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: 1160140264.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>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: VERY URGENT HELP NEEDED TO ADDRESS FINAL DRAFT PROBLEM
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Keith and Eystein - thanks for the timely and helpful (very) feedback, Keith. Your
suggestions for 4 and 5 seem fine, and I wonder only about 6. I too am not sure where the
final clause came from, but I'll guess it was a suggestion of Stefan's that then stood the
text of time. In the spirit of trying hard not to change the meaning of bullets in the ES
from what the LA team agreed to in Bergen, what about changing this clause in the ES to
read "natural recovery", i.e.:
and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a natural recovery from the pre-20th
century cold period."
This takes away the ambiguity, and does serve to address a widely held misconception
outside of our community - or at least to phrase the issue in terms that some might find
more useful.
If we keep this phrase, then I would suggest restating the entire ES sentence at the end of
6.6.3.
Is this ok? Again, I'm motivated by our team agreement - I do think we could delete this
phrase since it's more repetitive than new meaning, but would rather not unless it really
does not work. Personally, I like it as modified above, because it hammers the important
point from a slightly different perspective - one that seems to be on the minds of the
public still.
Thanks, both, for letting me know what you think fast.
best, peck
Hi Peck and Eystein
In response to Points 4-6
4. Add the following after past 1300 years. on line 13 page Y-33
"Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very
likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th
century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. "
Do not put anything in Box 6.4 which is written frolm the reverse perspective - evidence
of medieval period not good enough to say warmer than now. Also confuses statements
about 500 years and longer (1000 year ) Medieval ,time.
5. The person who says this has not read the text - see lines xxx xxxx xxxxon Y-32 where I
think this is well covered.
6. If you read the text on lines xxx xxxx xxxxof PAGE Y-38 I think this meaning is clearly
conveyed. It is not in the same words -but easily supports the ES statement.
HOWEVER, I do not like the last part of the statement (and not sure where this came
from) because it is ambiguous and anyway implied by prior statement. I strongly urge you
to remove the section
"and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20th
century cold period."
These would sort things out I believe
cheers
Keith
At 19:26 05/10/2006, you wrote:
Hi Keith and Tim - we just got the attached consistency feedback doc from the TSU, and
I've added my thoughts in red. We need your feedback on items 4-6 REALLY FAST. Tim, if
Keith's not around to help, please do the job - the TSU has zero time to give us.
I think the solutions to #5 and 6 are easy as I suggested (although I don't have
confirmation from Susan or Martin that we can just do as I suggest, but it seems logical
to me - if you can suggest an even better solution, pls do.
I'll send the official chap 6 final draft text next - at least as it stands today.
thanks for dealing with this, perhaps before you go to sleep this evening.
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/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
Original Filename: 1160142338.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2006ES001559 Decision Letter]
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Thorsten Kiefer <thorsten.kiefer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks very much Christoph, that's perfect.
regards,
mike
Christoph Kull wrote:
Hi Mike,
If the EOS-piece is not already submitted...
Below a paragraph we propose to use for the short description of the second
project.
"Furthermore, the participants identified the need and a major opportunity
to improve the quality and value of climate reconstructions. Therefore, a
workshop is planned to assess uncertainties in proxies in a coherent way and
to develop strategies for future collection and integration of proxy data
from key regions. The workshop will focus on climate proxies that have
decadal or better temporal resolution and will involve the world data
centers."
Thanks a lot! Best wishes!
Christoph
On 30.09.2006 19:56, "Michael E. Mann" [1]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Dear Keith/Phil/Thorsten/Christoph/Heinz,
Sorry this took Eos so long. No surprises here. A few minor revisions and it
should be ready for publication. Please see attached revised version and
response to reviewers. I've highlighted in yellow one place in the draft where
I could use some input from someone who is better qualified to elaborate on
the details of the 2nd project mentioned. Other than that, let me know if you
see any need for any additional changes.
Will resubmit once I've heard back from everyone.
best regards,
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: [2]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1160755490.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>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Keith,
I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where you've
coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it seems
unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not made their
code public, when we of course have made ours public.
There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS data--I'm
checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane group has it,
and I believe other groups have it nows too. So frankly, it is
effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita like it or not!
I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will include
a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed that we get
similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll leave it at that.
We don't need to show that result necessarily, unless the
editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly don't have to
reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned, there are enough
groups out there that now have it, that VS and Zorita would not know the
source, and we would not reveal it.
We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have confirmed
our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested above. Meanwhile,
we can pursue a more thorough, official collaborative effort in the future.
Thoughts on this?
thanks,
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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2xxx xxxx xxxx) on mail.meteo.psu.edu
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Received: from tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (tr12g05.aset.psu.edu [128.118.146.135])
by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5B204B4A
for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185])
by tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k9DFpkiX2199660
for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2.uea.ac.uk)
by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1GYP3d-0000kt-V7
for mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:50 +0100
Received: from [139.222.104.74] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk)
by ueams2.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
id 1GYP3d-00037Y-JU; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:45 +0100
Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20061013163526.03552e98@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:36:51 +0100
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: GKSS results
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
In-Reply-To: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="=====================_48573031==_"
X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO
X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -2.599
<x-flowed>
Mike
Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is attached
what do you think
best wishes Keith
At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote:
>Dear Tim/Keith,
>
>I hope all is well with both of you.
>
>We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both
>the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data
>we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll
>describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization
>method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least squares.
>We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential
>non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that soon.
>
>More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the
>attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short
>calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx, corresponding to years xxx xxxx xxxxin the
>attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we used
>rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values).
>
>The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the
>full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation,
>it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries
>in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including the
>LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to problem
>of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR methods.
>
>The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show
>this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to
>finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and
>Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course,
>and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver
>that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping
>you are in agreement with this?
>
>please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days.
>
>thanks,
>
>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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>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/
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachletter to Mike - 131.10.06.doc"
Original Filename: 1160771811.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: GKSS results
Date: Fri Oct 13 16:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike
Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is attached
what do you think
best wishes Keith
At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote:
Dear Tim/Keith,
I hope all is well with both of you.
We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both the CSM simulation,
and now more recently the GKSS simulation data we got from you. There are some
methodological developments we'll describe soon, related to what is the most reliable
regularization method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least squares. We
are now leaning towards the latter because of potential non-convergence problems in some
cases w/ the former. More on that soon.
More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the attached plot, RegEM
works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx, corresponding to
years xxx xxxx xxxxin the attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we used
rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values).
The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the full NH series well
throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation, it does modestly underestimate the warmth
of the earliest centuries in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else,
including the LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to problem of
correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR methods.
The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show this result in a
(very short!) J. Climate response we need to finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005)
J. Clim by Zorita and Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course,
and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver that this would be
an acceptable course of action. We are hoping you are in agreement with this?
please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days.
thanks,
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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1161261884.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
Certainly not, and sorry for not clarifying. This is the response to the
J. Climate comment by Von Storch that we're talking about here. The
final draft is due this week, and so that's why I needed to check if you
& Tim wanted co-authorship if we were going to show the GKSS result.
We can certainly plan to do a more detailed followup analysis jointly, I
would very much enjoy that. Something we've talked about doing is a set
of experiments with "mixed proxies" where the proxies have a variable
combination of surface temperature and precip components--it will be
very interesting to see what happens in these cases.
Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for collaboration, where we
could apply this to several different models including CSM and the
models you guys are working with?
let me know what you think.
thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Great Mike - but hope this does not mean that you will exclude our
> possible contribution to this paper
> Keith
>
> At 13:52 18/10/2006, you wrote:
>
>> thanKs Tim. As luck would have it, zorita is providing the data to
>> Caspar anyway so this should now be a moot point. We'll keep you guys
>> updated on things,
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subj: Re: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
>> Date: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:37 am
>> Size: 6K
>> To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>> Hi Mike, your suggested compromise is acceptable to both Keith and
>> me. Good luck with the J. Clim. response. Cheers, Tim
>>
>> At 17:04 13/10/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>> >Keith,
>> >
>> >I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where
>> >you've coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it
>> >seems unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not
>> >made their code public, when we of course have made ours public.
>> >
>> >There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS
>> >data--I'm checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane
>> >group has it, and I believe other groups have it nows too. So
>> >frankly, it is effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita
>> >like it or not!
>> >
>> >I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will
>> >include a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed
>> >that we get similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll
>> >leave it at that. We don't need to show that result necessarily,
>> >unless the editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly
>> >don't have to reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned,
>> >there are enough groups out there that now have it, that VS and
>> >Zorita would not know the source, and we would not reveal it.
>> >
>> >We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have
>> >confirmed our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested
>> >above. Meanwhile, we can pursue a more thorough, official
>> >collaborative effort in the future.
