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: 925158373.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Connie Woodhouse (by way of "Henri D. Grissino-Mayer" <grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>)" <woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Problem with "az510.crn": No Correlation
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve,
AZ510.crn is a bristlecone pine chronology. I suspect the others you are
working with are ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. In this region, these
lower-elevation species have quite a different response to climate than the
bristlecone. I haven't worked with the AZ510 chronology, but I would
guess that bristlecone tree growth at this site would be favored by warm
winter temperatures and perhaps somewhat drier conditions, while the
ponderosa and Douglas-fir do well under cool, wet winter conditions. This
may be the reason for your poor correlations.
regards,
Connie Woodhouse
Connie Woodhouse
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80303
ph: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
email: woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
Campus Box 450
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
ph: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (303)xxx xxxx xxxx
email: woodhous@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 925225547.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Matthew Salzer <msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: AZ510: No Correlation
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Steve:
I've had some experience with bristlecone pine on the San Francisco Peaks
and you are correct in noting their lack of correlation with precipitation
records and with other precipitation sensitive tree-ring chronologies like
Slate Mtn. Ponderosa. There is no "problem" with the AZ510 chronology; it
is, as suggested by Dave, Connie, and Jim, a chronology constructed from
trees whose growth is not primarily limited by precipitation. Site location
and tree species are critical when comparing chronologies and evaluating
climate - tree growth relationships.
We've collected in the Peaks recently as part of an ongoing archaeological
and paleoclimate project and have built a chronology extending back to 663
BC, more than 1200 years longer than the AZ510 chronology collected by Don
Graybill in the early 1980's. We're working on a temperature reconstruction
from this chronology that should prove to be a valuable addition to the
already extensive archive of southwestern USA paleoenvironmental research.
Matt Salzer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium
msalzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 925507395.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Mitchell, John FB" <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'Mike Hulme' <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: GEC paper
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:23:15 +0100
see inserts
jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The Met. Office, Bracknell
RG12 2SZ UK
Tel xxx xxxx xxxx/6656
Faxxxx xxxx xxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:31 PM
> To: Mitchell, John FB
> Subject: RE: GEC paper
>
> John,
>
> Could you have a quick look at this paragraph (see below) from the GEC
> fast-track paper. I do not understand:
>
> a) why CO2-doubling forcing for CM2 is cited (see your original email at
> the end of this message) as 3.26Wm-2 when I thought it was 3.471Wm-2 (I'm
> sure I've seen 3.471Wm-2 cited elsewhere for HadCM2).
[Mitchell, John FB] 3.471 in longwave, 3.26 when shortwave also
taken into account. Unfortunately modellers do not always make clear how
they have estimated their CO2 forcing.
> and
>
> b) why the forcing curves in the plot William Ingram sent show higher
> forcing in CM2 than CM3 (by about 0.5Wm-2) when the CO2-doubling forcing
> is
> *lower* in CM2 cf. CM3.
[Mitchell, John FB] HadCM2 is 1%/year increase in CO2 which is only
approximately equivalent to IS92a. Hadcm 3 is "95a" - in fact "95a" I think
differs only from in the conversion of the 92a emissions to concentrations,
so strictly speaking is not an emissions scenario. As far as I know, Tom
never did explain why his concentrations in 1995 were different form the
ones Jonathan and I derived using his 1992 model- I think CH4 liffetimes and
the CO2 sink were the main factors.
> [is this solely due again to the difference between IS92a and IS95a
> concentrations?]
>
> and
>
> c) why the global-mean warmings in CM2 and CM3 are quite similar when CM3
> has a higher sensitivity than CM2 (3.3 to 2.5K over the next century) and
> CM3 also has a higher CO2-doubling forcing (3.74Wm-2 to 3.26Wm-2, or
> 3.47Wm-2 - see a)). Surely this should lead to faster warming in CM3 cf.
> CM2?
[Mitchell, John FB] See above - HadCM2 uses 1%/year increase in
CO2, which gives a greater forcing than HadCM3, even after the effect of
explicit trace gases is added in.
