The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1152974217.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Smith, G. (Geoff) (SG)" <Geoff.Smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:36:57 +0800
Reply-to: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum <ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dr. Solomon,
It is not clear what makes the Wegman Committee Report in your opinion a
"new low". In scientific study, one part is clearly physical (growth
rates of trees, IR absorption, etc.) and a separate part is the
statistical treatment of the data.
Dr. Wegman's report is clearly focused on the latter. He is well
qualified to analyze statistical methods, as chair of the National
Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical
Statistics, and a board member of the American Statistical Association.
The conclusion of the Committee headed by Dr. Wegman is clear - the
statistical methods of MBH 98/99 cannot be relied upon to support the
claim that the 90's were the hottest decade of the past millennium. If
one wants to argue with Dr. Wegman's conclusion, it will be necessary to
show how he has misunderstood or misrepresented the statistical methods
used in those studies.
Obviously this does not prove that the 90's were not the hottest decade
of the past millennium, only that the MBH 98/99 analyses cannot be used
to support that claim, nothing more and nothing less.
Anyone interested in paleoclimatology in general, and dendrochronology
in particular, should read the recent NAS report and the Wegman
Committee Report (or in fact anyone interested in the use of statistics
in climatology).
Your last comment seems to reflect a belief that it is scurrilous to
"question unquestioned science". Wouldn't there seem to be a long
honored history of exactly this type of action, both before and after
Einstein? Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your remarks.
Geoff Smith
Singapore
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
[mailto:ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] On Behalf Of Allen M. Solomon
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:53 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
You also may want to look at a new "report" prepared for Barton by a
group
of statisticians regarding the hockey stick - this is going to be the
focus
of the hearing, in order to advertise it. It seems (to me) to be a new
low
in politics to have a "congressional report" generated specifically to
question unquestioned science.
-Al
Allen M Solomon, Ph.D.
National Program Leader, Global Change Research
USDA Forest Service
4th Floor, RPC
1601 North Kent St
Arlington VA 22209
allensolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
E&ENews PM
Friday, July 14, 2006
CLIMATE: New House report sets stage for another 'hockey stick' brawl
Lauren Morello, E&ENews PM reporter
Flawed statistics underlie the controversial "hockey stick" climate
analysis, according to a report released today by an ad hoc panel of
scientists assembled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The report contradicts a recent National Academy of Sciences study that
found the hockey stick analysis -- which concluded Earth has been warmer
over the last millennium than at any other point -- is largely correct.
Published in 1998 by the journal Nature, the hockey stick reconstructs
past
global average temperatures using data from corals, tree rings, ice
cores
and bore holes deep within the Earth -- the first to draw on multiple
sources of "proxy data" to sketch a picture of past climate.
The study includes a graph that shows Earth's average temperature
increasing
sharply during the 20th century, with an upward curve that resembles the
blade of a hockey stick. Often cited as evidence that human emissions
are
the dominant cause of rising global temperatures, the graph became
controversial after it appeared in a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate
Change report.
But the House Committee's ad hoc panel says the hockey stick's authors
relied on statistics that are pre-disposed to produce the hockey-stick
shape.
Claims by the hockey stick paper's authors of unprecedented global
warming
during the 20th century "cannot be supported by [the] analysis," the
panel
concluded.
The Energy and Commerce Committee -- whose chairman, Rep. Joe Barton
(R-Texas), is a leading Capitol Hill critic of the hockey-stick study --
has
scheduled a hearing next week on the ad hoc panel's conclusions.
In June 2005, Barton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Chairman
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) launched a probe into scientific and financial
records
of climatologists who created the graph -- Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
State University, Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts and
Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona (Greenwire, July 18, 2005).
That prompted a rare show of public infighting between Barton and
Whitfield
and House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who
asked
the National Academy of Sciences to examine the validity of the hockey
stick
and similar climate reconstructions (Greenwire, June 23).
Click here to view the House panel report.
Click here to view the National Academy of Sciences report.
Click here to view the hockey stick paper [Nature subscription
required].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Want more stories like this every day? Sign up for a free trial and get
the
best environmental and energy policy coverage available. Go to
http://www.eenews.net/trial/
Watch OnPoint every day to see interviews with key environment and
energy
policy makers. Go to http://www.eande.tv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC
E&E DAILY -- GREENWIRE -- E&ENews PM -- LAND LETTER -- E&ETV
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Copyright 2006 http://www.eenews.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
>I thought I'd pass this on since tree-ring data and their use in
> reconstructing past climates are central to the controversy. I wonder
if
> any attention will be paid to the recently released NRC report on
climate
> over the past 2,000 years, or in a forthcoming paper in Climate Change
> that
> finds the method used to obtain the hockey stick reasonably robust.
>
> Dave
>
> -- here's my note posted to two journalism lists --
>
> It looks like Joe Barton will get all the climate uncertainty sorted
out
> on
> Wednesday, June 19, at 10 a.m. He will be holding a hearing called
> "Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies:
> Implications
> for Climate Change Assessments." The hearing will focus on the
notorious
> "hockey stick" graph indicating that the temperatures in the latter
part
> of
> the 20th century were higher than at any time in the last millennium.
>
> I doubt there will be more light than heat, but the hearing will be
> interesting to watch, if anything. The hearing can be watched live
via
> the
> Internet.
>
> For more information:
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1989.htm
>
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing
.htm
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David M. Lawrence | Home: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
>
Original Filename: 1153139501.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: draft of EOS piece
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
Thanks, please comment on the attached version which incorporated all
other comments received.
thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> just back from holiday - can you send me latest draft and I will
> comment asap on it - somewhat confused re where we are with others -
> or should I just comment immediately on the one you sent?
> Keith
>
> At 16:36 12/07/2006, you wrote:
>
>> thanks very much Guys,
>>
>> will await comments from Keith and Heinz (?), prepare one last
>> version, and then submit...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Caspar Ammann wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>> here also a few thoughts and edits from me (in-between kids waking
>>> up, dressing, feeding, etc.)
>>> Caspar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2006, at 6:18 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Christoph,
>>>> Awainting comments from others.
>>>>
>>>> Caspar: any comments on our discussion of the challenge?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> Christoph Kull wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> Thanks Mike for this report.
>>>>> I made a few edits / suggestions - it's up to you to decide on them.
>>>>> Hopefully Caspar can also provide some input.
>>>>> We will be ready to communicate the weblink for the challenge by
>>>>> end of this
>>>>> week. I will let you know....
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern,
>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10.07.2006 19:57, "Michael E. Mann"
>>>>> <mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx><mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Keith/Phil/Christoph/Thorsten/Heinz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is a draft meeting report for EOS. Rather than re-invent
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> wheel, I have followed closely the PAGES newsletter piece, but have
>>>>>> expanded on certain points as appropriate for the broader EOS
>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>> I've also included Caspar. Though not a member of the PAGES/CLIVAR
>>>>>> intersection working group, I want to get his feedback too,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> on the discussion of the "PR Challenge".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word limit for an Eos meeting piece is 1500 words, we're
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> about 200 words under. So there is room for small additions or
>>>>>> expansions of key points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please send me any suggested changes/additions/etc. or, if you
>>>>>> have none
>>>>>> simply indicate that you are happy with it as is, and happy to
>>>>>> lend your
>>>>>> name to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <EosMeetingReport-kedit.doc>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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:eudoraattachEosMeetingReportFinal.doc"
Original Filename: 1153163328.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: new fig 6.14
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:08:48 +0100
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat,
I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel
showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e
panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen them already.