>> >
>> >Thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >thanks,
>> >
>> >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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> >http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Return-Path: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2xxx xxxx xxxx) on
>> mail.meteo.psu.edu
>> >X-Spam-Level:
>> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
>> autolearn=ham
>> > version=3.1.3
>> >X-Original-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >Delivered-To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >Received: from tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (tr12g05.aset.psu.edu
>> [128.118.146.135])
>> > by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5B204B4A
>> > for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> (EDT)
>> >Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk
>> [139.222.130.185])
>> > by tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id
>> k9DFpkiX2199660
>> > for <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2.uea.ac.uk)
>> > by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
>> > id 1GYP3d-0000kt-V7
>> > for mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:50 +0100
>> >Received: from [139.222.104.74] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk)
>> > by ueams2.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
>> > id 1GYP3d-00037Y-JU; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:45 +0100
>> >Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20061013163526.03552e98@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
>> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:36:51 +0100
>> >To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >Subject: Re: GKSS results
>> >Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >In-Reply-To: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >References: <452BCB6C.1070306@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >Mime-Version: 1.0
>> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>> > boundary="=====================_48573031==_"
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>> >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos
>> >X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO
>> >X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -2.599
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is
>> attached
>> >
>> >what do you think
>> >
>> >best wishes Keith
>> >
>> >At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote:
>> >>Dear Tim/Keith,
>> >>
>> >>I hope all is well with both of you.
>> >>
>> >>We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both
>> >>the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data
>> >>we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll
>> >>describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization
>> >>method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least
>> >>squares. We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential
>> >>non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that
>> soon.
>> >>
>> >>More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the
>> >>attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short
>> >>calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx, corresponding to years xxx xxxx xxxxin
>> >>the attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we
>> >>used rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values).
>> >>
>> >>The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the
>> >>full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation,
>> >>it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries
>> >>in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including
>> >>the LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to
>> >>problem of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR
>> methods.
>> >>
>> >>The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show
>> >>this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to
>> >>finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and
>> >>Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course,
>> >>and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver
>> >>that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping
>> >>you are in agreement with this?
>> >>
>> >>please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days.
>> >>
>> >>thanks,
>> >>
>> >>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: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >>University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >>
>> >>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/
>>
>> 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
>
>
> --
> 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>
Original Filename: 1163715685.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Martin
This last point is likely true (though CO2 began to rise earlier than the 1960s and the
authors of the original paper believed that the high elevation (and concomitant low CO2
partial pressure) may have amplified the response to small concentration changes. There is
also the possibility that a synergistic increase in water-use (and possibly nitrogen use)
efficiency could have contributed .
However, I agree that the rapid growth increase is most likely a result of a change in the
proportion of net photosynthetic production potential (ie needle mass) relative to the area
of living cambium that could occur as a tree shifts from "normal" to strip bark form .If
this changes suddenly , as growth occurs only along a small strip rather than around the
whole circumference (I know this is oversimplified) then you could easily get this apparent
change in growth rate . BUT , if this is seen synchronously in many trees it would be hard
to believe that this was the cause. To look at this would require a detail examination of
all the data (in relation to the precise sample geometry) . Changing precipitation trends ,
such as occurred pre- and post the mid 1970s will also confuse things .
Thanks Jan and Rob also for this discussion.
At 17:14 16/11/2006, Keith Briffa wrote:
To: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
In-Reply-To: <200611161642.00377.m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: <21885F5ACD984446A17A573C47C6D846250054@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<p06210202c1821017d50b@[10.15.4.248]> <003701c7098e$b8b4c850$9d07d781@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<200611161642.00377.m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
This last point is likely true (though CO2 began to rise earlier than the 1960s and the
authors of the original paper believed that the high elevation (and concomitant low CO2
partial pressure) may have amplified the response to small concentration changes. There
is also the - and I agree that the rapid growth increase is most likely a result of the
proportion of net photosynthetic production potential (ie needle mass) relative to the
area of living cambium .If this changes suddenly , as growth occurs only along a small
strip rather than around the whole circumference (I know this is oversimplified) then
you could easily get this apparent change in growth rate . To look at this would require
a detail examination of all the data (in relation to the precise sample geometry) .
However, changing precipitation trends pre- and post the mid 1970s will also confuse
things .At 16:41 16/11/2006, you wrote:
Thanks for all those comments.
I'm trying to avoid omitting data on the basis of cicrumstantial evidence,
even when it is presented enthusiastically. The Bunn et al. study is
interesting (attached) because they show estimated dates of the onset of
strip-bark growth. It looks to me as though the growth anomaly of the
strip-bark trees relative to the others is more to do with this change than
anything else. The onset of a positive growth anomaly in the 1850s is
certainly too early to be associated with CO2 increases.
cheers,
Martin
On Thursday 16 November 2006 14:51, Rob Wilson wrote:
> Re: Mitrie: BristleconesDear All,
> For the D'Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the
Bristlecone pine data.
> However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it
would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more
to higher latitudes.
>
> However, I did look at the data. I do not like ignoring potential data-sets.
>
> Of the BP data that I managed to get my hands on, I identified a
significant, but relatively weak, correlation with local gridded mean summer
temperatures for three sites. These three sites are: Hermit Hill (N = 38;
1xxx xxxx xxxx) and Windy Ridge (N = 29; 1xxx xxxx xxxx) from Colorado and Sheep
Mountain (N = 71; xxx xxxx xxxx) from California.
>
> The attached figure compares the RCS chronology using these data (very
similar to the STD version in actual fact) with the North American RCS
composite series used in D'Arrigo et al. (2006). Both series have been
normalised to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod to highlight any potential differences in
the 20th century.
>
> There is generally fairly good coherence between the two series between 1100
and the 1900. I personally do not think we have enough sites prior to 1400,
so the lack of coherence prior to 1100 might just reflect regional
differences and not enough series to derive a meaningful mean function.
Although correlation with gridded temperatures are relatively low (~0.40),
the coherence with the NA composite would seem to suggest that temperature is
the dominant signal over the last 900 years or so.
>
> In the 20th century, the BP index values are clearly UNDER the NA mean. I
would interpret this as suggesting that there does not appear to be any CO2
influence in the BP data. This of course assumes that there is no
fertilisation effect in the rest of the NA data.
>
> There is also the Salzer BP based temperature reconstruction:
> [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html
>
> again this does not correlate particular well with gridded temperatures - in
fact it is driven more by trends, but there are some similarities with my BP
chronology and NA series.
>
> I hope this helps the discussion
> best regards
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jan Esper
> To: Keith Briffa ; Martin Juckes ; Myles Allen
> Cc: anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ;
weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; Wilson Rob
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
>
>
> ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could
have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia,
and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper
2000, The Holocene):
>
>
> "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso,
1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older
Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and
will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the
principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme
cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these
eccentric growth forms."
>
>
> I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the
same (some physical damage).
>
>
> I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at
the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium.
This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal"
rings.
>
>
> I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by
CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results
from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term
effect.
>
>
> I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data
recently. Pehaps he wants to add something.
>
>
> Best --je
>
>
> At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Martin and all,
> I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the
Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm
Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we
might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and
Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone
how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are
undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that
I will come back to later).
> The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their
sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3
decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to
temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always
related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response
functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature
and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied
to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable
associations between chronology and climate variations (for the
high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are
dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent
instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the
instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large
separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees.
Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display
less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale
association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time
scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed
temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer
timescales.
> The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of
"Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture
of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their
characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low
interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 ,
when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up
until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or
more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age
effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of
relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit
standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width
changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark"
problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a
consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's
structure .
> Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1
time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive
slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper
by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon
dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record
produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally
was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously
will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these
Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to
say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine
growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one
author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could
be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation.
>
> The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex ,
and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms
of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might
open at our peril!
> What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues?
>
> cheers
> Keith
> At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North,
but he
> deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS
report
> (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones
should
> not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this
statement
> and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is
one
> study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed
> anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say
the
> least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send
round in
> a few days time.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote:
> > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're
doing
> > rather well...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Juckes [[2]mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24
> > To: anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> > esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Myles Allen; weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> > t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: Mitrie
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave
> > them to
> > it for a few days.
> >
> > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if
he
> > really
> > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
believe
> > it
> > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data
from
> > the
> > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the
argument
> > in
> > Graybill and Idso (1993).
> >
> > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the
Sheep
> >
> > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for
> > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've
sent
> > an
> > email to the WDC query address.
> >
> > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as
> > using
> > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle,
2004,
> > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable
> > confusion
> > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the
idea
> > that
> > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there
is a
> >
> > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results.
> >
> > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data
files
> >
> > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more
on
> > the
> > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting
> > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that
testing
> > the
> > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and
> > that
> > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series
look
> > like
> > would be much better!
> >
> > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to
non-refereee
> >
> > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant
to
> > the
> > paper.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>
>
>
> --
> PD Dr. Jan Esper
> Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
> Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
> Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> [4]http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html
2. mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1163771694.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Rob Wilson" <rob.wilson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Martin Juckes" <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Myles Allen" <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jan Esper" <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
?
Morning Martin,
It might be worth taking Keith's advice and contacting Malcolm Hughes.
I am not convinced that the Bunn study is fully relevant to addressing the use of BP data
from Colorado and California as their study site is Montana. Malcolm gave a presentation
earlier this year in Edinburgh which presented updated analyses on his BP work which played
down the CO2 influence.
regards
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Martin Juckes
To: [2]Rob Wilson
Cc: [3]Keith Briffa ; [4]Myles Allen ; [5]Jan Esper ; [6]anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ;
[7]Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [8]hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [9]weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [10]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
Thanks for all those comments.
