tim

>From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: "Andrew Weaver" <jclim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: FW: Ruherford et al 2005
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>Dear Andrew,
>Rutherford et al 2005 states that supplementary information is available at
>http://fox.rwu.edu/~rutherfo/supplements/jclim2003a.
>
>First, in passing, Scott Rutherford has blocked the IP address of the
>computer that I regularly use from access to that site (I had previously
>been blocked from Mann's FTP site.) While I have been able to have someone
>else send me the data, I'm sure that such petty behavior is inconsistent
>with Journal of Climate access policies and I request that you ask your
>authors to stop such juvenile behavior insofar as it affects the Journal of
>Climate.
>
>Second, the referenced website does NOT contain the MXD data, but only
>includes a link to "Ask Tim Osborn". As you can see from the attached
>correspondence, Osborn has undertaken to provide the requested information,
>but the article certainly implies - and I am sure that that this was your
>understanding as editor - that the data would be readily available. In this
>case, even a simple listing of the sites has not been provided after nearly
>2 weeks. (I might add that I initially requested a listing of the sites from
>a coauthor nearly 2 years ago.)
>
>In order to comply with the apparent undertakings of Rutherford et al, I
>think that you should arrange for a less ad hoc method of providing the
>supplementary information.
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve McIntyre
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: April 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>To: Steve McIntyre
>Cc: Andrew Weaver; Keith Briffa
>Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005
>
>
>Dear Steve,
>
>I have just finished responding to Science about your latest request
>to them concerning our recent paper, so I can now turn to your
>request copied below.
>
>I can answer your first request immediately:
>
>The MXD data used in Rutherford et al. were *derived* from the
>Schweingruber network, but aren't actually the raw site-by-site data
>values. The reason why we didn't use the latter is that the
>site-by-site MXD chronologies have only been processed using a
>"traditional" approach to standardization that removes low-frequency
>climate variations. Our age-band decomposition approach (Briffa et
>al., 2001, JGR), which retains more low-frequency variability, had
>only been applied at the regional-average level. So we gridded the
>site-by-site chronologies onto a 5x5 grid and added to each grid box
>the "missing" regional-scale low-frequency information identified by
>comparing the age-band and traditionally-standardized results at a
>regional scale.
>
>I will respond with information and/or data to your requests (2)-(4) soon.
>
>Regards
>
>Tim
>
>At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Dear Tim, I presume that the sites used in the MXD network in
> >Rutherford et al., Journal of Climate 2005 came from the
> >SChweingruber network. Could you provide me with (1) confirmation as
> >to whether this is the case; (2) identification of the sites; (3)
> >the protocol for site selection from the larger Schweingruber
> >network; (4) a URL for any data or dataversions not available in the
> >Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

Original Filename: 1147982305.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: "Neil Roberts" <C.N.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ipcc chapter 6 draft
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Neil - Thanks for your interest in providing feedback on the draft
chap 6 Second Order Draft. Since the IPCC has very strict rules about
all this, I'm going to ask them (the IPCC) to send you an official
invitation to review, along with the process - formal, but highly
efficient - to follow. If you could send your comments in that way it
would be a great help. We've been asked to keep everything squeaky
clean, and not to get comments informally.