(about 0.5Wm-2 by 2100). The greater climate sensitivity does not
make as big a difference as one would expect. The difference in CO2 forcing
per doubling is not the issue- the net forcing is, and that has ben
calculated taking the difference in CO2 response into account
M aybe I have misinterpreted something here.
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> ______________
>
> Paragraph from GEC paper ......
>
> "In HadCM3, greenhouse gas concentrations were increased from their 1860
> values up to present (1990) as observed and then following the IPCC
> emissions scenario IS92a (Leggett et al., 1992) from 1990 to 2100. Only
> one simulation was carried out. The increase in radiative forcing during
> the twenty-first century is very similar to HadCM2, being only 0.5 Wm-2
> (about 10%) smaller by 2100 than in the HadCM2 experiment (Figure 2).
> Note
> that the ratio of the increases in CO2 concentration (HadCM2/HadCM3) is
> much greater than the ratio of the changes in radiative heating. There is
> a greater increase in heating in HadCM2, so a greater increase in CO2 is
> required to produce the same fractional increase in heating. Also,
> because
> the heating due to doubling CO2 in HadCM2 is less than in HadCM3 (3.26
> Wm-2
> compared to 3.74 Wm-2), a larger increase in CO2 is required to give the
> same change in heating. Note also that the increase in forcing varies as
> the logarithm of the change in CO2 concentration."
>
>
> At 14:54 09/04/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi Mike.
> >
> >2xCO2
> >HadCMxxx xxxx xxxx.26 Wm-2 including stratospheric adjustment and allowance for
> >solar absorption.
> >hadCMxxx xxxx xxxx.74 Wm-2 as above.
> >
> >
> >Gordon C., C. Cooper, C. Senior, H. Banks, J. M. Gregory, T.C. Johns,
> J.F.B.
> >Mitchell and R. Wood, 1999. Simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean
> >heat transports in a coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate
> >Dynamics (provisionally accepted)
> >
> >Note year is 1997
> >Gregory, J. M. and J.F.B Mitchell, 1997. The climate response to CO2 of
> the
> >Hadley Centre coupled OAGCM with and without flux adjustment, J Geophys
> >Lett., 24, 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
> >
> >I will try and look at then text now
> >John
> >jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> >The Met. Office, Bracknell
> >RG12 2SZ UK
> >Tel xxx xxxx xxxx/6656
> >Faxxxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >> Sent: 09 April 1999 14:11
> >> To: Mitchell, John FB
> >> Subject: RE: GEC paper
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Here is a Word 6 version of the GEC paper. You need to give me two
> >> references (Gregory and Mitchell 1998 and Gordon et al 1999?) and check
> >> through the bits I have added. See especially what I have worded about
> >> CO2
> >> concentrations in Section 7 - quite what we cite for HadCM3 I'm not
> sure.
> >> It depends what the impacts people say about the sensitivity of their
> >> results to CO2 concentrations. I also have a question in the text in
> >> Section 5 for you.
> >>
> >> Figure 10 is not made yet - I thought I would produce this inter-model
> >> comparison plot for the Amazon given the interesting results we were
> >> getting there.
> >>
> >> I will wait for your comments before sending it to Martin and the other
> >> impacts people, but I must do this by the 19th April at latest.
> >>
> >> I think I understand where the various CO2 numbers come from now.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> At 11:59 09/04/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >> >Dear Mike,
> >> > I think we have traced where the different CO2 values have come from
> >> > HadCM2 HadCM3
> >> > assumed 'correct' assumed 'correct'
> >> > 2020s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> > 2050s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> > 2080s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >
> >> > The left hand HadCM2 value we think comes from SA90 - Peter Cox will
> >> >check. The second HadcM2 value is notional- I don't think the
> >> inconsistency
> >> >between the the columns matters that much, since there is no "correct"
> >> >HadCM2 value.