I'm trying to avoid omitting data on the basis of cicrumstantial evidence,
even when it is presented enthusiastically. The Bunn et al. study is
interesting (attached) because they show estimated dates of the onset of
strip-bark growth. It looks to me as though the growth anomaly of the
strip-bark trees relative to the others is more to do with this change than
anything else. The onset of a positive growth anomaly in the 1850s is
certainly too early to be associated with CO2 increases.
cheers,
Martin
On Thursday 16 November 2006 14:51, Rob Wilson wrote:
> Re: Mitrie: BristleconesDear All,
> For the D'Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the
Bristlecone pine data.
> However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it
would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more
to higher latitudes.
>
> However, I did look at the data. I do not like ignoring potential data-sets.
>
> Of the BP data that I managed to get my hands on, I identified a
significant, but relatively weak, correlation with local gridded mean summer
temperatures for three sites. These three sites are: Hermit Hill (N = 38;
1xxx xxxx xxxx) and Windy Ridge (N = 29; 1xxx xxxx xxxx) from Colorado and Sheep
Mountain (N = 71; xxx xxxx xxxx) from California.
>
> The attached figure compares the RCS chronology using these data (very
similar to the STD version in actual fact) with the North American RCS
composite series used in D'Arrigo et al. (2006). Both series have been
normalised to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod to highlight any potential differences in
the 20th century.
>
> There is generally fairly good coherence between the two series between 1100
and the 1900. I personally do not think we have enough sites prior to 1400,
so the lack of coherence prior to 1100 might just reflect regional
differences and not enough series to derive a meaningful mean function.
Although correlation with gridded temperatures are relatively low (~0.40),
the coherence with the NA composite would seem to suggest that temperature is
the dominant signal over the last 900 years or so.
>
> In the 20th century, the BP index values are clearly UNDER the NA mean. I
would interpret this as suggesting that there does not appear to be any CO2
influence in the BP data. This of course assumes that there is no
fertilisation effect in the rest of the NA data.
>
> There is also the Salzer BP based temperature reconstruction:
> [11]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html
>
> again this does not correlate particular well with gridded temperatures - in
fact it is driven more by trends, but there are some similarities with my BP
chronology and NA series.
>
> I hope this helps the discussion
> best regards
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jan Esper
> To: Keith Briffa ; Martin Juckes ; Myles Allen
> Cc: [12]anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [13]Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [14]hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ;
[15]weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; [16]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ; Wilson Rob
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
>
>
> ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could
have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia,
and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper
2000, The Holocene):
>
>
> "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso,
1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older
Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and
will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the
principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme
cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these
eccentric growth forms."
>
>
> I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the
same (some physical damage).
>
>
> I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at
the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium.
This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal"
rings.
>
>
> I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by
CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results
from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term
effect.
>
>
> I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data
recently. Pehaps he wants to add something.
>
>
> Best --je
>
>
> At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Martin and all,
> I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the
Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm
Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we
might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and
Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone
how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are
undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that
I will come back to later).
> The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their
sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3
decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to
temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always
related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response
functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature
and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied
to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable
associations between chronology and climate variations (for the
high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are
dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent
instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the
instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large
separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees.
Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display
less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale
association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time
scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed
temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer
timescales.
> The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of
"Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture
of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their
characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low
interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 ,
when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up
until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or
more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age
effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of
relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit
standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width
changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark"
problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a
consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's
structure .
> Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1
time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive
slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper
by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon
dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record
produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally
was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously
will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these
Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to
say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine
growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one
author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could
be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation.
>
> The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex ,
and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms
of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might
open at our peril!
> What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues?
>
> cheers
> Keith
> At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North,
but he
> deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS
report
> (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones
should
> not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this
statement
> and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is
one
> study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed
> anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say
the
> least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send
round in
> a few days time.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote:
> > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're
doing
> > rather well...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Juckes [mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24
> > To: [17]anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; [18]Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; [19]hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> > [20]esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; [21]k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Myles Allen; [22]weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> > [23]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: Mitrie
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave
> > them to
> > it for a few days.
> >
> > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if
he
> > really
> > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
believe
> > it
> > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data
from
> > the
> > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the
argument
> > in
> > Graybill and Idso (1993).
> >
> > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the
Sheep
> >
> > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for
> > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've
sent
> > an
> > email to the WDC query address.
> >
> > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as
> > using
> > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle,
2004,
> > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable
> > confusion
> > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the
idea
> > that
> > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there
is a
> >
> > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results.
> >
> > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data
files
> >
> > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more
on
> > the
> > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting
> > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that
testing
> > the
> > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and
> > that
> > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series
look
> > like
> > would be much better!
> >
> > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to
non-refereee
> >
> > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant
to
> > the
> > paper.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> [24]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>
>
>
>
> --
> PD Dr. Jan Esper
> Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
> Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
> Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> [25]http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper
References
1. mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:rob.wilson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html
12. mailto:anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. mailto:weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. mailto:Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. mailto:hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. mailto:esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
21. mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
25. http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper
Original Filename: 1164059987.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Bristlecone pines
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Martin Juckes wrote:
> Hello Prof. Hughes,
>
> I'm involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines,
> which I have used as temperature proxies in a recent work
> (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-xxx xxxx xxxx.htm).
>
> I've read the NAS report section on this issue, and most of the references
> cited in the paragraph about bristlecones. I'm unimpressed by the evidence
> presented to support the idea that these valuable records of past climate
> should be discarded. In particular, the most relevant study appears to be
> that of Bunn et al., and this clearly shows anomalous strip-bark growth
> occurring well before significant atmospheric CO2 rises. Their study used
> whitebark pine, which is clearly not the same as bristlecone, but perhaps
> closer than the orange trees cited by Graybill and Idso.
>
> I'm looking for further literature and if possible data on the issue. Do you
> know of any data on anomalous growth in bristlecone strip-bark pines which is
> available for analysis?
>
> sincerely,
> Martin Juckes
>
Dear Dr. Jukes,
I'm afraid that, apart from the Bunn et al 2003 paper you mention, I
know of no other recent literature or data directly relevant to this
question. There is a graduate student here working on a dissertation
related to this, but neither their data nor any publications on them are
available at the moment. Two points concerning Graybill and Idso (1993):
1) I don't think the sour orange trees used in Sherwood Idso's
experiments were stripbark - where did this idea come from? 2) When
considering the use of upper forest border bristlecone pine (e.g. Sheep
Mountain, Campito Mountain, and similar sites mainly above 3100m in the
relevant region) as temperature proxies it would be a mistake to
discount Figure 3 in Graybill and Idso (1993) which is a comparison of a
ufb bristlecone pine chronology with a smoothed gridpoint reconstruction
from maximum latewood density in quite different trees provided by Keith
Briffa, one of your co-authors. I read this graph as confirmation of
LaMarche's interpretation of the ufb bcp records as having a ~bidecadal
temperature signal combined with an interannual precipitation signal, at
least before the 20th century. This is referred to Hughes and Funkhouser
(2003).
I hope this helps, Malcolm Hughes
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1164120712.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes
Subject: Fwd: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones In confidence
Date: Tue Nov 21 09:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Malcolm
sorry , I should have cc'd this message sent to my coauthors some time ago(it pre-dates the
message to you) , but I was sort of hoping this issue would recede . It would be useful to
chat about this and other stuff if you are able to phone (afternoon my time preferably).
Cheers
Keith
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:57:09 +0000
To: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Myles Allen" <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
Cc: anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Martin and all,
I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I
still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion -
though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be)
independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of
collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at
all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem
(that I will come back to later).
The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to
temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation
trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available
water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However,
response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and
precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the
tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations
between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The
trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency)
variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness
of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large
separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited
comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos
responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so
indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that
these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might
vary on longer timescales.
The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US"
trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just
Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and
effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term
declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the
remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend
could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow
for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of
relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of
the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree
aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will
have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature
of each tree's structure .
Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in
the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150
years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this
incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the
data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada
(which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment
obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these
Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that
this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is ,
at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated
that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of
CO2 fertilisation.
The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still
believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean
temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril!
What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues?
cheers
Keith
At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote:
Hi,
Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he
deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report
(Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should
not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement
and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one
study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed
anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the
least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in
a few days time.
cheers,
Martin
On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote:
> Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing
> rather well...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Juckes [[1]mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24
> To: anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Myles Allen; weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Mitrie
>
> Hello,
>
> well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave
> them to
> it for a few days.
>
> I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he
> really
> meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe
> it
> would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from
> the
> sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument
> in
> Graybill and Idso (1993).
>
> Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep
>
> Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for
> paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent
> an
> email to the WDC query address.
>
> I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as
> using
> Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004,
> Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable
> confusion
> among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea
> that
> the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a
>
> widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results.
>
> Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files
>
> McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on
> the
> different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting
> discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing
> the
> effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and
> that
> selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look
> like
> would be much better!