Thanks! Peck


>Dear Jonathan
>
>Please excuse me for writing direct, but Keith Briffa suggested it
>would be simplest. I have looked through the draft chapter 6 and
>find it an impressive document. However, bullet 4 on page 6.2,
>starting "global mean cooling and warming....." strikes me as
>incorrect and misleading.
>
>Whereas the mean rate of temperature change over the Pleistocene may
>have been >10 times slower than that projected for the next century,
>there is clear evidence that for specific major climatic
>transitions, global (or at least hemispheric) temperature changes in
>the past have been at least as rapid as those projected by climate
>model simulations and incorporated in the last IPCC report. The
>most obvious case in point is the global warming at the start of the
>Holocene, ca. 11.5 ka BP. Russell Coope, more than 20 years ago,
>showed from beetles that UK temperatures rose faster than could be
>dated within the errors of 14C dating. Subsequently this was
>confirmed by Greeland ice cores based on layer counting (full
>glacial to interglacial in less than 100 years), and by the Cariacos
>basin marine record. I have worked on varved lake records from both
>the tropics (Roberts et al Nature 1xxx xxxx xxxx, xxx xxxx xxxx) and the
>Mediterranean (Roberts et al The Holocene, 2001, 11, xxx xxxx xxxx) where
>this climate transition was accomplished in substantially less than
>a century. In short, several independent lines of evidence show
>that the climate system has been capable of flipping from one
>meta-stable state to another, very different one over timescales
>that could be experienced by a single human lifetime. This is not
>an unimportant conclusion in terms of the potential for non-linear
>responses of future climate to GHG forcing.
>
>I also looked for supporting argument for bullet 4 later in chapter
>6, but found nothing of substance.
>
>In short, this particular bullet seems in need of critical
>reassessment before the definitive version of the next IPCC reprot
>emerges.
>
>Thanks in anticipation and best egards
>
>Neil


--
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: 1148266730.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 & Amman paper
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 22:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Gene - thanks for the update. If Tim/Keith/Caspar want to add
anything (or Martin ask for more clarification), please cc to the
entire list on this email. Sounds like the UCAR version is the one to
consider "official" (right everyone?).

Thanks again, Peck

>Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
>
>I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version
>I have, and they are identical with the exception that the
>supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and supplemental figure
>caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
>document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both
>versions.
>
>The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is
>also identical to the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa,
>and Eyestein Jansen on February 24. There was a version sent on
>February 21, which the February 24 version superceded. There were 3
>words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the
>February 24 version. Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and
>2/24 versions is the cause of the differences that Martin has seen.
>[Note: I would have sent the graphics separately with these
>versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email
>account -- to deal with memory limits in the system here. Thus, I
>cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the
>February 24 version. My apologies.]
>
>In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the
>official one that is "accepted/in press". Formal notification of
>acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic Change came on
>February 28. The article is still in this status.
>
>Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that I
>will be in Boulder starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR
>for a month. I will be keeping up with email from there.
>
>
>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: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
>To: Martin Manning
>Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
>Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
>
>Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to
>see if they can clarify the situation and make sure we have the
>correct version. I'll also cc Bette since she may see Caspar around
>NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with
>his paper.
>
>More soon, thx, Peck
>
>
> Dear Eystein and Jonathan
>
> It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version
>of the Wahl and Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our
>review web site differs from the version that is available publicly
>from the NCAR web site at:
>
>
> [
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
><http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf>
> ]
>
>
> Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial,
>the paper on the NCAR web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e.
>before the date of final submission of the SOD), it has additional
>figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
>press".
>
> Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this
>paper would reflect most accurately the status of the paper as used
>by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD. That has been our
>basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web
>pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also
>include updated versions of unpublished papers as well. If you have
>any thoughts on that please let me know.
>
> Best 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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>
>
>
>--
>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: 1148299124.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: Wahl & Amman paper
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless
Martin needs more clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the
confusion. Guess some reviewers are running out of substantive
issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to the final
draft...

Best, Peck

From Caspar:

>Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one.
>I changed the order of pages because I needed to separate the
>"primary content" of the paper from its "supplement"; thus I moved
>tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything else is
>identical.