First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat)
can check that what I did was appropriate:
(1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing
from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it.
(2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I took
the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I
took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609,
and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I
smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line
is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though
that is what was used in the model runs.
(3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the first,
I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the
"standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three
options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative
forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data
from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing. For the
second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the
natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as in
fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all
other forcings", because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high
smoothing results in lower final values when there is a strong trend
at the end of a time series).
Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and
refer to them when reading this):
(1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and
me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps
with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and
cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this
considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because
with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and
also reduce the range of the vertical axes.
(2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made
'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the
sum of all the forcings in the top panel.
Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make final
changes only to the preferred version.
Some more comments:
(1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that
figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the
overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was
only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC
panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It will be a bit
of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b.
(2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the
time range of all panels had to match (xxx xxxx xxxx). Now that the EMICs
are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is
when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want 6.13 and
6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide.
(3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In
option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I
chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings
from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in
"all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar
forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown runs
used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. Sound ok?
Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to
avoid too many iterations.
Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on
any other aspects of the new figure.
Cheers
Tim
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachchap6_f6.14_option1.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachchap6_f6.14_option2.pdf"
<x-flowed>
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
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1153167959.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon Jul 17 16:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all,
I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures out to you probably
tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & Mann and suggested by
Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it published properly? I've seen the last 700
years of the Law Dome 18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
1300 AD? That period appears in:
Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: xxx xxxx xxxx
and
Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and southwest Pacific regions
since 1300 AD
CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): xxx xxxx xxxxJUL 2004
See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.10.
1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
yes
2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
yes
3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in Fig
6.13
yes
4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
panel
yes
5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all are too small. You can
figure out the best size by reducing figs to likely page size minus margins. We guess
the captions need to be bigger by a couple increments at least.
yes
Figure 6.11.
1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to determine if S. African
boreholes need to be removed.
I think Henry said they were published and could stay
Figure 6.12
1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates it's still not
published.
I think Henry said they could stay.
2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is investigating, but perhaps
Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie
on this too, as she seems to know these data at least a little
Already discussed above.
3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - probably better to
use bold fonts
You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to small size, the non-bold
actually read more clearly than the bold, I think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's
not possible to completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide might be
scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure size, so will make a good guess.
Should be ok.
Figure 6.13
1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The first is 100% Tim's
fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing 6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in?
1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 and 12 - please use
bold fonts.
ok, as discussed above.
2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the addition of a new forcings
panel "a" on top of the existing panel e (which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim
and Fortunat have to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for Fortunat to give Tim
data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a figure that matches the other figs he's
doing. PLEASE NOTE that this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to
be more compact to permit its inclusion.
done.
Cheers
Tim
Original Filename: 1153172761.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Cooke, Barry" <bcooke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum <ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
"Non-independence" of reconstructions and "worthlessness" of the hockey
stick model were raised as separate issues.
If the worth of a model is measured by its ability to predict, then a
model that explains 0.5% of the variation in some variable is fairly
(but not necessarily completely) "worthless". Surely, one hopes for
better. Especially where consensus is required.
The proxy data on which multi-proxy reconstructions are based may be
statistically independent, but the reconstructions themselves are not.
This is not because of any lack of "independence" (i.e. objectivity)
among networked researchers, but a measurable fact of arithemtic. To the
extent that multi-proxy reconstructions are built on the same proxy
data, they are statistically non-independent (i.e. correlated).
i.e. It's not the non-independence that make the model worthless. It's
the uncertainty.
On your last point of social networks, try a Google search of 'Exxon
Secrets'. The difference between a ruling orthodoxy and a scientific
network is not the degree of connectivity, but the mode of governance:
coercion & inculcation vs. facts & reason (including statistical
inference). Be wary of any science that loathes statistics or resents
external investigation. That's the start of rot.
If Wegman et al. are suggesting that statisticians should be put to work
to serve the interests of paleoclimatologists (which they are), then who
on this list is going to argue that? I say let's put them to work!
Barry Cooke
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
[mailto:ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:43 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
>Maryanne's message further claims that the "characterization of the
>hockey stick as 'worthless' underscores what appears to be a basic lack
>of understanding of how scientific consensus is formed". Yet if a
>consensus is based on invalid statistical analysis, then the consensus
>is wrong.
To explain my point (and my apologies to those to whom this is obvious):
it would not be unprecedented for a scientific consensus to be wrong.
However, there is also ample precedent for papers containing flaws
(which virtually all do, if somebody looks hard enough, or has the
misfortune of having the resources of Congress devoted to finding them)
to have constructive influence on debate. To take an example from
history, many of Charles Darwin's observations are pure amateurish
nonsense by the standards of even the late 19th century, but no one
would doubt their value in building the consensus for evolution. The
question is not always strict veracity, but whether work provokes
fruitful questions, or leads research in a constructive direction. (By
the way, this is not to take a position on the Wegman judgement on the
MBH papers).
>Dave's message further claims that there are multiple "independent
>lines of evidence" for the hockey stick. The Wegman report discusses
>this claim. See especially p.46-47, which cite twelve different
>studies and concludes that those studies "cannot really claim to be
>independent".
This part of the report is more precious than useful. In most empirical
fields, leading primary investigators have linkages--nothing unusual
about that. We could construct similar matrices of social networks in
physics, biology, statistics. That doesn't mean the works produced in
physics, biology or statistical theory are "worthless". A similar point
can be made about different investigators using the same proxy data. In
fact, isn't it one of the recommendations of the Wegman report that the
paleoclimate community share data more effectively? Seems that if that
recommendation was followed, certain statisticians would have even more
occasion to complain of a lack of true independence. Seems these poor
climate experts can't win!
Wouldn't it be interesting to see a "social network" matrix--or a
funding matrix--between those the scientists, statisticians,
Congressional Republicans, and oil companies most passionate about
"debunking" global climate change?
Dr. Maryanne W. Newton
Research Associate
Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern
Dendrochronology Cornell University
Original Filename: 1153186426.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Tim et al (especially Valerie) - again, sorry for the confusion,
but hopefully the emails sent and forwarded from Valerie and me this
evening helps figure this out. I think we're going with borehole for
Law Dome, but you guys need to confirm it's the way to go. I'm cc'ing
to Valerie in the hope she can try to provide more guidance in this -
with a confirmation that it's the best way to go and will stand up to
criticism. If we have multiple conflicting temp recons from Law Dome,
and one can't be shown from the literature as being the best, then we
should state that, and show neither - just an idea. BUT, I think
Valerie was pretty sure the borehole was best. She should be more
available in a day or so.