>
> I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee
>
> comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to
> the
> paper.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. mailto:m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1167752455.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: not so fast
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 10:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Connelley <wmconnolley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do
not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at the attached - which I used in the
Crowley-Lowery composite just because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the
record of record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his book dated
1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard et al. 1975 Nature paper on
Norsemen...etc used that figure when comparing what must have been their Camp Century
record - have to check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the timing of
Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a strong statement on the
MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of the MWP being warming than the present was
correct and that the 1999 Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him
that he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to do my "bonehead"
sampling of whatever was out there just to see what happened when you added them all
together - the amazing result was that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is
history -- much ignored and forgotten.
I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - and that Fred Singer
loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the journal) basically shoehorned me into
re-reproducing that figure even though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in
the figure caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states "compiled by
R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so that puts a further twist on this
because it point to Houghton not Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that
part of the figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - the MWP is clearly more
schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA
are pretty good) - maybe there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do
the MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have thrown in the
old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can schlep something together using only
those old three records.
tom
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Ray, happy holidays and thanks for the (quite fascinating) background on this. It would be
good material for a Realclimate article. would be even better if someone could get Chris on
record confirming that this is indeed the history of this graphic...
mike
raymond s. bradley wrote:
I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy
used to publish called "Earth Quest". It was designed for, and distributed to, high
school teachers. In one issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines,
Cenozoic, Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. The idea
was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's climate history. I think this
idea evolved from the old NRC publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on
by Tom Webb in the book I edited for UCAR, Global Changes of the Past. (This was an
outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded around 1990).
I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
from, I don't know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([1]
http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave such things on the table...).
What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don't think he
gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
record in that volume.
There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In
a paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they
reproduced [in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving
the following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert)
(1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change,
The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
But I had nothing to do with that one!
So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last
millennium!
Happy New Year to everyone
Ray
Raymond S. Bradley
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
*Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
<[2] http://www.paleoclimate.org>
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
Publications (download .pdf files):
[4]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
--
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: [5]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[6]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachLamb_ext.pdf"
References
1. http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
2. http://www.paleoclimate.org/
3. http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
4. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1167754725.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: not so fast
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Connelley <wmconnolley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
for those who are interested, there is a paper by Goosse et al (I'm a co-author) explaining
why parts of Europe such as central england would have experienced warmer summer conditions
relative to present than other regions, related to early land-use change:
Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Luterbacher, J., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Riedwyl, N., Timmermann,
A., Xoplaki, E., Wanner, H., [1]The origin of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate
of the Past, 2, xxx xxxx xxxx, 2006.
paper available as pdf here:
[2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
meanwhile, winter warmth could have been due to a strong AO/NAO pattern associated with
decreased volcanism and high solar, as discussed in the various Shindell et al paper.
this simply underscores the point that we all often make, that one needs to take into
account regional factors when interpreting regional records. This is especially relevant to
the extrapolation of a long record from England to the entire NH (which appears to have
been tacitly done by Jack Eddy?),
mike
Tom Crowley wrote:
we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do
not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at the attached - which I used in the
Crowley-Lowery composite just because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the
record of record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his book dated
1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard et al. 1975 Nature paper on
Norsemen...etc used that figure when comparing what must have been their Camp Century
record - have to check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the timing of
Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a strong statement on the
MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of the MWP being warming than the present was
correct and that the 1999 Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him
that he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to do my "bonehead"
sampling of whatever was out there just to see what happened when you added them all
together - the amazing result was that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is
history -- much ignored and forgotten.
I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - and that Fred Singer
loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the journal) basically shoehorned me into
re-reproducing that figure even though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in
the figure caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states "compiled by
R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so that puts a further twist on this
because it point to Houghton not Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that
part of the figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - the MWP is clearly more
schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA
are pretty good) - maybe there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do
the MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have thrown in the
old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can schlep something together using only
those old three records.
tom
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Ray, happy holidays and thanks for the (quite fascinating) background on this. It would be
good material for a Realclimate article. would be even better if someone could get Chris on
record confirming that this is indeed the history of this graphic...
mike
raymond s. bradley wrote:
I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy
used to publish called "Earth Quest". It was designed for, and distributed to, high
school teachers. In one issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines,
Cenozoic, Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. The idea
was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's climate history. I think this
idea evolved from the old NRC publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on
by Tom Webb in the book I edited for UCAR, Global Changes of the Past. (This was an
outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded around 1990).
I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
from, I don't know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([3]
http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave such things on the table...).
What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don't think he
gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
record in that volume.
There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In
a paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they
reproduced [in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving
the following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert)
(1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change,
The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
But I had nothing to do with that one!
So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last
millennium!
Happy New Year to everyone
Ray
Raymond S. Bradley
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
*Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
<[4] http://www.paleoclimate.org>
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
Publications (download .pdf files):
[6]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
--
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: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[8]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
1. file://localhost/tmp/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
2. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
3. http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
4. http://www.paleoclimate.org/
5. http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
6. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1167928837.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: not so fast - an update
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
sounds good Phil, I agree on the forecast. I think its at least
'plausible' ;)
by the way, please remind me what input you need from me at this point
on the Wengen paper. I've attached a review paper I've got in press in
"AREPS". Not sure if I sent this to you before. Its mostly a re-tread of
our '04 Rev Geophys review (which is getting lots of citations if you've
noticed!), but a little bit of newer stuff.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
> I'm just beginning to notice this. I talked to AP about 5 hours ago.
> Our google search has noticed 150 in the last 3 hours.
> I checked one - can't recall whether it was Minneapolis of San Diego,
> but it read OK.
>
> It's a trivial forecast. GW plus ENSO.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> I was hoping to put some of this background to the IPCC figure
> into the Wengen paper, but the more places the merrier.
>
> By the way - when I'll send out a reminder.
>
> Phil
>
>
> At 16:19 04/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> by the way, 2007 to be warmest year headline getting a huge amount of
>> play in the U.S. media today,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> The net is closing...
>>>
>>> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
>>> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
>>> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
>>>
>>> This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is
>>> rotated.
>>> It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on
>>> various timescales - all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have
>>> seen countless times before.
>>>
>>> This book also talks about the impending cooling.....
>>>
>>> John Mitchell also thought the figure is in a book by Gribbin
>>> called '1982 CO2 Review". Anyone recall that one. This isn't
>>> in the CRU Library nor UEA's.
>>>
>>> The direct source of the IPCC diagram is the UK Dept of Environment
>>> document from 1989 which is being posted to me. It though has
>>> a source, which isn't in the document. John and Geoff Jenkins
>>> wrote it though. It is possible that just the last millennium panel
>>> was from this source and the others from this 1975 source.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All (Tom is off to Texas),
>>> David Warrilow has found the said report. A photocopy is being
>>> posted
>>> to me, and two others have been asked if they know more about how
>>> it was arrived at.
>>>
>>> I'll report more when I get news.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>> Here's a reply from David Warrilow (below). I still think it is
>>> in a UK Dept of the Environment report from 1988/89, as does
>>> Chris Folland, so have asked him to think a little more.
>>> I've looked at the 1979 edition, and Figure 45 is the one.
>>> It has a curve, but with the 20th century warmer than the
>>> MWP!! It is said to be based on Lamb (1969). This is a
>>> chapter in the World Survey of Climatology Series
>>> edited by Landsberg. I can't see how you can adapt anything
>>> from this. Hubert's chapter has lots of detail, many figures
>>> which have lines with the phrase 'analyst's opinion' - one
>>> of his favourite terms for things he made up. If it is an
>>> adaptation, then it comes from Hubert's ideas about
>>> England and NW Europe, because these are the curves
>>> in the 1969 chapter.
>>>
>>> Anyone have the 1986 edition, to see if this curve got changed?
>>> The 1986 date is about right for being in the document I recall
>>> seeing. Some of you who've seen my room, will be saying if I had
>>> a better filing system, then I would be able to find it. Despite
>>> keeping
>>> most things I can't find this !
>>>
>>> By the way, it is GREAT PITY, the First IPCC report didn't use
>>> Fig 45. We'd all be very happy and the skeptics wouldn't be going
>>> on about what came out in 1990.
>>>
>>> Attached is the Met Office forecast for 2007. It seems that I'm
>>> getting
>>> the credit for this in the media. All I did was talk to the
>>> Independent about
>>> what I thought 2007 had in store weatherwise. With an El Nino going
>>> on,
>>> I thought it might be a record and just trotted off the typical
>>> things that happen
>>> in El Nino years.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and
>>> Imbrie :
>>> Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the
>>> Mystery. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979,
>>> 1986 (reprint). ISBN xxx xxxx xxxxX; ISBN xxx xxxx xxxx; ISBN
>>> xxx xxxx xxxx. p. 25
>>>
>>> You may have it in your library. I am afraid I don't have it to hand,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
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:eudoraattachAREPS-preprint061.pdf"
Original Filename: 1167961271.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: William M Connolley <wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: not so fast - an update
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:41:11 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David Archer <d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond P." <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Caspar Ammann wrote:
> check figure A9, there the 17th century is cold, and this is probably
> the curve that was used. In that case, then its Central England from Lamb.
Ah, you mean A9(d) (I thought you meant A9(a) for a bit). Yes, that looks pretty
similar to IPCC 1990. Though not identical - the scaling is different, but the
timing is similar.