From Keith:

"the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not
pertinent to the interpretation used in preparing the draft."


and Gene:

>
>Wahl, Eugene R wrote:
>>Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
>> I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf
>>version I have, and they are identical with the exception that the
>>supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and supplemental figure
>>caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
>>document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both
>>versions.
>> The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is
>>also identical to the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa,
>>and Eyestein Jansen on February 24. There was a version sent on
>>February 21, which the February 24 version superceded. There were
>>3 words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in
>>the February 24 version. Perhaps this difference between the 2/21
>>and 2/24 versions is the cause of the differences that Martin has
>>seen. [Note: I would have sent the graphics separately with these
>>versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email
>>account -- to deal with memory limits in the system here. Thus, I
>>cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the
>>February 24 version. My apologies.]
>> In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the
>>official one that is "accepted/in press". Formal notification of
>>acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic Change came on
>>February 28. The article is still in this status.
>> Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that
>>I will be in Boulder starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at
>>NCAR for a month. I will be keeping up with email from there.
>> 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: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
>>To: Martin Manning
>>Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
>>Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
>>
>>Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene
>>to see if they can clarify the situation and make sure we have the
>>correct version. I'll also cc Bette since she may see Caspar around
>>NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with
>>his paper.
>>
>>More soon, thx, Peck
>>
>>
>> Dear Eystein and Jonathan
>>
>> It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version
>>of the Wahl and Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our
>>review web site differs from the version that is available publicly
>>from the NCAR web site at:
>>
>>
>> [
>>
>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
>><http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf>
>> ]
>>
>>
>> Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial,
>>the paper on the NCAR web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e.
>>before the date of final submission of the SOD), it has additional
>>figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
>>press".
>>
>> Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this
>>paper would reflect most accurately the status of the paper as used
>>by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD. That has been our
>>basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web
>>pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also
>>include updated versions of unpublished papers as well. If you have
>>any thoughts on that please let me know.
>>
>> Best 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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>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: 1148307524.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Peck et al
Thanks for clearing this up. The bottom line is that the version of this paper on the UCAR
site is fine. Unfortunately though, the one we have on the IPCC WG1 web site is not!
I am attaching a copy of that for clarity. The metadata in this PDF file indicate that it
was created by Oyvind Paasche from a Word document in early March when we were asking the
chapter teams to provide copies of the unpublished literature. It seems that Oyvind worked
from an earlier and significantly shorter version - less text, fewer tables and the
figures are different - as you can see in the attached. Although to repeat my earlier
statement the conclusions of this earlier draft do not appear to me to be substantially
different.
Based on what we now know, the TSU should add the NCAR version of the paper to our review
web site and we will do that today.
Thanks
Martin
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless Martin needs more
clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the confusion. Guess some reviewers are
running out of substantive issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to
the final draft...
Best, Peck
From Caspar:

Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one. I changed the order
of pages because I needed to separate the "primary content" of the paper from its
"supplement"; thus I moved tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything
else is identical.

From Keith:
"the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not pertinent to the
interpretation used in preparing the draft."
and Gene:

Wahl, Eugene R wrote:

Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version I have, and they
are identical with the exception that the supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and
supplemental figure caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both versions.
The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is also identical to
the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, and Eyestein Jansen on February 24.
There was a version sent on February 21, which the February 24 version superceded.
There were 3 words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the February
24 version. Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and 2/24 versions is the cause of
the differences that Martin has seen. [Note: I would have sent the graphics separately
with these versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email account --
to deal with memory limits in the system here. Thus, I cannot confirm exactly which
graphic files are associated with the February 24 version. My apologies.]
In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the official one that is
"accepted/in press". Formal notification of acceptance from Stephen Schneider at
Climatic Change came on February 28. The article is still in this status.
Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that I will be in Boulder
starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR for a month. I will be keeping up
with email from there.
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 [[1] mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
To: Martin Manning
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to see if they can
clarify the situation and make sure we have the correct version. I'll also cc Bette
since she may see Caspar around NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify
things with his paper.
More soon, thx, Peck
Dear Eystein and Jonathan
It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of the Wahl and
Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our review web site differs from the
version that is available publicly from the NCAR web site at:
[

[2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.
pdf
<[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress
.pdf> ]
Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the paper on the NCAR
web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. before the date of final submission of the
SOD), it has additional figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
press".
Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper would reflect
most accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the
SOD. That has been our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer
web pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also include updated
versions of unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that please let me
know.
Best 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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

--
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
[4]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[5]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

--
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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy
documentseudoraattachWahl_&_Ammann.pdf"

References

1. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
4. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
5. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

Original Filename: 1148339153.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Martin Manning" <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Wahl & Amman paper -- NCAR pdf is correct version
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hello all:


Yes, Martin, the paper you sent today is indeed an old version, and should be replaced by
the NCAR pdf version.