Thanks all, cheers, Peck
>Hi all,
>
>I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>
>I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it
>published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome
>18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period
>since 1300 AD? That period appears in:
>
>Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
>ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>and
>
>Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): xxx xxxx xxxxJUL 2004
>
>See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>
>At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Figure 6.10.
>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>
>yes
>
>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>
>yes
>
>>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>
>yes
>
>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>color) in the bottom panel
>
>yes
>
>>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>bigger by a couple increments at least.
>
>yes
>
>>Figure 6.11.
>>
>>1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>
>I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>
>>Figure 6.12
>>
>>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>it's still not published.
>
>I think Henry said they could stay.
>
>>2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>she seems to know these data at least a little
>
>Already discussed above.
>
>>3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>probably better to use bold fonts
>
>You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to
>small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to
>completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure
>size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok.
>
>>Figure 6.13
>>
>>1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>
>Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in?
>
>>1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>
>ok, as discussed above.
>
>>2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have
>>to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
>>and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that
>>this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be
>>more compact to permit its inclusion.
>
>done.
>
>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
--
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: 1153232546.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: new fig 6.14
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my
computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding
got cleared up.
Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab
at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can
clarify.
1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc,
higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his
usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's
ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a
chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really
would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or
whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the
more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and
also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting
the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This
last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw
data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the
TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks
that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the
caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated
for plotting purposes" or something like that.
2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all
of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim.
Otherwise, it will be too confusing.
3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the
scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in
order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed
forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to
have them all proportional in this fig.
Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the
ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's
mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok -
we get serious play in the TS.
Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you
want to provide some options, that's fine.
Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as
brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report.
thanks all! 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>
Original Filename: 1153232841.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Cooke, Barry" <bcooke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [ITRDBFOR] Wegman on calibrating response functions
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum <ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
That may be "the point" that you're choosing to focus on. My point,
quite apart from yours, is that (1) there were oversights in MBH98, (2)
that paper appears to have been rushed to publication, (3) M&M03 appear
to have been shunned by the scientific review process, (4) Wegman et al.
have got a couple of good points on the statistics of tree-ring
calibration worthy of discussion, (5) the issue of calibration error
cuts to the core of the debate, as it is what underlies the breadth of
the confidence envelope around the hockey stick during the MWP. You
criticize their analysis of the MBH98 social network, but what do you
make of their more substantive argument regarding errors in calibration
response functions?
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
[mailto:ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:28 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
At 05:46 PM 7/17/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Barry Cooke wrote:
>The proxy data on which multi-proxy reconstructions are based may be
>statistically independent, but the reconstructions themselves are not.
>This is not because of any lack of "independence" (i.e. objectivity)
>among networked researchers, but a measurable fact of arithemtic. To
>the extent that multi-proxy reconstructions are built on the same proxy
>data, they are statistically non-independent (i.e. correlated).
Fair enough. But I believe the point (or at least the implication) is
being made that these networked researchers are failing to adequately
review the work of their peers. It would also be naive not to expect
that Mr. Barton and the political wing of the "Climate science is bunk"
crowd will use those connects to argue for the "worthlessness" of most
everything produced by the network. (Note the recent public comments by
Senator Inhofe).
Dr. Maryanne W. Newton
Research Associate
Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern
Dendrochronology Cornell University
Original Filename: 1153233036.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Law Dome figure
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends - your suggestion to
leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of
course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity
clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the
response to "expert" review comments (sometimes,
it is hard to use that term "expert"...).
Ricardo, Tim and Keith - can you take care of
this please. Nice resolution, thanks.
best, Peck
>Hi all,
>
>(1) Jones/Mann showed (and Mann/Jones used in
>their reconstruction) an isotope record from Law
>Dome that is probably O18 (they say "oxygen
>isotopes"). This has a "cold" present-day and
>"warm" MWP (indeed relatively "warm" throughout
>the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod). The review comments from
>sceptics wanted us to show this for obvious
>reasons. But its interpretation is ambiguous
>and I think (though I'm not certain) that it has
>been used to indicate atmospheric circulation
>changes rather than temperature changes by some
>authors (Souney et al., JGR, 2002).
>
>(2) Goosse et al. showed Deuterium excess as an
>indicator of Southern Ocean SST (rather than
>local temperature). Goosse et al. also showed a
>composite of 4 Antarctic ice core records (3
>deuterium, 1 O18). Neither of these comes up to
>the 20th century making plotting on the same
>scale as observed temperature rather tricky!
>
>(3) Dahl-Jensen showed the temperatures obtained
>by inverting the borehole temperature profiles.
>This has a colder MWP relative to the recent
>period, which shows strong recent warming.
>
>I have data from (1) and now from (3) too, but
>not from (2) though I could ask Hugues Goosse
>for (2). Anyway, (1) and (2) aren't calibrated
>reconstructions like the others in the Southern
>Hemisphere figure, so plotting them would alter
>the nature of the figure.
>
>But if we show only (3) then we will be accused
>of (cherry-)picking that (and not showing (1) as
>used by Mann/Jones) because it showed what we
>wanted/expected.
>
>Can I, therefore, leave the SH figure unchanged
>and can we just discuss the Law Dome ambiguities
>in the text?
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 02:41 18/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim, Ricardo and Keith - Valerie just
>>reminded me that she sent this to us all (minus
>>Tim) back in June. There is plenty below for
>>discussion in the text, and the Law Dome
>>borehole data can be obtained at the site below
>>(http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side95613.htm). This is
>>the record that should be added to the SH
>>figure.
>>
>>Thanks, Peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:44:50 +0200
>>>From: Val
Original Filename: 1153254016.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: new fig 6.14
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:20:16 +0200
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
Thanks.
My concerns comes from the following. I am not convinced that one gets
the same response when forcing a model with smoothed volcanic forcing
instead with the spikes. I suspect that the ocean will gain more heat in
the later case due to the longer time to respond to the forcing.
However, this remains to be tested, but nobody has done this as far as I
know. In other words, postprocessing the output of a model forced with
high resolution data does not necessarily give the same results as
forcing the model with smoothed input. There is a chance to get
different results. That is why I prefer to show the real forcing, i.e.
the volcanic spikes. As long as nobody has done such tests run I would
prefer to be scientifically on the save side with the figure. Sorry, but
this is my modellers view on this.
Forcings do not need to be on the same scale here. We know that
temporarily volcanic forcing, albeit negative, is much larger than
anthropogenic forcing. Why should we hide this well-know fact? Sceptics
my call on this. Readers of our chapter are hopefully able to interpret
the y-axis.
The TS-team (in this case neither me nor Peck) asked us to show the
volcanic spikes.
A point of the figure is to show the implication of low solar forcing
(WLS versus Bard) that is why I prefer to blow the solar panel somewhat
up. We have varied solar forcing between the different runs. Of course
the point about the natural forcing only simulation not able to get the
20th century warming is very important. Indeed, I believe that this
important conclusion is underscoored if we make it very clear that we
have varied solar forcing over a wide range (by a factor of 3).