> >> > The HadcM3 values do matter. The right hand side value is
> >> >what was used in the model, and what Willaim took from the TOM Wigley
> as
> >> >being the SAR IS95a values. I do not know where these are publicaly
> >> >available, and I have asked Dave Griggs that if we use new scenarios
> (eg
> >> >SRES) in the TAR, they are publicly available and well documented. The
> >> left
> >> >hand column appears to be from the 1992 IPCC supplement.(The annex by
> >> >Mitchell and Gregory). This used the then current UEA enrgy
> >> balance/carbon
> >> >cycle model to convert CO2 emissions to concentrations. I presume the
> >> >discrepancy comes from changes to the carbon cycle model and anything
> >> elses
> >> >affecting the conversion from emissions to concentrations.
> Unfortunately,
> >> as
> >> >far as I can tell, the SAR never refers to these or explains why the
> >> >concentrations are different.
> >> > This could easily happen again. The situation with the new
> >> >SRES scenarios to me seems rather chaotic, anad again they are
> emissions
> >> >scenarios, not concentration scenarios. The initial GCM runs will use
> CO2
> >> >concentrations from one particular model. The TAR may report (probably
> >> will
> >> >report) different values since they will use a different model. The
> best
> >> >thing is to talk to the people who set up the GCM run to find out
> exactly
> >> >what was used in the model
> >> >
> >> > With best wishes
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >> >Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> >> >The Met. Office, Bracknell
> >> >RG12 2SZ UK
> >> >Tel xxx xxxx xxxx/6656
> >> >Faxxxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >> >> Sent: 08 April 1999 17:35
> >> >> To: N.W.Arnell; Sari Kovats; Matt Livermore; parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> >> Andrew
> >> >> White; jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> >> >> r.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >> >> Subject: HadCM3 CO2 concentrations
> >> >> Importance: High
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Fast-trackers,
> >> >>
> >> >> In putting the scenario paper together for the GEC issue, John
> Mitchell
> >> >> and
> >> >> I have come up with slightly different CO2 concentrations for HadCM2
> >> and
> >> >> HadCM3 to what we had earlier assumed. These CO2 concentrations
> will
> >> >> really have to appear in the scenario paper to be consistent with
> the
> >> GCM
> >> >> experiments. Given the differences from the values (I think) you
> have
> >> all
> >> >> used in the impacts work, what significance does this have for your
> >> work?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> HadCM2 HadCM3
> >> >> assumed 'correct' assumed 'correct'
> >> >> 2020s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >> 2050s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >> 2080s xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference is that the assumed HadCM2 concentrations are
> 20-30ppmv
> >> too
> >> >> low while the assumed HadCM3 concentrations are 20-70ppmv too high.
> >> >>
> >> >> The assumed HadCM2 concentrations came from Cox and Friend (they had
> >> >> already run Hybrid with these concentrations before the FT work got
> >> under
> >> >> way, so we adopted their values). I cannot yet trace where the
> assumed
> >> >> HadCM3 concentrations came from, but the 'correct' values are what
> both
> >> >> John Mitchell and the IPCC (1996 report) have calculated for the
> IS92a
> >> >> scenario.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your suggestions on how best to handle this inconsistency would be
> >> >> appreciated. How big a difference do these differences make to your
> >> >> impacts?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> >> Dr Mike Hulme
> >> >> Reader in Climatology tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >> Climatic Research Unit fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> >> >> School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >> >> University of East Anglia web site:
> >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
> >> >> Norwich NR4 7TJ
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> >> Annual mean temperature in Central England during 1999
> >> >> is about +1.5 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage
> >> >> ***************************************************
> >> >> The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
> >> >> was +0.58 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year yet
> >> recorded
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> > << File: gec.fasttrack.doc >>
> >
Original Filename: 925823304.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,j.palutikof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CRU Board
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:08:24 +0100
Mick,
CONFIDENTIAL
I think I'm missing out on something here (refer also to Keith's email
where he talked about "CRU being railroaded by ENV"). My recollection was
that it was agreed that I should approach Reading to see if they are up to
anything & sound out if they might be interested in talking about a joint
bid. The suggestion may have been mine originally, but I do not have
absolute recollection over that. Southampton have approached us via the
Registrar and via Peter Liss. As far as I am aware, nobody from UEA has
approached them (although I have certainly argued with Jean that we should
at least talk with them).