-W.
> Caspar
>
>
> William M Connolley wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Phil Jones wrote:
> >
> >> The net is closing...
> >>
> >> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
> >> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
> >> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
> >>
> >> This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is rotated.
> >> It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on
> >> various timescales - all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have
> >> seen countless times before.
> >>
> >
> > ? The source for IPCC can't be the 1975 NAS report. That fig is relatively warm
> > about 1600; the IPCC '90 figure is cold then. And as noted the "MWP" is colder
> > than 1950. But NAS 75 is the same as I+I, true (they both source to Lamb 69).
> >
> > Incidentally my I+I says copyright 1979, seventh printing 1998.
> >
> > -W.
> >
> > William M Connolley | wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
> > Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (012xxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> > --
> > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
> > to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
> > reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
> > the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
> > records management system.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Caspar M. Ammann
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
> 1850 Table Mesa Drive
> Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
William M Connolley | wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (012xxx xxxx xxxx
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.
Original Filename: 1168014304.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Melinda Tignor <tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Melinda Tignor <tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jurgen Willebrand <jwillebrand@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan Bindoff <n.bindoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matilde Rusticucci <mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Brian Hoskins <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, zhenlin chen <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Upcoming Observations Teleconference - Scheduling Request
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Greetings,
I have now heard back from all of you and the only date that will work for all of you will
be Monday, 8 January (that's Tuesday, 9 January for Nathan & Zhenlin). A small adjustment
to the time would be necessary to accommodate all of you. To ensure that we would have
enough time for everyone to participate in the entire call we would need to start 30
minutes earlier. So, that would be 12:30 MST/I9:30 UTC. I am going to hope that is ok and
move forward with establishing the call. Please let me know ASAP if that time adjustment
will NOT work for you. You will receive another email from me shortly with the details.
Please also let me know if the following contact information changes for you.
Susan Solomon xxx xxxx xxxx
Martin Manning xxx xxxx xxxx
Nathan Bindoff xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin Trenberth xxx xxxx xxxx
Matilde Rusticucci xxx xxxx xxxx
Phil Jones xxx xxxx xxxx
Brian Hoskins xxx xxxx xxxx
Peter Lemke xxx xxxx xxxx
Jurgen Willebrand xxx xxxx xxxx
Zhenlin Chen xxx xxxx xxxx
Cheers,
Melinda
Melinda Tignor wrote:
Greetings,
I am contacting you to schedule the upcoming teleconference. Due to the extreme variability
in your time zones this will likely be a bit tricky and outside "normal" business hours for
some of you.
Please let me know as soon as possible your availability for the following times for the
week of 8 Jan - 12 Jan:
Nathan - 7:00 (Hobart)
Kevin - 13:00 (MST)
Matilde - 17:00 (Buenos Aires)
Phil, Brian - 20:00 (UK)
Peter, Jurgen - 21:00 (Germany)
Again, I realize that some of you would be most likely taking this call from home due to
the early or late time.
Many thanks in advance for your prompt response.
Cheers,
Melinda
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Melinda M.B. Tignor
Program Administrator
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit
NOAA Chemical Sciences Division
325 Broadway DSRC CSD08
Boulder, CO 80305 USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/5628
Email: [1]tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Melinda M.B. Tignor
Program Administrator
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit
NOAA Chemical Sciences Division
325 Broadway DSRC CSD08
Boulder, CO 80305 USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/5628
Email: [2]tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References
1. mailto:tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1168022320.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: William M Connolley <wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
Cc: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David Archer <d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond P." <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Warrilow, David (GA)" <David.Warrilow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mafb5@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear All,
I've added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can
definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes from. The
background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I'd like
to prove that it is a schematic and it isn't based on real data, but on
presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think
it is based on something real.
What we'd like to do is show this either on 'Real Climate' or as background
in a future paper, or both.
I'm attaching a few diagrams as background (attaching in order of
introducing them) and giving some earlier thoughts. I assume you all have
a copy of the said diagram in the first IPCC report.
1. This is where the IPCC diagram came from - the top panel is also
there, but the middle one from IPCC isn't. This is where Chris Folland
knows it came from. He said it was shoehorned in at a very late date.
This report comes from a UK Dept of the Environment document - where the
first edition predates 1990. David Warrilow says that this was written by
Geoff Jenkins and John Mitchell.
John said the following
I think it was based on a diagram A2 in the national Academy of Sciences
boolet "Understanding climate change" cirica 1974 if rmeber correctly- I
can find out in Reading tomorrow- which I can't find in the library- it
was reproduced in one of John Gribbens books and I think a book claled
the "1982 CO2 review". I think there 6 diagrams and I remember Tom
Wigley commenting that only the first ( millions of years) and Last (
instrumental record) had any credibility.
and
National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
2. This 1975 book has the 3rd attachment on p130 . This is very similar to one
that David Warrilow said (also attached from Imbrie and Imbrie - second
attachment).
from David
I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and Imbrie :
Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the Mystery. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979, 1986 (reprint). ISBN xxx xxxx xxxxX; ISBN
xxx xxxx xxxx; ISBN xxx xxxx xxxx. p. 25
These look the same if you invert and rotate the one from 1975, and they both
say 'winter conditions in Eastern Europe' - well Imbrie/Imbrie do. They
also say adapted from Lamb (1969). This is the World Survey of Climatology
series from Landsberg, vol2. I've been through this and I can't see much
of a plot anything like those I've attached, so some adaptation. Also I've
no idea what this Eastern European series is!
The IPCC diagram and the UK report clearly don't originate here.
3. Caspar Amman had John Gribbin's 1982 book and sent the 4th
attachment. This has a warmer MWP, but is far too cool recently.
So even if this was resmoothed, it wouldn't before the IPCC one.
4. Ray Bradley sent this text:
I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy
used to publish called "Earth Quest". It was designed for, and distributed to, high school
teachers. In one issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines, Cenozoic,
Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. The idea was to give
non-specialists a perspective on the earth's climate history. I think this idea evolved
from the old NRC publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on by Tom Webb in
the book I edited for UCAR, Global Changes of the Past. (This was an outcome of the
wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded around 1990).
I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax from
Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version from, I
don't know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have
no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it further, I don't
know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950) perhaps it's not so
bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the much embellished graph
that Stefan circulated (
[1]http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things. They
also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any case,
the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly persistent
inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave such things on the table...).
What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don't think he gave a
citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having submitted a great
deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that Chris essentially
ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate record in that volume.
There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In a
paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they reproduced
[in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving the following
citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert) (1991), as
modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change, The IPCC
Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
But I had nothing to do with that one!
So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last
millennium!
5. Finally, here's one from Stefan, to show how the IPCC diagram gets
(first another one which appears to be the IPCC 1990 diagram).
The one I want to attach seems to be within Stefan's email so that
is the end of this email. You can also get to this by going to the link
in Ray's piece above.
It shows how you can embellish a diagram and even get Rembrandt in!
I've also seen many other embellishments mentioning Greenland, the Vikings,
Vineyards in York, frost fairs on the Thames etc. Also I've emailed over
the years for the numbers in the 1990 IPCC Figure. I even got a digitized
version once from Richard Tol and told him what he'd done was
ludicrous.
6. So who put to together? Do we blame Ray? Is it a whim of his
excellent imagination? I know we will all likely agree with Ray that
it is based on absolutely nothing. Tom Crowley thinks it might be
based on Lamb and sent the final figure. Now all of those who are
or were in CRU know, you should be very careful with Lamb diagrams!
This one does not stand any scrutiny and there are several more
recent papers by Tom Wigley, Astrid Ogilvie and Graham Farmer
that have shown that this final diagram is irreproducible and it was
much cooler in the 11-13th centuries. It is also England and summer
only. The galling thing is, it does look like the IPCC Figure!!!!!!
When Tom sent the figure, he added this text (see below).
The figure looks like Figure 30 (I've not scanned this one), but will,
from his 1982 (reprinted in 1985 and 1995) called Climate History
and the Modern World. This figure has series for the year, JJA and
DJF.
Someone tell me it isn't based on a Lamb diagram, please....
Phil
Tom Crowley said
we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do
not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at the attached - which I used in the
Crowley-Lowery composite just because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the
record of record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his book dated
1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard et al. 1975 Nature paper on
Norsemen...etc used that figure when comparing what must have been their Camp Century
record - have to check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the timing of
Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a strong statement on the
MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of the MWP being warming than the present was
correct and that the 1999 Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him
that he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to do my "bonehead"
sampling of whatever was out there just to see what happened when you added them all
together - the amazing result was that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is
history -- much ignored and forgotten.
I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - and that Fred Singer
loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the journal) basically shoehorned me into
re-reproducing that figure even though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in
the figure caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states "compiled by
R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so that puts a further twist on this
because it point to Houghton not Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that
part of the figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - the MWP is clearly more
schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA
are pretty good) - maybe there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do
the MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have thrown in the
old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can schlep something together using only
those old three records.
tom
Stefan said
the reason why I started to worry about this is the attached graph. Recognise something?
- Used in school teaching in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, is on a website with
officially recommended teacher materials
- Used in university teaching in Germany
- Used in politics in Germany by people within the FDP.