This old version sent today is actually older than the Feb 21 version I mentioned yesterday
(see below), and has no relevance in terms of the text that is accepted/in press with
Climatic Change as of February 28, 2006.


As I mentioned yesterday (see below), the text of the UCAR pdf is identical to the WORD
version I sent to Peck, Keith, and Eyestein on February 24.


Peace, Gene


*******************************

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl

Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies

Alfred University

___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Wahl, Eugene R
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:49 PM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Sent by Martin Manning -- Wahl & Amman paper --with old version

___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Martin Manning [mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:19 PM
To: Jonathan Overpeck; Caspar Ammann
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Wahl, Eugene R; t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper


Dear Peck et al
Thanks for clearing this up. The bottom line is that the version of this paper on the UCAR
site is fine. Unfortunately though, the one we have on the IPCC WG1 web site is not!
I am attaching a copy of that for clarity. The metadata in this PDF file indicate that it
was created by Oyvind Paasche from a Word document in early March when we were asking the
chapter teams to provide copies of the unpublished literature. It seems that Oyvind worked
from an earlier and significantly shorter version - less text, fewer tables and the
figures are different - as you can see in the attached. Although to repeat my earlier
statement the conclusions of this earlier draft do not appear to me to be substantially
different.
Based on what we now know, the TSU should add the NCAR version of the paper to our review
web site and we will do that today.
Thanks
Martin
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless Martin needs more
clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the confusion. Guess some reviewers are running
out of substantive issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to the final
draft...
Best, Peck
>From Caspar:

Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one. I changed the order of
pages because I needed to separate the "primary content" of the paper from its
"supplement"; thus I moved tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything else
is identical.

>From Keith:
"the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not pertinent to the
interpretation used in preparing the draft."
and Gene:
Wahl, Eugene R wrote:

Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version I have, and they are
identical with the exception that the supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and
supplemental figure caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both versions.

The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is also identical to the
WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, and Eyestein Jansen on February 24. There was
a version sent on February 21, which the February 24 version superceded. There were 3
words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the February 24 version.
Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and 2/24 versions is the cause of the differences
that Martin has seen.

[Note: I would have sent the graphics separately with these versions, and I did not keep
copies of the sent files in my email account -- to deal with memory limits in the system
here. Thus, I cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the February
24 version. My apologies.]

In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the official one that is
"accepted/in press". Formal notification of acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic
Change came on February 28. The article is still in this status.

Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that I will be in Boulder
starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR for a month. I will be keeping up with
email from there.

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 [[1] mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
To: Martin Manning
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to see if they can
clarify the situation and make sure we have the correct version. I'll also cc Bette since
she may see Caspar around NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with
his paper.
More soon, thx, Peck
Dear Eystein and Jonathan
It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of the Wahl and Amman
paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our review web site differs from the version that is
available publicly from the NCAR web site at:
[

[2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
<[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pd
f> ]
Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the paper on the NCAR
web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. before the date of final submission of the
SOD), it has additional figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
press".
Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper would reflect most
accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD.
That has been our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web pages
up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also include updated versions of
unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that please let me know.
Best 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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

--
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
[4]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[5]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

--
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/CSDxxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA

References

1. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
4. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
5. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

Original Filename: 1148577381.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: expert review comments on AR4
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,

here is the submitted comment by Tapio Schneider, attached. Please do
not pass along or show to others. Thanks in advance,

mike

Keith Briffa wrote:

> Hi Mike
> thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on
> the effort of trying to produce a balanced picture of the current
> state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact , I know that it is
> already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for
> not discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and
> potential problems wit CO2 fertilization - I may have to add even more
> text yet .You are absolutely correct that we had unreasonable trouble
> from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I will
> certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do . I would
> rather reserve comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak
> personally to you. I really hope that we can get an atmosphere of
> constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some discussion
> of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from
> the mad house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
>
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be
>> submitting on the final draft of the AR4. I commend you for the
>> excellent work you've done and the tough battle I know you have had
>> to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
>> through.
>>
>> Confidentially, I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in
>> the area of discussions of where things actually now stand in terms
>> of some of the earlier criticisms. I believe that the discussion is
>> still out of date, given what has been shown in recent publications,
>> including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't think this is
>> the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep
>> problems w/ Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can
>> do, which are egregiously incorrect. There is a comment in review in
>> Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by someone who understands the
>> statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our community)
>> that is very critical. I think its unwise for the TAR to
>> uncritically accept the claims made, particularly given that the
>> actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at least at the time the most
>> recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it for
>> consideration for AR4, no?
>>
>> Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being
>> shown in the SPM. I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be
>> an effort to over-ride that decision (I would suspect that is Susan
>> Solomon's doing?),
>>
>> I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers
>> in Switzerland. Looking forward to seeing you soon,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> The Pennsylvania State University email:
>> <mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>> <http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/



--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm



</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachhegerl06_comment.pdf"

Original Filename: 1148592899.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: expert review comments on AR4
Date: Thu May 25 17:34:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Mike
thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on the effort of trying to
produce a balanced picture of the current state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact ,
I know that it is already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for not
discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and potential problems wit CO2
fertilization - I may have to add even more text yet .You are absolutely correct that we
had unreasonable trouble from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I
will certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do . I would rather reserve
comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak personally to you. I really hope that we
can get an atmosphere of constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some
discussion of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from the mad
house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
best wishes
Keith
At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be submitting on the final
draft of the AR4. I commend you for the excellent work you've done and the tough battle
I know you have had to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
through.
Confidentially, I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in the area of
discussions of where things actually now stand in terms of some of the earlier
criticisms. I believe that the discussion is still out of date, given what has been
shown in recent publications, including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't
think this is the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep problems w/
Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can do, which are egregiously
incorrect. There is a comment in review in Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by
someone who understands the statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our
community) that is very critical. I think its unwise for the TAR to uncritically accept
the claims made, particularly given that the actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at
least at the time the most recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it
for consideration for AR4, no?
Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being shown in the SPM.
I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be an effort to over-ride that decision
(I would suspect that is Susan Solomon's doing?),
I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers in Switzerland.
Looking forward to seeing you soon,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1150923423.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: john mitchell <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review comments
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi John - thanks. I'll cc to Keith and Tim too, and we'll be sure to discuss these in
Bergen. I'll be on my normal email to the extent we have time to be check email -
experience suggests it's tough. But... we'll try to keep an eye on email.

See you soon, best, peck

Hi Eystein, Jon,



I am in Geneva at the WMO EC meeting,so I have not had a lot of time to look at the SOD
comments. I can not get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on
the hockey stick and include below the questions I think need to be addressed which I
hope will help the discussions. I do tbelieve we need a clear answer to the skeptics .
I have also copied these comments to Jean. Please let me know that you have received
this, and what email address I can contact you at in Bergen

Original Filename: 1151094928.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eduardo Zorita <Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerd B

Original Filename: 1151577820.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: climate reconstruction challenge
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Christoph,
sounds excellent. 20th is a good target with three weeks left. Let me
launch one full round to solicit comments and ideas, and then I can send
you what we have to build the web site. I'll check with Mike about
having him fold this into the report.
Cheers
Caspar