I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.
Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.
An important requirement seems to be to attract an "internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist" to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson? ??
Trevor
At 11:17 01/05/99 +0100, Mick Kelly wrote:
>I can't make the re-arranged date so here is my input on some of the items
>I know are on the agenda:
>
>National Climate Centre:
>
>1. I feel even more strongly after learning more of the opposition that we
>should make a single site bid and capitalise on our proven track record as
>the only UK university which has covered and can cover all aspects of the
>climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy.
>We should
>continue to firm up our links with NERC institutes, Hadley Centre, etc.
>But if we reach out to other universities we will:
>a) reveal what we see to be our sectoral weaknesses - a very bad strategic
>move
>b) have to split what is a limited pot of cash
>c) create a potential adminstrative monster that we know ERSC don't like
>from CSERGE experience
>d) weaken our comparative advantage as the place where all aspects of the
>issue are covered.
>It's my understanding that the CRU 5 have already decided in previous
>discussions that this is the way we should go? Trevor - do you want to
>argue against this? It's notable that we haven't been approached by other
>universities!
>
>2. Kerry reckons that likely limited lifetime of ESRC presence
>(Global Env programme office) at SPRU means it's not worth approaching
>them - so I haven't.
>
>3. I propose a working group be set up to move forward the centre proposal
>and ensure coordination/representation of views. 2 from CRU Bd,
>2 from CSERGE (Kerry and Neil?), Dean. Chair from CRU would be my vote -
>this should not all be loaded on Trevor's shoulders.
>
>Studentships
>To report on situation re my proposals:
>1. Craig Wallace (ex MSc) is reserve candidate (joint with Tim Osborn).
>2. My candidate for my solo topic was switched to the ESRC/NERC
>interdisciplinary bid by the studentship committee even though I'd told
>them we definitely couldn't put him forward for this - so that's
>scratched. They thought my topic was not NERC-friendly - but didn't tell
>me this till after the event. A number of phrases spring to mind but maybe
>they were just having a bad day.
>3. My feeling is best tactic for next year
>if we want more students - do we or are we at saturation point? - is to
>advertise early (now?), advertise applicants must have/be in line for a
>first or MSc with distinction, ensure we get feedback on topics from the
>committee and submit candidates early on in the process. Obvious, really.
>
>CRU 5 employment/salaries situation
>What is the current situation?
>
>AOB: Desk space for students
>Can I repeat that I think we should have policy on registration only ie
>post three year grad. students to be adopted when Nick finishes and before
>we hit the next late submitter? My feeling is a desk for 6 months then
>they move out to our overflow rooms in ENV. We should prioritise desk
>space in CRU for first year students. What does ENV do in this situation?
>
>Regards
>Mick
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
>United Kingdom
>Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
>______________________________________________
>
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Original Filename: 925829267.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Perspective Science piece
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:47:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@uea
Hi Keith,
Thanks very much for the update. Sounds like everything should be
good here. I'm sorry If I might have seemed to over-react, but
it was just to make sure we avoided the scenario of last year
where we had to end up publishing a followup letter because
we and Phil hadn't had adequate communication before the piece
was published. I'll look forward to seeing the piece in print.
It sounds like you guys have a done a very good job. Indeed,
Tim and we had a very constructive dialogue about things in
your absence. Will be in touch.
best regards,
mike
p.s. I mentioned to Phil it would be nice to get at least one
spatial pattern of your summer dendro temperature estimates into
IPCC, along with a pattern or two from our multiproxy recons.
I haven't heard back to Phil, but perhaps you can make a specific
suggestion, and send me an appropriate postscript file? It's
not too late to get this to Chris Folland for inclusion in the
initial draft. Thanks in advance...