Note the vertical axis label on that, by the way. The text that goes with it claims the
medieval warm period was 2-4
Original Filename: 1168124326.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Rasmus Benestad" <rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:58:xxx xxxx xxxx(GMT)
Reply-to: rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <David.Warrilow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mafb5@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
I think that this story could possible catch on and make headlines, so I
agree that we should be careful. But it's important that we bring the
*true* picture out, and it is best that this is done by RealClimate rather
than a sceptic site. The general scientific side of the IPCC report (i.e.
all the peer-reviewed papers ad the scientific theories) is still sound,
but to explain how *one* figure was shoe-horned into the report is harder
to defend. The sceptics may argue that the IPCC reports are political
after all, and this is also what it sounds like if governments 'hoisted
the national flag' by having it's own figures inserted last minute.
However, by providing an account of the 'evolution of the IPCC report
writing', we could possibly give the story a softer landing. E.g. how many
times of review the first report underwent as compared to the present
report. We should also put this in perspective - the report is large and
covers a wide range of topics, and most (all but our case?) is true to the
science. There are sometimes a few rotten apples in a good batch,
unfortunately. But the important part is that we don't accept rotten
apples and that we sort it out! Forthcoming and up-front. Another
important side is that this can provide a lesson for the scientific
communities.
Rasmus
> Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least
> my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the
> skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old
> graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in
> teaching! And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes
> the IPCC process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a
>
> diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as
> we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue
> fodder for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics
> can't really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting
> themselves in the foot.
>
> Cheers, Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> www.ozean-klima.de
> www.realclimate.org
--
Rasmus E. Benestad
Skype: rasmus.e.benestad
Rasmus.Benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or @met.no
mobile xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 1168288278.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Science presentation for Paris
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
One too many 0's. 0.005.
Kevin
Susan Solomon wrote:
Phil,
Thanks. This comes up both in the presentation and in SPM language.
A suggested merge of Phil's text below with the SPM language we have implies replacing the
sentence on page SPM-5, 6-7 with the following proposal:
Sites affected by the urban heat island effect are identified and excluded from these
averages, so that remaining uncertainties due to this effect are negligible (less than
0.0005
Original Filename: 1168353155.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Melinda Marquis <marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AR4 Paleoclimate Teleconference
Date: Tue Jan 9 09:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: chen zhenlin <chenzhenlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, czl <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
THis time is fine for me and the number you have is correct. Cheers
Keith
At 18:38 08/01/2007, Melinda Marquis wrote:
Dear Peck, Eystein and Keith,
Thank you for agreeing to meet this week (Thurs., Jan. 11) to discuss paleoclimate
items. Martin will send you a follow-up email with an agenda to focus the
teleconference discussion.
In the meantime, if you would please confirm or correct the phone numbers where you can
be reached, I would be grateful.
Jonathan Overpeck
Tucson, AZ, U.S.
9:00 a.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
Eystein Jansen
Bergen, Norway (Oslo-time)
5:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith Briffa
Norwich, U.K. (London-time)
4:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
____
Chen Zhenlin
Beijin, China [Please send phone for a midnight call.]
12 midnight Thurs.-Fri.
Cheers,
Melinda
--
Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA/ESRL Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
--
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: 1168356704.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: That darned diagram
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by routt.cgd.ucar.edu id l09HVngh027823
<x-flowed>
Phil,
here the graphs from the Brooks 1949 (2nd edition) that we have at NCAR.
One is temperature the other precip reconstructions.
Caspar
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Tom, Caspar,
> Keep the attached to yourself. I wrote this yesterday,
> but still need to do a lot more. I added in a section
> about post-Lamb work in CRU, but need to check out
> the references I've added and look at the extra one
> from 1981 that you've sent. This may take me a little
> time as I'm away Weds/Thurs this week. I see my name
> on an abstract, by the way, that I have no recollection of !
> I presume this has something in about instrumental global
> temps. This abstract isn't in my CV!!!!!
>
> So your point (3) needs to document that we knew the
> diagram wasn't any good, as well as how far back it goes.
> Knowing Hubert on some of his other 'breakthroughs!'
> it is clearly possible it goes back to Brooks !
>
> On the post-Lamb work in CRU, I recall talking to Graham
> (maybe mid-1980s) when he was comparing recent CRU work
> with Lamb - correlations etc. Did that ever see the light of day
> in these pubs or elsewhere? I will look. It isn't in the chapter
> Astrid and he wrote in the CRU book from 1997. I recall some
> very low correlations - for periods from 1100 to 1500.
>
> This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn't something that
> should be discussed online on RC - at least till we know all
> the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot
> of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
> enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
> non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!
>
> As for who put the curve in - I think I know who did it. Chris may
> be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the
> DoE curve. This is likely bad enough.
> I don't think it is going to help getting the real culprit to
> admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame.
> I have a long email from him - just arrived. Just read that and he
> seems to changing his story from last December, but I still
> think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on
> Friday - that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like
> a mystery whodunit.
>
> In the meantime - any thoughts on the attached welcome. Getting the
> level of detail required is the key.
>
> I need to do a better diagram - better scanning etc.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 18:02 06/01/2007, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>> I see the problems with this in terms of history, IPCC image,
>> skeptix, etc. I'm sure you can handle it. In doing so, you might
>> consider (or not) some of these points.
>>
>> (1) I think Chris Folland is to blame for this. The issue is not
>> our collective ignorance of paleoclimate in 1989/90, but
>> Chris's ignorance. The text that was in the 1990 report (thanks
>> for reminding us of this, Caspar) ameliorates the problem
>> considerably.
>>
>> (2) Nevertheless, 'we' (IPCC) could have done better even then.
>> The Rothlisberger data were available then -- and could/should
>> have been used.
>>
>> (3) We also already knew that the Lamb UK record was flawed.
>> We published a revision of this -- but never in a mainstream
>> journal because we did not want to offend Hubert. I don't have
>> the paper to hand, but I think it is ...
>>
>> Wigley, T.M.L., Huckstep, N.J., Mortimer, R., Farmer, G., Jones, P.D.,
>> Salinger, M.J. and Ogilvie, A.E.J., 1981: The reconstruction of European
>> climate on decadal and shorter time scales. (In) Extended Abstracts,
>> First Meeting, Reconstruction of Past Climates Contact Group, EEC
>> Directorate-General for Science, Research and Development, Brussels,
>> Belgium, 83
Original Filename: 1168467907.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "Brian Hoskins" <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations Conference Call
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:25:xxx xxxx xxxx(GMT)
Cc: "Susan Solomon" <susan.solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Brian Hoskins" <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, martin.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Matilde Rusticucci" <mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Peter Lemke" <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jurgen Willebrand" <jwillebrand@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Nathan Bindoff" <n.bindoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "zhenlin chen" <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Melinda Marquis" <marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear All,
Agree with Brian's new bullet. I still think we will
get comments about what changes with storms. If this
is going to lead somewhere we don't want it and cause
problems, then the final part is likely best removed.
Reading it again, better if we say .. since the 1960s.
About is a little vague.
Back in CRU on Friday. I may be able to get this hotel link
to work tomorrow morning.
Cheers
Phil
> Dear All
>
> To me a headline should be kept simple with the detail in the bullets
> below, so I prefer the simple version with "aspects of extreme weather"
> but I guess I am outvoted on that!
>
> For the first part of the bullet on the westerlies I should prefer to
> revert to including the shift and also using the word strengthen rather
> than increase (a number, such as the speed, increases):
>
> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since
> about the 1960s.
>
> The next part on the storms is problematic. I agree with Kevin that we
> should steer clear of the causal langauage Susan had used. However
> Kevin's words seemed to link a shift in the storm tracks with an
> increase in the winds. Also, as reviewed in 3.5.3, some papers suggest
> that, in addition to a poleward shift in the storm tracks and an
> increase in their average intensity, there is a decrease in the number
> of storms . This is probably too much for the bullet, so that a less
> specific version may be required.
>
> I think the whole bullet could be:
>
> Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since
> about the 1960s, with associated changes in storms. (3.5)
>
> Brian
>
>
> Susan Solomon wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brian and Kevin for the help.
>>
>> I agree with Brian about reversing the order in the headline sentence
>> but agree with Kevin that a separate bullet is most helpful. I
>> suggest we keep the headline short and simple and just leave the
>> language we have about wind patterns being one of several things
>> changing there. Otherwise it could be read as putting the circulation
>> change into a very high prominence in the headline which isn't quite
>> the emphasis we were discussing, I think.
>>
>> I tried to combine the suggestions and to keep things clear enough
>> that governments won't complain about lack of specifics. If you look
>> over the comments, you will have seen that above all they will not
>> tolerate vague language. Anybody who was in Shanghai (or any other
>> IPCC meeting) can attest to that so please please everybody help make
>> things as specific as we can.
>>
>> So my suggestion for the wind pattern bullet is:
>>
>> Mid-latitude westerly wind speeds have increased in both hemispheres
>> since about the 1960s. This has caused storm tracks to move towards
>> higher latitudes. {3.6}
>>
>> Regarding the headline that proceeds it, can we consider something
>> like this:
>>
>> At continental or ocean basin scales, numerous changes in climate have
>> been observed. These include sea ice extent, precipitation amounts,
>> ocean salinity, wind patterns, and [aspects of extreme weather] OR
>> [the frequency of heavy precipitation and of heat waves, the intensity
>> and duration of drought, and the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons.]