Christoph Kull wrote:
> Dear Caspar and Tim,
> Thanks for putting this issue forward!!
> PAGES/CLIVAR may help communicating this challenge to the community.
>
> We will be able to setup the website with the data sets and the call etc.:
> - let me know what you need! It would be best for us to have first a simple
> "word document with the structure, headings and text. We will then produce a
> "hidden site" that can be updated and finalized before it will go public
> online.
>
> We will be able to announce the challenge to the community via the
> Newsletter and e-news:
> - we need a respective experiment description.
> - the next Newsletter is going to be published by end of July. Can you
> provide me this information by the 20th? This would also fit with the
> planned announcement in the workshop report for EOS...Mike will draft this
> report.
> I suggest to directly contact him for an incorporation of this call.
>
> All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern,
> Christoph
>
>
> On 23.06.2006 19:23, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> just back from the various trips and meetings, most recently
>> Breckenridge and the CCSM workshop until yesterday. This coincided with
>> the release of the NRC report...
>>
>> Thanks Tim for getting in touch with Simon and Eduardo. And I would
>> think it would be excellent if you would be on the reconstruction side
>> of things here. We really need to make sure that all the reconstruction
>> groups (the ones that show up in the spaghetti-graph) also provide
>> reconstructions for the Challenge. By the way, Mike Mann is fine with
>> the participation of the german group in this as he has spoken now
>> favorably on the project.
>>
>> I think the separation you point at is absolutely crucial. So, as I
>> indicated in Wengen, I would suggest that we could organize a small
>> group of modelers to define the concepts of the experiments, and then
>> make these happen completely disconnected from standard data-centers. A
>> Pseudo-Proxy group should then develop concepts of how to generate
>> pseudo-proxy series and tell the modelers where they need what data. But
>> what they do is not communicated to the modelers. Based
>>
>> The underlying concept as well as the technical procedure of how we
>> approach the pseudo-proxies should be made public, so that everybody
>> knows what we are dealing with. We could do this under the PAGES-CLIVAR
>> intersection umbrella to better ensure that the groups are held separate
>> and to give this a more official touch. Below a quick draft, we should
>> iterate on this and then contact people for the various groups.
>>
>> So long and have a good trip to Norway,
>> Caspar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here a very quick and simple structural draft we can work from: (all
>> comments welcome, no hesitations to shoot hard!)
>>
>>
>> Primary Goals:
>>
>> - cross-verification of various emulations of same reconstruction
>> technique using same input data
>> - comparison of skill at various time scales of different techniques if
>> fed with identical pseudo-proxy data
>> - sensitivities of hemispheric estimates to noise, network density
>> - identify skill of resolving regional climate anomalies
>> - isolate forced from unforced signal
>> - identify questionable, non-consistent proxies
>> - modelers try to identify climate parameters and noise structure over
>> calibration period from pseudo-proxies
>>
>>
>> Number of experiments:
>>
>> - available published runs
>> - available unpublished, or available reordered runs
>> - CORE EXPERIMENTS OF CHALLENGE: 1-3 brand new experiments
>> ^one experiment should look technically realistic: trend in
>> calibration, and relatively reasonable past (very different phasing)
>> ^one experiment should have no trend in calibration at all, but
>> quite accentuated variations before
>> ^...one could have relatively realistic structure but contains a
>> large landuse component (we could actually do some science here...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Pseudo-Proxies and "instrumental-data":
>>
>> - provide CRU-equivallent instrumental data (incl. some noise) that is
>> degrading in time
>> - provide annually resolved network of pseudo proxies ((we could even
>> provide a small set of ~5 very low resolution records with some
>> additional uncertainty in time))
>> - 2 networks: one "high" resolution (100 records), one "low" resolution
>> (20), though only one network available for any single model experiment
>> to avoid "knowledge-tuning", or through time separation: first 500-years
>> only low-red, then second 500-years with both.
>> - pseudo-proxies vary in representation in climate (temperature, precip,
>> combination), time (annual, seasonal) and space (grid-point, small region)
>>
>>
>>
>> Organization of three separate and isolated groups, and first steps:
>>
>> - Modeler group to decide on concept of target climates, forcing series.
>> Provide only network information to Proxy-Group (People? Ammann, Zorita,
>> Tett, Schmidt, Graham, Cobb, Goosse...).
>> - Pseudo-proxy group to decide on selection of networks, and
>> representation of individual proxies to mimic somewhat real world
>> situation, but develop significant noise (blue-white-red) concepts,
>> non-stationarity, and potential "human disturbance" (People? Brohan,
>> Schweingruber, Wolff, Thompson, Overpeck/Cole, Huybers, Anderson, ...).
>> - Reconstruction group getting ready for input file structures: netCDF
>> for "instrumental", ascii-raw series for pseudo-proxy series. Decide
>> common metrics and reconstruction targets given theoretical pseudo-proxy
>> network information. (People: everybody else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Direct science from this: (important!)
>>
>> - Forced versus internal variations in climate simulations (Modelers)
>> - Review and catalog of pseudo-proxy generation: Noise and stationarity
>> in climate proxy records, problems with potential human/land use
>> influence (Proxy Group)
>> - Detection methods and systematic uncertainty estimates (Reconstruction
>> Group)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Caspar and Christoph,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to let you know that:
>>>
>>> (1) I have emailed Simon Tett (for HadCM3) and Eduardo Zorita (for
>>> ECHO-G Erik-I, not sure about Erik-II) to ask if they would be
>>> prepared for surface temperature fields to be made available from
>>> their model runs and placed on a pseudo-proxy website for use in
>>> pseudo-proxy studies. I'll let you know their response.
>>>
>>> (2) In Wengen I suggested that Philip Brohan, a colleague of Simon
>>> Tett, might be interested in creating pseduo-proxies from the output
>>> of Caspar's secret model simulation, because of Philip's interest in
>>> statistical error models (e.g. in the error model he just published of
>>> the instrumental temperature record, HadCRUT3). I have emailed Philip
>>> to ask him if he would be interested. Again, I'll let you know his
>>> response.
>>>
>>> With regard to the "climate reconstruction challenge", Keith and I
>>> were wondering how it is going to be run. Obviously some kind of
>>> organising group would be useful to ensure it is designed to be as
>>> scientifically useful an experiment as possible. Yet there needs to
>>> be a clear distinction between provided experimental design advice
>>> (and things like convening EGU sessions) and having too much knowledge
>>> of the setup that would prevent such people from taking part in the
>>> challenge. Keith and I would be interested in the former, but would
>>> also like to keep our distance and take part in the challenge. I'm
>>> not sure that it was clear in Wengen exactly who is to organise this all.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>>> **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