It would also be nice to show the 11-yr solar cycle that is in the data
(sun spots, but also 14C).
As far as normalisation of the forcing is concerned. I have no strong
opinion. There is a consistency issue with chapter 2 where radiative
forcing is always defined relative to 1750 (1750==0). This point may
especially be important for the TS. There is also the issue about
agreement over recent decades. This is why I slightly prefer to
normalize the forcing to be zero around 1750.
The sulfur figure will show volcanic spikes. We have agreed in Bergen
that we add a sentence to the caption to point out that sulfate
deposition may strongly vary regionally.
I think we have with fig 13 and 14 now the opportunity to convey to the
readers the same information in two different ways. Perhaps, we should
not miss this opportunity. In any case, we will find a solution and then
go forward.
Cheers, Fortunat
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Fortunat et al
> My opinions were consistent with Tim's expression - we discussed his
> response. The importance of consistency between different modelling
> Figures ( time response of filters and in the absolute magnitude of
> forcing scale) are the most important aspects. To start showing
> apparently different volcanic spikes (in the sulphate and EMIC Figure )
> will lead to confusion also. Ultimately we should remember that the
> point of this Figure is to show that you can not get simulated
> temperatures to match observations without anthropogenic forcing - not
> to show proportional responses to different solar or volcanic events.
> cheers
> Keith
>
> At 13:45 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of
>> words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I
>> do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all
>> your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time
>> consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not
>> reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I wanted to say
>> is that if one has the opportunity to show directly what forcing was
>> used by the model than I very much prefer to do so. I hope there
>> remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used
>> more modest wording at various places.
>>
>> Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it.
>>
>> With best wishes, Fortunat
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat.
>>> I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the
>>> approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13).
>>> This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation
>>> period for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to
>>> interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it does,
>>> because the zero (or "normal" level) is comparable across plots and
>>> because the strengths of different forcings can be compared *on the
>>> same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are shown. And, for
>>> 6.13, with so many different forcings and models shown, it would have
>>> been impossible to use unsmoothed series without making the
>>> individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed fitting them into such
>>> a compact figure).
>>> Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do
>>> have the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But I
>>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional
>>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to
>>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13
>>> probably also hold in 6.14.
>>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat,
>>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude
>>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency
>>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period
>>> removes the interpretation that we don't even know the forcing today.
>>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different
>>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these
>>> competing demands.
>>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's
>>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically
>>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of
>>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then
>>> presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish
>>> all the different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to
>>> every other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated
>>> temperatures without smoothing too, so you can see the individual
>>> yearly responses to the volcanic spikes? But annual means are formed
>>> from the temperatures simulated on the model timesteps, so we still
>>> wouldn't be showing results that had not been post-processed. Most
>>> climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that
>>> the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the
>>> response to smooth forcing. So if we are interested in the
>>> temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems
>>> entirely appropriate (and better for interpretation/comparison of
>>> forcings) to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the
>>> forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving
>>> the temperature response (even though the forcing may be intermittent
>>> like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar).
>>> The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to
>>> do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice
>>> that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here
>>> our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than
>>> response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle.
>>> So the position is:
>>> (1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices,
>>> though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing.
>>> I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw
>>> annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck
>>> requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale
>>> brown underneath the smoothed brown solar series). This would be a
>>> compromise but the main problem is that the scale of the largest
>>> volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale I am using to show the
>>> smoothed series (so the panel is not large enough to do this)!
>>> (2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period:
>>> again there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I
>>> firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure
>>> (which can make a dramatic difference).
>>> (3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this
>>> is the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no reason to
>>> exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or
>>> anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the forcings looks
>>> clear enough in the version of the figure that I made. Exaggerating
>>> it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger
>>> than the anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than
>>> volcanic forcing.
>>> I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made
>>> on these issues.
>>> Cheers
>>> Tim
>>> At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim and co,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results
>>>> and the general outline/graphic style.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was
>>>> used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic
>>>> forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file.
>>>> Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something
>>>> post-processed.
>>>>
>>>> 2) solar panel:
>>>> 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original
>>>> resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also
>>>> illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison
>>>> with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the
>>>> 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality.
>>>> 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as
>>>> they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model.
>>>> 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in
>>>> my figure version)
>>>> 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences.
>>>> So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to
>>>> volcanic and other forcings.
>>>>
>>>> 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard
>>>> to defend a double smoothing.
>>>>
>>>> 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the
>>>> different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we
>>>> may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today.
>>>> Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all
>>>> solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached
>>>> version. However, I also can see some arguments for other
>>>> normalisations.
>>>>
>>>> To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version
>>>> of the forcing panel.
>>>>
>>>> other points
>>>>
>>>> - Your choice of colors is fine
>>>> - time range 1xxx xxxx xxxxAD is fine
>>>> - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did
>>>> not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any
>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Fortunat
>>>>
>>>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat,
>>>>> I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new
>>>>> panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig
>>>>> 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has
>>>>> seen them already.
>>>>> First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat)
>>>>> can check that what I did was appropriate:
>>>>> (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing
>>>>> from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before
>>>>> plotting it.
>>>>> (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I
>>>>> took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the
>>>>> second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from
>>>>> 1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to
>>>>> 1998. Then I smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the
>>>>> Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't
>>>>> realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs.
>>>>> (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the
>>>>> first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then
>>>>> used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of
>>>>> the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to
>>>>> a radiative forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative
>>>>> forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative
>>>>> forcing. For the second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the
>>>>> 1765 value (for the natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the
>>>>> combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year
>>>>> smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because it is
>>>>> fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in lower
>>>>> final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time
>>>>> series).
>>>>> Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and
>>>>> refer to them when reading this):
>>>>> (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith
>>>>> and me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which
>>>>> helps with understanding the individual causes of specific warming
>>>>> and cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this
>>>>> considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because
>>>>> with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and
>>>>> also reduce the range of the vertical axes.
>>>>> (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made
>>>>> 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the
>>>>> sum of all the forcings in the top panel.
>>>>> Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make
>>>>> final changes only to the preferred version.
>>>>> Some more comments:
>>>>> (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that
>>>>> figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict
>>>>> the overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions
>>>>> was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to
>>>>> the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It
>>>>> will be a bit of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in
>>>>> 6.14b.
>>>>> (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that
>>>>> the time range of all panels had to match (xxx xxxx xxxx). Now that the
>>>>> EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000,
>>>>> which is when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want
>>>>> 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide.
>>>>> (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In
>>>>> option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I
>>>>> chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings
>>>>> from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in
>>>>> "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar
>>>>> forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown
>>>>> runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing.
>>>>> Sound ok?
>>>>> Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained
>>>>> to avoid too many iterations.
>>>>> Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or
>>>>> on any other aspects of the new figure.