>>
>> The ice sheets have been taken out of the above because they are
>> moving to a consolidated sea level subsection, to deal with several
>> requests for that.
>>
>> Is the new option after wind patterns too specific? I am a little
>> concerned that we will be challenged on that. We could keep what we
>> have: 'aspects of extreme weather'. Equally, I am worried that they
>> will challenge the vagueness of 'extreme weather' so that is why you
>> see two alternatives here.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> At 8:54 AM -0700 1/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian
>>> Do you need the first part? Are you rewriting the headline on SPM p
>>> 5 lines xxx xxxx xxxxor are you adding an extra bullet on circulation?
>>> I thought we agreed on the latter, but your piece seems more like the
>>> former.
>>>
>>> If we left the headline alone and added:
>>
>>> * Changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent
>>> and, in particular, the mid-latitude westerly winds have
>>> shifted polewards and strengthened, altering storm tracks.
>>>
>>> would be an alternative approach. I think it is helpful to mention
>>> storm tracks but not be specific about how they have changed.
>>> What do you think?
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> Brian Hoskins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> Headline 2
>>>>
>>>> I suggest the following:
>>>>
>>>> At continental or ocean basin scale, numerous changes in climate
>>>> have been observed. Mid-latitude westerly winds (and the associated
>>>> storms) have shifted polewards and strengthened. Other climate
>>>> changes include precipitation,.....
>>>>
>>>> I have taken the suggestion form SPM_327 to reverse the order of the
>>>> first sentence.
>>>>
>>>> The westerly winds sentence is essentially that in a headline in the
>>>> TS.
>>>>
>>>> I should much prefer not to include the bracketed itallicised phrase
>>>> on storms. The evidence is less strong. There is some evidence for
>>>> reduced numbers of storms also but no room to say that. It was not
>>>> headlined in the chapter or the TS.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ****************
>>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>> Climate Analysis Section,
>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html>
>>> NCAR
>>> P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>>> Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>>>
>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
>>
>>
>
>
Original Filename: 1168883146.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EGU
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: raymond s bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks Phil,
not suggestion you not cite Wegman report, just suggesting you make sure the citation makes
clear what the report is...
mike
p.s. where/when did Tom Crowley use it?
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Thanks.
On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher.
Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption.
Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother.
2) I agree Wegman isn't a formal publication. This was the highest profile
example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any
others then let me know.
Even Tom Crowley shouldn't have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that
a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It
doesn't, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the
summer one.
I'll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I've sent the
piece to.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil,
The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you've been able to dig up on
this. Won't pass this along.
A couple minor comments:
1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very
useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming
is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say "see medieval
peak was warmer than present". but that doesn't follow because so much of the warmning
has been over past two decades.
2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate
piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in
such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn't peer-reviewed, i.e.
could be references as a "criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon).
3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline
you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them
and tell them the timeline you have in mind?
talk to you later,
mike
p.s. thanks very much for the 'nomination' :), but you flatter me. I think that someone
farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time.
Phil Jones wrote:
Ray,
I have been nominating you for several years, as has Andre
and Jean - I think. Not sure how much the last two have been
involved recently. I haven't been for a few years.
So, congratulations ! If as in previous years, you get asked about
future awards, then consider nominating Keith and/or Mike. In the
past it has alternated between ice cores and others.
As for a presentation, something on the lines of where we stand
etc. will be great.
Gerard seems to be very flexible with the date for CL28.
I've no idea how many abstracts there are yet. Haven't done
anything on publicity for the session. Later in the week I'll check
how many we have. So suggest the session day you want.
Avoid Friday - people leave, also a bit on Thursday.
Tuesday and Weds tend to have the most people there. I'll
likely put you first in a session - not the early morning, but after
coffee or lunch. I'll liaise with Gerard. I have to organize everything
by next Monday as I'm at the IPCC in Paris from Jan 23 till Feb 2.
Can you two give me your thoughts on the attached? I think
this is best in the Wengen meeting summary. Certainly after
IPCC has met and likely after June when the chapters come out.
Don't pass on to anyone an don't use in Vienna.
Cheers
Phil
PS Are you two getting loads of press cuttings from Mike Schlesinger?
At 18:25 13/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Ray, I hadn't heard the announcement. This is wonderful news. You (like Phil) couldn't
be more deserving for this.
I'm sorry that I won't be there (EGU comes at a bad time of the Penn State semester). I
owe you a drink when next we meet.
Congratulations again!
mike
raymond s bradley wrote:
I was totally surprised to learn I was selected for the EGU's Oeschger medal this
year--so if you had anything to do with that, many, many thanks. I knew Hans quite well
and so this is especially meaningful for me. Phil got the first Oeschger Medal so I
know I am following in his big shoes. But I can't help feeling it's all a clerical error
somehow and a correction letter will appear any day now....
But, assuming this is not so...I was asked to give a talk aimed at a non-specialist
audience in one of the sessions. I think your session on the last millennium is the
obvious session in which to do this, so I will prepare something along the lines of
"climate of the last millennium: status and prospect" so I can briefly summarise where
we are at and what seems to be needed.
I'll submit an abstract on-line this weekend.
Ray
Raymond S. Bradley
University Distinguished Professor
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
*Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
< [1]http://www.paleoclimate.org>
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
--
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: [3]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [5]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: [6]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[7]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [8]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
References
1. http://www.paleoclimate.org/
2. http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
5. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
8. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Original Filename: 1168921050.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Nathan Bindoff <n.bindoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC WG1 Observations ppt
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:17:30 +1100
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Lemke <Peter.Lemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jwillebrand@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Brian Hoskins <b.j.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Matilde Rusticucci <mati@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, zhenlin chen <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melinda Marquis <Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nathan Bindoff <n.bindoff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
G'day Folks
Just to pick up on Susan's comment below, that I am interested in, and
perhaps also richard alley in using parts of Peter's presentation for
the sea-level rise issues....
Hope to have a new version by the close of tomorrow.
Cheers Nathan
On Fri, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 11:xxx xxxx xxxx, Susan Solomon wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thanks for looking and thinking about this.
>
> I should clarify that some of what Peter kindly put into his
> presentation may link to the sea level presentation, so may be better
> moved there. We should consider that carefully. I suspect that
> Peter was trying to avoid undue emphasis on Larsen B alone - because
> other places are showing similar things. So we should evaluate that
> too. While none of the figures themselves are explicitly shown in
> Figure 4 (including the Larsen B one), the material referenced is
> assessed there and Peter has carefully given the papers - so if we
> believe this is needed, it could be considered.
>
> I do like Figure 4.13 but think it would be clearer for this audience
> if it showed just the volume changes rather than the two panels. I
> understand why the technical expert likes both but for this audience
> perhaps just something showing the changes in glacier volume (SLR)
> would be clearer.
>
> bests,
> Susan
>
>
> At 9:49 AM -0700 1/12/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> >Hi Peter
> >I am a bit alarmed about all of these slides as being too complex
> >and not using material from the chapters enough.
> >
> >For instance Fig 4.13 I found easy to understand but your first
> >slide is not easy: why is Europe in blue going up in a and level in
> >b when the glaciers are retreating? The reason is because this
> >shows the rate of change not the result of the change isn't it?
> >
> >In your second slide I do like the Larsen B ice shelf picture and
> >that provides a nice back drop for some explanation of the new
> >bullet (which is good). But why include the 3 panels on the left?
> >What do they add?
> >
> >I am not sure the next two are needed especially in their current
> >form. None of these are in the chapter. They add too much new
> >material. In my last ppt version I added some place holders taking
> >some figures from the chapter as they are part of the picture that
> >"global warming is unequivocal". I would urge you to include the
> >first two I had, plus one of yours based on the Larsen B slide but
> >with the message from the bullet added, or something like that.
> >
> >Regards
> >Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter Lemke wrote:
> >>Dear Colleagues,
> >>please find enclosed a ppt-file addressing issues of Chapter 4.
> >>Slide 1: addresses SPM-312 and 314. I suggest to accept 312. The
> >>figure (4.15 from the chapter) indicates an increased rate of
> >>change after about 1990. But I do not think that we have an
> >>indication of an acceleration (continuously increasing rate of
> >>change).
> >>Slides 2,3 and 4: address the increased flow speed of tributary
> >>glaciers after retreat/thinning/loss of ice shelves or floating
> >>glacier tongues in Antarctica and Greenland (comments SPM-349 to
> >>353)
> >>
> >>I did not find any critical comments concerning snow, sea ice and
> >>frozen ground. Therefore I did not prepare any slides for theses
> >>topics.
> >>Best regards,
> >>Peter
> >>
> >>**************************************
> >>Please note my new e-mail address:
> >>
> >>Peter.Lemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>
> >>**************************************
> >>Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
> >>Alfred-Wegener-Institute
> >>for Polar and Marine Research
> >>Postfach 120161
> >>27515 Bremerhaven
> >>GERMANY
> >>
> >>e-mail: Peter.Lemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>Phone: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx/1750
> >>FAX: ++49 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
> >>http://www.awi.de
> >>**************************************
> >
> >--
> >****************
> >Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
> >NCAR
> >P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
> >
> >Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
>
Original Filename: 1169050678.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: See the attached
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Phil,
I've seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob
Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont' think anyone will take this seriously...