--
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

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1151689605.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Val

Original Filename: 1152563768.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Henry Pollack <hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jason Smerdon <jsmerdon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Peck et al,

Thanks for your note about the Africa borehole reconstructions, along
with the correspondence with Jason Smerdon. In my e-mail to you on
April 18,2006 I had indicated that the African work was unpublished.
However, I had forgotten that the Nature paper by Huang, Pollack and
Shen (Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed
from borehole temperatures, Nature 403, pp xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000) actually
showed the reconstructions for both southern Africa and Australia as
bar graphs of century-long changes in Figure 3 of that paper. The
figure displaying both the Africa and Australia borehole
reconstructions that appears in the FAR draft (Figure 6.12? or was it
6.11?) shows temperature vs. time for five centuries, a display that
differs from the bar-graphs in the Nature paper only in format, not
data.

Inasmuch as there have been no additions to the datasets since that
paper, it seems that we can correctly say that the reconstructions for
southern Africa and Australia have both been published in the Nature
(2000) paper. There is nothing "wrong" or outdated with either of those
reconstructions. We have, in addition, a newer and more expansive paper
about Australia alone (discussing the same reconstruction as appeared
in the Nature paper), now in press in the Journal of Quaternary
Science. This paper was already mentioned in the e-mail of April 18,
2006, which I will paste at the end of this message.

Other questions?