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx | Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; memann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (attachments)
Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
Original Filename: 926010576.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil,
SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was
all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was
being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding
that happened last time around w/ Science.
Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common
goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and
potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that
appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last
year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several
commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is
what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged
in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest
commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario.
Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source
of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc.
I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here.
The millennial-scale trend issue appears to be a source of contention. Malcolm can
address the replication issue better than any of us--it's not a problem w/ our
reconstruction. Furthermore, WE HAVE EXPLICITLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LOSS OF
LOW-FREQUENCY VARIANCE IN OUR ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTY. I don't know how many times
I need to stress this. It is of fundamental importance in framing our conclusions.
Our own analysis convinces me that things are already quite uncertain a millennium
back in time. With regard to longer timescale variations, the evidence is all
over the place. At EGS I saw some convincing evidence that many new paleo proxies
indicate steadily decline at least over several millennia, and so do, in large part,
the available long borehole estimates (though we should all take that w/ a good
dose of NaCl). So I'm skeptical of estimates more than a millennium back in time
until we have multiple proxies we can trust at that timescale, and can verify
somehow the DC component of the estimates, or at least replicate them. This was
my concern about the latest 2000 year recon that was shown.
You are right, the Milankovitch forcing argument is ONLY A NULL HYPOTHESIS. I hope
I haven't argued anything more than that. That our millennial scale trend, which
we reasonably trust, and have some idea of the uncertainties in, is in line w/ that
null hypothesis is information that cannot be ignored. That Kutzbach, Berger, and
others are showing increasingly convincing model integrations over several millennia
suggesting this, is more evidence. In the real word, anything *could* have happened.
But lets not loose site of the appropriate null hypothesis here.
I hope the above clears things up somewhat. I'm sorry things have been construed in
more negative light than I had ever intended. Call me anytime to discuss, here
at the office (not sure how well our schedules overlap though).
Thanks, and sorry for the miscommunication here,
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx | Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; memann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (attachments)
Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
Original Filename: 926012905.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:48:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Phil,
Thanks for your message. I'm with you 100%, and honestly am very much looking forward
to moving towards close collaboration between us. I've already talked a bit w/ Tim about
those plans and the possibility of him spending some time in Charlottesville, etc. Will
be in touch w/ you guys soon about trying to solidify some of these plans...
Yes, I will be in the Lion's den, so to speak. Not sure how much must stands behind
his roar though...We do have to deal w/ the skeptics here somewhat directly. At least,
to the extent that I do presentations on capitol hill for USGCRP (I do one w/ Jim
Hansen and Malcolm on the 17th of this month), I'm a bit in the fray. Mostly, though,
I've been trying to help Mike McCracken and company behind the scenes. We all know
what happens when a U.S. scientists becomes a thorn in the side of big business...
Anyways, I'm really happy that the air is cleared. More soon,
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx | Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; memann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (attachments)
Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
Original Filename: 926026654.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike,
Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith
and Tim and some emails you seem quite pissed off with us
all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is
clear from the emails that this relates to the emphasis placed
on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim's Science piece. These may not
be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don't want
to open more wounds but I might by the end of the email.
I've not seen the censored email that Ray has mentioned but this
doesn't, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be
responding - ie slanging us all off to Science. We are all
trying to work together for the good of the 'Science'. We have
disagreements - Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past,
but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never
resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ( as in this
case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith
or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven't. I've
reviewed Ray's and Malcolm's - constructively I hope where I
thought something could have been done better. I also know
you've reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively.
So why all the beef now ?
Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer. When asked
to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your
Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in
paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia
Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but
I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a
very reasoned comment.
I would suspect that you've been unhappy about us coming out
with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment
has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 years.
Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly
relevant to the 'science', which is what we have both tried to
do.
Anyway that's enough for now - I'll see how you'll respond,
if at all.
There are two things I'm going to say though :
1) Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What
the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic
forcing are two very different things. I don't think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense
compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is
my opinion and I may change it given more evidence.
2) The errors don't include all the possible factors. Even
though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar
statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing
because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost
low frequency because of standardization. We've all tried
with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep
this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is
still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us
here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them
in for us.