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Climate and Environmental Physics,
>> Physics Institute, University of Bern
>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>> Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1153273819.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: Huang, et al GRL 24, 1997
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:50: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>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Henry - excellent feedback, thanks. I think it
should be easy for Valerie (Holocene issues in
6.5) and Keith/Tim.Ricardo (last 2k, section 6.6)
to deal with the 'expert' review issues regarding
this paper. It sounds to me like that is the
place for discussion of this paper, rather than
in the text itself. BUT, it is important that the
responses to review comments be thorough and
convincing - Valerie and Keith - please update
your responses in this respect.
thanks all, Peck
>Hi Peck and others,
>
>Attached is a brief discussion of the subject
>paper and the questions you have asked me to
>address. Let me know if you need additional
>clarification.
>
>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
>
>
>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>:
>
>>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/
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:GRL 1997.doc (WDBN/
Original Filename: 1153314389.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
David - can you comment, help? thx, Peck
>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne
>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:51:05 +0200
>From: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Organization: University of Bern
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>Cc: Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
>
>
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Fortunat - Glad you're on this, and thanks for helping us get it
>>right. I agree we need assurance from Chap 2 (David, can you make
>>sure we've got it) that the deleted issues are, indeed, covered in
>>Chap 2.
>
>In particular, I am not sure that chap 2 covers the Solanki et al. issue
>
>>
>>thanks again, Peck
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>and not just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).
>>>
>>>The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the
>>>evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in
>>>general much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6
>>>statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links
>>>nicely to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen
>>>delete the other parts if chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I
>>>have not done so in my revision as I wanted to hear what chap 2 is
>>>doing before deleting.
>>>
>>>Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also
>>>squezzed out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress!
>>>
>>>Regards, Fortunat
>>>
>>>David Rind wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need
>>>>to keep is:
>>>>
>>>>P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. xxx xxxx xxxxthe
>>>>first paragraph (lines 2-7).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
>>>>
>>>>Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much
>>>>overlap, and Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it
>>>>would be useful to keep what's there, adding just a reference to
>>>>Chapter 2 (add: "see also Chapter 2", at the end of line 26).
>>>>(I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still includes the solar and
>>>>volcanic forcing).
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone,
>>>>>even if they live in Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be
>>>>>making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that
>>>>>we can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic
>>>>>forcing down to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what
>>>>>they will not cover that we should (i.e., looking at section
>>>>>6.6)?
>>>>>
>>>>>Many thanks, Peck
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work
>>>>>>sooner! (regardless of the time difference).]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is discussed below is basically what we thought in
>>>>>>response to Gavin's comment - that we would basically
>>>>>>cross-reference chap 2, where the primary discussion would
>>>>>>occur. It's consistent with chapter 2's general discussion of
>>>>>>how forcings have changed over time, and would seem odd if
>>>>>>chapter 2 left out past solar and volcanic forcing. Chapter 2
>>>>>>should feel free to utilize anything that existed in Chapter 6
>>>>>>on these issues to complement their discussion, if the need
>>>>>>arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make the
>>>>>>proper cross-references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and
>>>>>>>David Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we
>>>>>>>kept things covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and
>>>>>>>volcanic discussions in chap 6. The key will be
>>>>>>>cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, Keith, Ricardo and
>>>>>>>David - please interact to figure out how to work this
>>>>>>>efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at
>>>>>>>work sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks... Best, Peck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi all!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In comment xxx xxxx xxxx, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>6.6.3.1 Solar forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same
>>>>>>>>topics. I checked
>>>>>>>>Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD)
>>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin
>>>>>>>>suggests that only
>>>>>>>>the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter
>>>>>>>>and leave the
>>>>>>>>most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
>>>>>>>>section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the
>>>>>>>>sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ricardo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7 Natural Forcings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1 Solar Variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by volcanic
>>>>>>>>aerosols
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>>>>>To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>; "Keith Briffa"
>>>>>>>><k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>>>>>Cc: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Ricardo Villalba"
>>>>>>>><ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "joos" <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>>>>>>>>> out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>>>>>>>>> Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it
>>>>>>>>> published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 18O
>>>>>>>>> record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
>>>>>>>>> 1300 AD? That period appears in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>>>>>>>>> A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical
>>>>>>>>>climate variability
>>>>>>>>> ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>>>>>>>>> Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>>>>>>>>> southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>>>>>>>>> CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): xxx xxxx xxxxJUL 2004
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.10.
>>>>>>>>> >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>>>>>>>> >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>>>>>>>> >color) in the bottom panel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>>>>>>>> >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>>>>>> >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>>>>>>>> >bigger by a couple increments at least.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.11.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>>>>>>>> >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.12
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>>>>>>>> >it's still not published.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Henry said they could stay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>>>>>>>> >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>>>>>>>> >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>>>>>>>> >she seems to know these data at least a little
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Already discussed above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>>>>>>>> >probably better to use bold fonts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to
>>>>>>>>> small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>>>>>>>>> think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to
>>>>>>>>> completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>>>>>>>>> might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure
>>>>>>>>> size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.13
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>>>>>>>> >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>>>>>>>> >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>>>>>>>> >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should
>>>>>>>>>keep old ECHO-G
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>>>>>>>> >and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, as discussed above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>>>>>>>> >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>>>>>>>> >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have to
>>>>>>>>> >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) and
>>>>>>>>> >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>>>>>>>> >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>>>>>>>> >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that this
>>>>>>>>> >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>>>>>>>>> >compact to permit its inclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>> Climate and Environmental Physics,
>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern
>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>>> Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
> Climate and Environmental Physics,
> Physics Institute, University of Bern
> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
--
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: 1153339440.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: new figs 6.11 and 6.12
Date: Wed Jul 19 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Here's the new 6.11 and 6.12. Very few changes necessary.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.11.
1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to determine if S. African
boreholes need to be removed.
It turned out that these could stay. All I've done is to add some white latitude/longitude
lines.
Figure 6.12
1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates it's still not
published.
Not necessary.
2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is investigating, but perhaps
Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie
on this too, as she seems to know these data at least a little
We decided not to do this, but to discuss in the text instead.
3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - probably better to
use bold fonts
Fonts are bigger. Decided to standardise on non-bold fonts for all these plots.
Cheers
Tim
Original Filename: 1153406000.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Tim - Thanks. If you don't mind, let's see
what the new grey in panel c, and also the 5-95%
range on a. Also, another alternative to the grey
and red could be some other color that is just
less bright - perhaps blue?
Agree there is no reason to switch the reviewed
panel c uncertainty approach. It argues a bit
that we leave panel a as is too. I'm unsure what
is best, so maybe see what Keith thinks too - and
discuss more with Phil - he is right that most
are trying to go with xxx xxxx xxxxwhere possible.
Thanks again.
>Hi again,
>
>I still have the red option built into the
>program, so can easily revert to it. Of course
>the grey has the advantage of consistency with
>the model and EMIC panels, which really must be
>grey so that all the coloured lines indicating
>the simulated temperatures will show up (red
>isn't really an option for the reconstruction
>shading in those figures). I'll see if I can
>make it clearer yet keep it in grey.