Cheers,
Henry

___ ___ Henry N. Pollack
[ / ] Professor of Geophysics
| / | Department of Geological Sciences
|MICHIGAN| University of Michigan
[___]/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48xxx xxxx xxxx, U.S.A.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/
URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail of April 18, 2006:

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:26:xxx xxxx xxxx[04/18/2006 04:26:27 PM EDT]
From: Henry Pollack <hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>Add to Address book
(hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) United States
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC FAR draft
Headers: Show All Headers
Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein),

I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US
Global Change
Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This is the first
time I have seen
this product since we were feverishly exchanging e-mails in February.
Let me call to your
attention some small but not insignificant corrections to be made to
the next draft.

Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in
italics) should be
changed to "What do ground surface temperature reconstructions derived
from subsurface
temperature measurements tell us?"

Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press).
This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press",
and in the list
of references the citation should include the following:

J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578

Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern
hemisphere. The
sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing
in the 20th century
(Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" , and the reference therein, are both incorrect.

The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT
indicate unusually
warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in Australia and
southern Africa. This is
because the unusually warm conditions developed late in the century,
after most of the
boreholes had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction
for Australia does
show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al (2000)
reconstruction for Tasmania
and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for New Zealand. The Australia work is
described in a
manuscript

Original Filename: 1152909980.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Henry Pollack <hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi again Henry - I've attached an 1997 paper of your's and wonder if
you could shed some up-to-date insights on how to best interpret. In
particular:

1) it has been pointed out to us that the result in this paper argue
for a globally warm period during the middle Holocene that was warmer
than today. Our assessment (i.e., Figure 6.9) indicates that there
was likely no period during the Holocene that was warmer around the
global than the late 20th century. Especially outside of the tropics,
there were periods warmer than today during the Holocene, but these
regionally warm periods were not synchronous - at least at the
centennial scale we can examine with proxy data. Thus, although Huang
et al. 1997, indicates greater mean annual global warmth, it was
unlike the synchronous global warming of the late 20th century.

Plus, we believe the warmth of the Holocene was driven by orbital
forcing, and that what we see makes sense in that regard. Huang et
al, 1997 can be explained perhaps (this is a question) by the heavy
borehole coverage in the Northern mid- to high-latitudes? We also
know that proxy data shown in Fig 6.9 also indicate more warming
(again, not synchronous) in Southern Hem mid-latitudes - where there
are also many boreholes.

Obviously, another issue is that the boreholes don't give the same
temporal resolution as the other proxy records we
synthesized/assessed, and at least in your paper, there isn't
regional information either.

So - the point is not (unless you suggest otherwise) that Huang et al
97 is wrong, but rather than within the limits of the data, it is
compatible with what the higher-resolution, regionally-specific,
multi-proxy data are showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely no
period during the Holocene that was warmer synchronously around the
global than the during the late 20th century. Do you agree with this,
and is our reasoning accurate and complete?

2) Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for warmth within the last
xxx xxxx xxxxyears that was greater than during the 20th century AND a
cool minima 200 years ago. Both of these are highlighted in your
abstract, and both seem incompatible with other evidence. For
example, your own more recent work has shown the coolest temperatures
to be about 500 years ago.

We didn't think it was within our focus to comment on these issues,
but we are being asked to by reviewers, and it would be good to have
your help in addressing these issues - hopefully in our responses to
review comments rather than in our main text (which has to be
shortened).

Many thanks for your help with this paper and the issues it raises.

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:documents and settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachhuang1997GRLHoloceneBoreholes.pdf"

Original Filename: 1152912026.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, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: figure issues
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on
these issues yet:

1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on
feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and
corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add
the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have
everything needed for this figure revision?

2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about
our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the
bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from
me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have
become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for
what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which
conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!),
and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully
avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig,
and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly
vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen
to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers
focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I
think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming
we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show
the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion,
but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to
issue like divergence etc.

Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be
included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now.

Does this make sense?

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>