Do you have any advance knowledge you could pass along that would help
us gear up to do something on RealClimate? I assume that there will be
no surprises in the paleoclimate chapter, but I haven't seen the final
draft. Any hints you can drop would be great...
thanks,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>
> You've probably seen this. We are slated about p189/190.
> I hope this doesn't come up at the final IPCC meeting in
> Paris. I've nothing to worry about anyway. I wish they
> wouldn't keep going on about it.
>
> The press release after Paris from WG1, by the way will be Feb 2.
> You might like to gear up Real Climate for the week after. Only the
> SPM will be available then. The chapters come later as you'll know -
> I've heard June mentioned. CUP are doing them again.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1169238969.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Isaac Held <Isaac.Held@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ronald Stouffer <Ronald.Stouffer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
Date: Fri Jan 19 15:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Melinda_Tignor <tignor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melinda.Marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Susan
This is very clear and very useful Thanks
Keith
At 15:21 19/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote:
Keith, Peter, Isaac, Ron,
Thanks to all of you for helping out.
Keith, the audience for the presentations is the policy makers who will be present in
Paris. As you have already seen from the comments, many of them are not scientists. The
presentations need to be pitched at a non-scientist level. A number of the policy
people will be lawyers, and a number will be legalistically looking to find anything
that can advance their position. Most of them will however just be looking to ask
questions and to better understand, and many will be constructive in how they use the
information provided. So it is quite a mix. They should not be given input that
distracts from the job at hand. Therefore, these presentations should not bring in new
issues not raised in the comments, figures from material outside the report, etc.
I hasten to say that all of us hope there will not be big problems in going through the
presentations. The presentations are being carefully prepared by excellent people, so
my expectation would be for quite minor changes.
All of the above has been discussed with those preparing the presentations, so a primary
role in co-chairing this session is to lend a constructively critical eye, seeking to
advance the goal of clarity, conciseness, and sticking to the report rather than
straying, if needed. The outcome is not a formal approval statement of the
presentation. The outcome is to guide the collective subgroup to a *clear* consensus on
what should be changed before the presentation is passed in to the TSU. If there are
things that a majority of the group wants to see changed but others do not, you will
have a chairman's job to do in finding a solution everyone can live with. It would
probably be helpful if you could keep some notes on the agreed changes, since that will
help you ensure that you have been clear enough in stating the conclusion. Too often
there is a thrash and no closure. A good chair gets agreement with the group.
Thanks again,
Susan
At 1:00 PM +0000 1/19/07, Keith Briffa wrote:
Hi Susan et al
sorry for delayed response - just back from Paris (or so I originally thought as the
meeting I was at turned out to be 3 hours away by train ). I too am happy to act as you
request, though I am still uncertain as to who the specific audience will be and more
particularly, what you expect as an outcome of the session (a formal approval statement
or recommendation for amendments?).
cheers
Keith
At 00:31 18/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote:
Dear Peter, Isaac, Ron, and Keith
I am writing to let you know that the agenda for our C/LA meeting to take place in Paris
on Saturday and Sunday Jan 27/28 will have your names listed for a proposed role, and I
hope you will be able to accept.
At the end of the second day of the meeting, we will go over the set of longer 'science
presentations' that will be given informally during the lunchtime sessions. There will
be two parallel sessions from 4-6 pm on Sunday, and I am hoping that Peter/Keith can
chair one dealing with drivers, obs, and paleo, whle Ron and Isaac can chair one on
attribution/sea level/projections.
Earlier on Sat/Sun we will also have gone over the shorter formal presentations that
will be used to start each section of the SPM during the meeting.
See below for some more information CLAs requested for preparation of the shorter
presentations.
An important point is that the short and long presentations should be consistent and
should strongly support the SPM approval process (see below).
We are seeking tough chairmen who could a) keep to a strict time schedule and avoid
slippage; b) ensure that a clear statement is made about what the group conclusion is
(e.g., if the group feels that a particular presentation should be changed, that needs
to be made clear to the person who will hand in the final presentation to the TSU); and
c) helps the group to focus on the need for these presentations to communicate with
policy people (not overly technical) and help address the comments received (not to
digress). In short, to be tough, fair, constructive, and well organized.
Thanks in advance for considering helping with this. If you feel you cannot do it, let
me know but I will assume silence is agreement to serve.
best regards,
Susan
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: zhenlin chen <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin.Manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
List-Id: <wg1-ar4-clas.joss.ucar.edu>
List-Unsubscribe: <[1]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas>,
<[2]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <[3]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/private/wg1-ar4-clas>
List-Post: <[4]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
List-Help: <[5]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <[6]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas>,
<[7]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Rcpt-To: <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-DPOP: Version number supressed
Dear CLAs,
We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter and longer) that are
to be given in Paris. A number of you have asked about the shorter presentations in
particular and we want to clarify that here.
We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators for each section in
our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling together the shorter presentations of not more
than 10 slides (Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on attribution,
Stocker on projections).
Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the longer science
presentations, and that has been very helpful. These will occur informally during lunch
breaks, or before the morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to
simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will typically find these very
helpful, and will want to use them to ask you questions.
In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to presentation of each of the
major sections of the report (drivers, observations, attribution, and projections), we
will benefit from a very short presentation that introduces the section. The speaker's
words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We suggest that the paleo ice core
material be covered as part of the drivers, that the paleo observations be covered as
part of the observations, etc, to speed things up (we can switch speakers but keep
slides in the same file).
These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the stage. They must be
very short. We will have an absolute limit of not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5
minutes for the shorter sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please
do not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be strictly limited by
the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters of clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear).
We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations jointly at our preparatory
meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An
agenda for the preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly.
The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer ones. They will be
most helpful if:
- they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section is meant to fit
together and some key highlights.
- they present the figures and tables used in the SPM section to follow, but do
not include figures from the chapters unless absolutely essential. Including figures
from outside the report could create problems and should be avoided.
- they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from the distributed SPM.
As some of us have seen in the heated discussions via email about the MOC, sticking to
the agreed consensus obtained in the chapter teams is something our colleagues who will
not be in Paris would appreciate our doing as much as possible. We will need to agree
to all changes to be presented by us to delegates as a team in our preparatory meeting
on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek more and that is what we will have to jointly
manage.
- they have very little text on them, as simple as possible.
- they do not try to cover each bullet.
You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate speakers between your
science presentation and these short presentations, so that more of you get a chance to
speak.
Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably aware that we completed a
special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005. The short presentation on our section (section 2)
at that session worked extremely well and is appended here as an example in case you
want to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much less material to cover of
course and more time to do it (this is more than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that
was a different situation) but we hope this is still helpful.
We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the presentations on Jan 27-28.
Best regards,
Susan, Martin, and Dahe
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[8]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
2. mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Fsubject=unsubscribe
3. http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/private/wg1-ar4-clas
4. mailto:wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Fsubject=help
6. http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
7. mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Fsubject=subscribe
8. http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
9. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
10. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1169653761.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: 2006
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Kennedy, John" <john.kennedy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Ok that explains several things, I am so glad to know this before going
to Paris tomorrow. I made another minor tweak.
Kevin
david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Kevin
>
> Thanks. The averages of the values in Fig 3.6 over 1xxx xxxx xxxxturned out
> not to be exactly 0.000 owing to missing data in the reference period (a
> perennial problem Phil is well aware of). But Susan (?) wanted the SPM
> curve to average exactly 0.000 in 1xxx xxxx xxxxso the values were shifted
> by somewhere between 0.02 and 0.03.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 10:xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>
>> John and David
>> Thanks, I have updated the figure using your new low frequency curves,
>> and so I think 3.6 is now redone.
>> However I do not understand the other figure: the global value for T for
>> 2006 seems to be 0.46 not 0.42: it lies above half way between the
>> ticks. Again I have copied the low frequency curve and replaced the one
>> on our figure, but I don't understand the last point.
>> How do these look?
>> Kevin
>>
>> Kennedy, John wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> I have attached updated versions of the diagrams so that you can see
>>> where the 2006 bars and dots should be moved to.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 14:xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> David et al
>>>> For Fig 3.6 we need values for globe, NH and SH. I guessed at NH as
>>>> 0.55 and SH as 0.28. But not sure what the new error bars are. I
>>>> reduced them a bit from old ones but not as much as for last year.
>>>> Anyway, take a look at the attached. I also made a teeny extension of
>>>> the blue in each plot. Should I have done that or did the decadal curve
>>>> already include 2006?
>>>> This is what I can do. If you give me the correct error bars I can
>>>> refine a bit more.
>>>> Let me know
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Phil, Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2006 global annual average surface temperature anomaly wrt 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> including December data is 0.42+-0.06C (1 sigma) and 2006 remains 6th.
>>>>> Slight upgrades to November and December land data are expected in due
>>>>> course, but this is the final number so far as IPCC is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
</x-flowed>