>
>On a different note, Phil Jones just popped in
>and said why are we using "+-2SE" shading in the
>top instrumental panel when it has apparently
>been decided to show the smaller 5-95% range (he
>says this is only 0.8225 times the +-2SE range)
>in all IPCC WG1 figures. Shall I change this?
>If I do, then the brown and orange curves will
>fall outside this narrower range more often than
>they fall outside the current wider SE range.
>
>The grey shading in panel (c) is also computed
>from the overlap of the +-1 SE and +-2 SE ranges
>of individual reconstructions, but I guess this
>can stay unchanged, rather than needing to be
>recalculated using the overlap of the ?-?% and
>5-95% ranges?
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 16:05 19/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim - thanks! Now I can see why you went
>>with the red rather than grey in the bottom
>>panel - it's hard to see. I'd like to float the
>>idea with everyone on the email that we
>>consider going back to red, or try something
>>else. All else is good (thanks) perhaps make
>>the bottom/top axis labels bigger still? (both
>>numbers and "Year").
>>
>>Thx again, Peck
>>
>>>Hi Peck et al.,
>>>
>>>revised fig 6.10 is attached.
>>>
>>>At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>Figure 6.10.
>>>>
>>>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>
>>>It was already shaded. Your poor old eyes must be failing you ;-)
>>>
>>>Ok, so it *was* rather pale! I've made it a bit darker.
>>>
>>>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>3. replace the red shaded region in the
>>>>bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in
>>>>Fig 6.13
>>>
>>>Done - how does it look now? I had to outline
>>>the instrumental series with a narrow white
>>>band to ensure it could be seen against the
>>>very dark grey shading.
>>>
>>>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the
>>>>grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
>>>>panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and
>>>>axis labeling - all are too small. You can
>>>>figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>likely page size minus margins. We guess the
>>>>captions need to be bigger by a couple
>>>>increments at least.
>>>
>>>Increased the axis numbering/labelling by a couple of points.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10.pdf (PDF /
Original Filename: 1153424011.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: pseudo-proxies for the climate reconstruction challenge
Date: Thu Jul 20 15:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I should also say, Caspar, that I've not forwarded any documents to Philip yet with more
details about the challenge. I thought that you should do that instead, because you will
have (more likely) kept track of where the latest version is.
Cheers
Tim
--------------------
Hi Caspar,
I forgot to forward to you Philip Brohan's positive response to my invitation for him to be
involved in the production of pseudo-proxy and pseudo-instrumental data for the climate
reconstruction challenge.
It is copied below and you can find his contact details below too.
Best wishes
Tim
From: philip.brohan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: pseudo-proxies for the climate reconstruction challenge
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:08:54 +0100
Hi Tim.
Thanks for your notes from the workshop. It sounds both interesting and
very positive - I was afraid that the relations between the participants
would break down completely, but you've clearly made good progress.
I think a blind test of reconstruction methods is an excellent idea,
and I'm happy to support it in any capacity. I've done this before with
nuclear fuel performance models, and the results were both alarming and
instructive. Doing it properly won't be easy though, I think several
different stretches of model simulation will be required.
So yes - volunteer me to Caspar (or the organising committee) to make
pseudo-proxy and pseudo-instrumental data.
Philip
On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 16:48, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Philip (cc Simon & Keith),
>
> Please read my report-back from Wengen workshop first. You'll see
> that a "climate reconstruction challenge" was suggested and that this
> would be a "blind" test where participating groups would not know
> what the real answer is.
>
> Caspar Ammann would provide and keep secret a suitable model
> simulation. But we discussed who should make the pseudo-proxy data
> from the model output. I wondered whether you (Philip) would be
> interested in this, given your experience with the instrumental error
> model and interest in statistical models for proxy error. What do
> you think of this idea, Philip? A number of proxy people, including
> us, might liaise with you about how such an error model might be
> structured, but ultimately we would not be allowed to know precise
> details about how you generated a set of pseudo-proxies otherwise we
> wouldn't be allowed to take part in the challenge ourselves.
>
> Would you be interested in participating in this "challenge" in this
> way, and have time to do so? It would preclude you from entering the
> challenge of course.
>
> Please let me know and I will liaise with whoever else is involved in
> organising this challenge (at least Caspar, but it's not yet clear who else).
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
--
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
References
1. http://www.hadobs.org/
Original Filename: 1153470204.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: confidential
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Keith:
I hope you are well in all this!!
I have done my best this evening to digest the issues you asked me to look at, and to give perspective on them. Here is what I can offer at this point.
1) Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer's comments per se. These are coded in blue and are in the "Notes" column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive. It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days. [The idea is that this would accompany the Wahl-Ammann article, to summarize and amplify on it -- given all the proper and non-proper interpretation WA has received and the need for subsequent analysis that WA only lightly touches on. Steve Schneider is aware that it is coming.] I think a read through this, especially the part on PCs and Bristlecones, can say about all I might offer additionally. It is not lengthy.
Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially -- it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission. However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH. As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way.
2) I have added a brief suggested alteration to page 6-3 of the draft text you sent, to take into account the fact Wahl-Ammann decidely settles the issue concerning how proxy PC calculations impact the MBH style reconstruction. These changes are encoded using WORD's "Track Changes" feature.
I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten. You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. "examinations" of MBH. Thinking further, the "Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit" and "Amplitude Issues" sections might also be well worth a look. The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area. (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic -- McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.) He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper--and indeed in all his efforts--write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to. I hope what we have written can help you in this way. I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also.
Finally, note also that I corrected the reference to Wahl, Ritson, Ammann (Wahl et al., 2006) on page 6-6, and put the correct publication information in the reference section.
I hope this all helps. I would be happy to do my best to answer any further questions you might have.
All the best, and Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
xxx xxxx xxxx
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802
________________________________
From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: confidential
Gene
I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the
reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC
draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I
should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number
xxx xxxx xxxxonwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al
work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether
I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In
practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for
additional text , but I must put on record responses to these
comments - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have
only days now to complete this revision and response.
note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years
is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft.
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachAW_Editorial_July15.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachAR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06_ERW_comments.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCh06_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL_2000_12jul06_ERW_suggestions.doc"
Original Filename: 1153482869.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
Date: Fri Jul 21 07:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I suggest only one of us - Fortunat - make these changes in his version , otherwise we are
all going to do it slightly differently.
Keith
At 08:16 19/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
Hi,
What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p xxx xxxx xxxxand not just until line
30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).
The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the evolution of the
different proxies is important as there is in general much confusion about this and this
is a chapter 6 statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely
to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if
chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I wanted to
hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting.
Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed out a few line in
the sulfur section. Making progress!
Regards, Fortunat
David Rind wrote:
Jonathan,
Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to keep is:
P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. xxx xxxx xxxxthe first paragraph (lines
2-7).
All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and Chapter 6 did
not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to keep what's there, adding just
a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also
Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still includes the
solar and volcanic forcing).
David
At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even if they live in
Europe.
Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be making sure Chap 2 gets
the right material from chap 6, and that we can thus pare our discussion of past solar
and volcanic forcing down to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not
cover that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)?
Many thanks, Peck
Hi All,
[It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner! (regardless of the
time difference).]
What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to Gavin's comment -
that we would basically cross-reference chap 2, where the primary discussion would
occur. It's consistent with chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed
over time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and volcanic forcing.
Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that existed in Chapter 6 on these issues
to complement their discussion, if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6
can then make the proper cross-references.
David
At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David Rind (as a Chap 2 CA)
was going to help make sure we kept things covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar
and volcanic discussions in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully.
So, Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work this
efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at work sooner.
Thanks... Best, Peck
Hi all!
In comment xxx xxxx xxxx, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
6.6.3.1 Solar forcing
6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing
largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics. I checked
Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) discussion
mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin suggests that only
the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and leave the
most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the
sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
Ricardo
2.7 Natural Forcings
2.7.1 Solar Variability
2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by volcanic
aerosols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>; "Keith Briffa"
<k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Ricardo Villalba"
<ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "joos" <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Hi all,
I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it
published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 18O
record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
1300 AD? That period appears in:
Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: xxx xxxx xxxx
and
Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): xxx xxxx xxxxJUL 2004
See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Figure 6.10.
>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
yes
>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
yes
>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
yes
>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>color) in the bottom panel
yes
>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>bigger by a couple increments at least.
yes
>Figure 6.11.
>
>1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>
>Figure 6.12
>
>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>it's still not published.
I think Henry said they could stay.
>2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>she seems to know these data at least a little
Already discussed above.
>3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>probably better to use bold fonts
You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to
small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to
completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure
size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok.
>Figure 6.13
>
>1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G
in?
>1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>and 12 - please use bold fonts.
ok, as discussed above.
>2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have to
>coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) and
>Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that this
>fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>compact to permit its inclusion.
done.
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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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
[3]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[4]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
[5]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[6]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
--
Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
Internet: [7]http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
3. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
4. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
5. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
6. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
7. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
8. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1153520622.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Subject: where I am up to now
Date: Fri Jul 21 18:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Need Fortunat to check the Gavin simplification (with David) and awaiting comments from
Henry - though I have had a go at the relevant ones. Still needs the paragraph on tree
rings and I have to incorporate Ricardo's bit. But this gives you a near overview of where
we are - the inputting of the very many comment responses nearly there.
Keith
Is any body out there - any chance of call her in next half hour - or at home later
xxx xxxx xxxxPeck?
Peck and Eystein
OK I am still struggling . I will not be able to get stuff to you til tuesday I reckon -
masses of typing and having to re-read and consult with others (Henry will get back to me
early next week) on the borehole stuff. Discussing stuff with Eugene Wahl (confidentially)
and still need to check corrections and balance text. Tim still working on Figures. We are
doing best to get stuff back asap - but if I have to incorporate Ricardo's stuff and put
into version by Fortunat , it is getting more complicated. Fortunat should do edits
relating to the rationalising of the forcing text (as per Gavin comment - or has he
already?) . Best if Oyvind puts the lot together then.
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1153761297.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: solar and Law Dome GHG reference
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Fortunat and Keith - thanks for keeping close track of the
volcanic and solar forcing aspects of 6.6, including coordination w/
Chap 2. The more you can do at this stage, Keith, the better (i.e.,
mystery changes), but there will be time to update re: chap 2 later.
Thanks again! Peck
>Hi,
>
>Three points:
>
>- Reference to MacFarling Meure already changed in my revision.
>
>- solar: It will probably not be a big deal to delete a few lines,
>when we have seen what chap 2 is doing.
>
>- Note that I am away for two weeks from July 29 to August 12, but I
>have time to work on remaining issues during the second half of
>August.
>
>With best wishes, Fortunat
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi all - we probably have to cite this one, no? Thx, Peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>To: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu
>>>From: Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>Subject: Fwd: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>Cc: Melinda Marquis <Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>
>>>Hi Eystein, Peck
>>>
>>>The following from Dave Etheridge gives the citation for the
>>>published version of the MacFarling Meure et al paper. Not sure if
>>>you are switching to citing the GRL paper in preference to
>>>MacFarling Meure's thesis - but if you are here is the right
>>>reference.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>>DomainKey-Signature: s=email; d=csiro.au; c=nofws; q=dns;
>>>>b=QFtbAVZCd84qWm9oHqL5Q+VatZDVO/wqkH4eZVeBGcwDj6LT57x2oyOdHwNvJZy8jbW0qelqAUxaZvAcwNqCdAvbK9kTL2qq3KXA2S21EvnS2a+f7LIXMAZdllfm2vAa;
>>>>X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,164,1151848800";
>>>> d="pdf'?scan'208,217"; a="103465294:sNHT485096344"
>>>>Subject: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:57:05 +1000
>>>>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>>Thread-Topic: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>>Thread-Index: AcasaPcmdL+xIxSPRpytWeF8iOx2pg==
>>>>From: <David.Etheridge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>To: <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d.lowe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <piers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2006 01:57:05.0834 (UTC)
>>>>FILETIME=[F7AA30A0:01C6AC68]
>>>>X-Rcpt-To: <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>X-DPOP: Version number supressed
>>>>
>>>>Some of you were asking about this paper for IPCC AR4. It is now
>>>>published (today) in GRL. A pdf is attached.
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>MacFarling Meure, C., Etheridge, D., Trudinger, C., Steele, P.,
>>>>Langenfelds, R., van Ommen, T., Smith, A. and Elkins, J. (2006).
>>>>The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000
>>>>years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810
>>>>10.1029/2006GL026152.
>>>><http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0614/2006GL026152/2006GL026152.pdf>
>>>>http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0614/2006GL026152/2006GL026152.pdf
>>>>
>>>><<2000yr_CO2CH4N2O_MacFarlingMeure_GRL.pdf>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr David Etheridge
>>>>CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
>>>>Private Bag 1 (street address: xxx xxxx xxxxStation St.)
>>>>Aspendale, Victoria 3195, Australia
>>>>phone (xxx xxxx xxxxFAX (xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>email: david.etheridge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>
>>>>website: <http://www>http://www.cmar.csiro.au/
>>>>
>>>--
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
> Climate and Environmental Physics,
> Physics Institute, University of Bern
> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
--
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: 1153762381.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: MWP box figure
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi again Tim et al - looks good to me. Obviously,
you and Keith need to nail the divergence issue
in the text, and also refer to it in the caption
for this fig, but otherwise, it's looking good.
Thanks, Peck
>Hi again,
>
>attached is the new MWP box figure.
>
>We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD
>because the decision to drop the panel from
>Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able
>to show a different selection of curves in the
>remaining panel from those we used in our paper.
>This allowed us to drop the shorter series that
>didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the
>figure and also dealing with a number of review
>comments that had been made about those series.
>
>The only differences from the FOD figure are
>that the font is now consistent with the others
>figures, the composite mean series has been
>removed, and the figure has been shrunk
>vertically to save space.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_box6.4_f1.pdf (PDF /
Original Filename: 1153771098.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Date: Mon Jul 24 15:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Peck et al.,
I've increased the axis labelling font size by another pt in all plots.
I attach two versions of 6.10, one in the grey (same as before except for bigger axis
labelling) and one in brown. Brown looks like some old curry stain (or worse!). Note that
conversion from postscript to PDF or GIF tends to alter the colours, which alter again on
different printers compared with the screen. So there's not much point in me playing
around much more with the colours.
Also attached are new versions of 6.13 and 6.14. Both have the bigger axis fonts and the
matching grey shading as 6.10.
6.13 has thicker lines for all models, so they show up better on the new darker grey
shading.
6.14 now has the EMIC forcing shown without any smoothing. I have used a vertical scale
for the volcanoes which is half that of the solar and anthropogenic forcings. Only one
spike (1258) hits the bottom of the plot with this choice of scaling, and only a couple
overlap the solar forcing lines. What do you think now (Fortunat too)? Oh, and I also
start now at 1000 rather than 900 AD.
Cheers
Tim
At 17:06 22/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - this looks pretty nice, and I appreciate your chugging through to make the
switch to 5-95%. I'd still be keen to see what the fig looks like in some more modest
color than the old red. Grey could be the final choice, but it's not too much of a
hassle, could you try a color version that is a bit more sharp?
Also, it would be nice to make the x-axis labels (numbers and "Year") as large as makes
sense - they still seem too small.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but this figure is going to be a major one of the whole report, so
it makes sense to get it as perfect as we can.
Thanks! best, peck
Hi Peck and Eystein,
what do you think of the attached new version of 6.10? Keith and I have spent some time
examining various options and think that this one looks clearer (less smudgy) while
still being a good representation of the data and in grey.
I spoke with Phil and Keith and the 5-95% range seems preferable for consistency with
other chapters.
So:
(1) I now use 5-95% range in panel (a).
(2) Panel (b) has no further changes to it.
(3) Panel (c) is now also based on the overlap of the 5-95% ranges of the individual
reconstructions, rather than on the +-2 standard error ranges (extra weight is still
given for temperatures that fall within the +-1 SE range). I also applied some week
smoothing prior to plotting. I also now plot using just 10 grey shades, in 10% steps,
rather than the 20 shades in 5% steps that I used previously (in the last version, I
changed the scale bar to have 10 steps of 10%, but I had still plotted the data using 20
steps of 5%).
Hope you like it,
Tim
At 17:33 20/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - Thanks. If you don't mind, let's see what the new grey in panel c, and also
the 5-95% range on a. Also, another alternative to the grey and red could be some other
color that is just less bright - perhaps blue?
Agree there is no reason to switch the reviewed panel c uncertainty approach. It argues
a bit that we leave panel a as is too. I'm unsure what is best, so maybe see what Keith
thinks too - and discuss more with Phil - he is right that most are trying to go with
xxx xxxx xxxxwhere possible.
Thanks again.
Hi again,
I still have the red option built into the program, so can easily revert to it. Of
course the grey has the advantage of consistency with the model and EMIC panels, which
really must be grey so that all the coloured lines indicating the simulated temperatures
will show up (red isn't really an option for the reconstruction shading in those
figures). I'll see if I can make it clearer yet keep it in grey.
On a different note, Phil Jones just popped in and said why are we using "+-2SE" shading
in the top instrumental panel when it has apparently been decided to show the smaller
5-95% range (he says this is only 0.8225 times the +-2SE range) in all IPCC WG1 figures.
Shall I change this? If I do, then the brown and orange curves will fall outside this
narrower range more often than they fall outside the current wider SE range.
The grey shading in panel (c) is also computed from the overlap of the +-1 SE and +-2 SE
ranges of individual reconstructions, but I guess this can stay unchanged, rather than
needing to be recalculated using the overlap of the ?-?% and 5-95% ranges?
Cheers
Tim
At 16:05 19/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - thanks! Now I can see why you went with the red rather than grey in the bottom
panel - it's hard to see. I'd like to float the idea with everyone on the email that we
consider going back to red, or try something else. All else is good (thanks) perhaps
make the bottom/top axis labels bigger still? (both numbers and "Year").
Thx again, Peck
Hi Peck et al.,
revised fig 6.10 is attached.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.10.
1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
It was already shaded. Your poor old eyes must be failing you ;-)
Ok, so it *was* rather pale! I've made it a bit darker.
2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
Done
3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in Fig
6.13
Done - how does it look now? I had to outline the instrumental series with a narrow
white band to ensure it could be seen against the very dark grey shading.
4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
panel
Done
5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all are too small. You can
figure out the best size by reducing figs to likely page size minus margins. We guess
the captions need to be bigger by a couple increments at least.
Increased the axis numbering/labelling by a couple of points.
Cheers
Tim
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10.pdf (PDF /
Original Filename: 1153772456.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: MWP box figure
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:20:56 +0100
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi again,
attached is the new MWP box figure.
We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD because the decision
to drop the panel from Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able
to show a different selection of curves in the remaining panel from
those we used in our paper. This allowed us to drop the shorter
series that didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the figure
and also dealing with a number of review comments that had been made
about those series.
The only differences from the FOD figure are that the font is now
consistent with the others figures, the composite mean series has
been removed, and the figure has been shrunk vertically to save space.
Cheers
Tim
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachchap6_box6.4_f1.pdf"
<x-flowed>
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
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1153866449.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: latest me,fortunat,ricardo bit
Date: Tue Jul 25 18:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Guys
here is what I understand you want from me - revised text (only up Table of Key etc) - ie
not touched refs (understand Oyvind will put them in - most are given in text)
Tim sending Table and Figure captions separately. I am sending the text with my, Fortunat's
and Ricardo's changes - with minor edits of mine added to them.
I undersatand that Oyvind will sort this ou and insert in final Chapter. I am also sendoing
my reponses to data to most of my comments (Findicates that Fortunat has answered that one
) . I will also send my edited version of Ricardo's reponses that I tweeked - ignore if
wish) . I know I have not done all comments yet but the remaining ones can be done tomorrow
I hope and any changes needed put on next draft. I do not expect many - and I was not
clearwhether Peck wanted to respond to the regional (US) precip related ones anyway?
I have added in the rather large paragraph on the tree-ring issues in response to several
comments - I know you will scream at the size but I think we need to pu it in and then get
Ricardo's
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1154090231.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: issue from Susan
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith - in our TS/SPM discussions, Susan has raised this question:
"In the TAR they spoke of 1998 being the warmest year in the
millennium and the 1990s the warmest decade. I don't see that
chapter 6 addresses any of these time scales. I am not saying you
should do so - but are you planning to say anything about it and why
you aren't doing so? and if you're not planning to say anything at
all, can you please tell me what you think about it, just for my own
info?"
Would you please give me your feedback on this, with enough
thoughtful detail to hopefully make me/Susan fully informed (a para
should be enough).
Thanks, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1154353922.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:52:02 +0200
Cc: Olga Solomina <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ricardo Villalba <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Val