3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I've
given you my input through the review of the chapter in
Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again
at some stage, but I won't be worried if I don't.
I can't think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable
response, so we can still work together.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 926031061.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:51:01 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike,
We'll differ a bit on a few points, but let's wipe the slate
clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes
over the last millennium.
I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over
here makes that easier than in the US - but I would ignore the
so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know
this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still
at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are
doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 926087421.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: D Parker <deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Temperatures
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, makis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi, David,
I don't think that Antarctic is the principal source of differences. When
we compare only the common areas it doesn't really come into play. There
are areas in Mexico and Northern Africa that seem to contribute more to the
differences. Makiko will put the plots that you requested at
http://giss.nasa.gov/~cdmss/Parker
Regards, Jim
At 05:35 PM 5/5/99 +0100, D Parker wrote:
>To Jim Hansen jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> (& copies to Chris Folland, Ian Macadam, Phil Jones)
>Jim
>
>Thanks for the mailed illustrations comparing your surface temperature data
>set with Phil Jones's.
>
>We are trying to understand the cooling of your data relative to Phil Jones's
>in the Southern Hemisphere during the 1990s (Table 1 below) in the annual
>series you sent to Ian Macadam. Plots of these were shown at the IPCC meeting
>in Asheville in March and showed the same relative cooling, but Figure 2 of
>your mailed illustrations does not show it. I note that the comparison in
>Figure 2 was made over the common area. If you use all available grids, do
>you get the relative cooling in the GISS dataset? I expect you will, because
>I have been perusing your web site and have noted that most recent years are
>cold over Antarctica in your dataset. This could be the focus of the problem,
>as your stations (with 1200km influence) will have more weight than Phil's
>unless you use common grids.
>
>As an aside, recent cooling over Antarctica could be partly forced by ozone
>losses, though I note that the cooling is strongest in March-May, not in
>Sept-Nov when the ozone hole occurs. If Antarctica cools, there will be
>consequences for Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns,
>conceivably even contributing to the recent cooling of marine air temperature
>relative to sea surface temperature.
>
>To help further, can you provide annual maps, 1989 through 1998, of Jones
>(land), GISS (stations, 1200 km) and Jones minus GISS in the format of Figure
>3 of your mailed illustrations? Web or ftp access would be better than
paper,
>if possible.
>
>Thanks and regards
>
>David 5 May 1999
>
> *****************************************************
>
>Table 1. Annual Southern Hemisphere Anomalies (deg C) Relative to 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> GISS Jones
>
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.250 0.30
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.265 0.32
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.023 0.14
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.027 0.24
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.033 0.35
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.069 0.37
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.191 0.23
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.033 0.34
> 1xxx xxxx xxxx.317 0.60
>
>
> *****************************************************
>
>
>
> David E Parker
> Room H001
> Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> Meteorological Office
> London Road
> BRACKNELL
> Berkshire
> RG12 2SY
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
>
> Tel xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax xxx xxxx xxxx
>
> email deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
James Hansen
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
e-mail jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxx xxxx xxxxfax (xxx xxxx xxxx)
Original Filename: 926681134.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: vomit
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 07:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Excuse me while I puke...
Ray
>From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:00:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
>To: juppenbrink@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Dear all,
>
>Thanks for working so hard to insure a final product that was
>acceptable to all. I think that Keith and Tim are to be
>commended on a fine job w/ the final version of the
>Perspectives piece that appeared, and I thank Julia for her
>especially difficult editorial task.
>
>I appreciate having had the opportunity to respond to the
>original draft. I think this opportunity is very important
>in such cases (ie, where a particular author/groups work
>is the focus of a commentary by someone else), and hope
>that this would be considered standard procedure in the
>future in such instances.
>
>I think we have some honest disagreements amonst us about
>some of the underlying issues, but these were fairly treated
>in the piece and that's what is important (The choice of
>wording in the final version was much better too. Wording
>matters!).
>
>Thanks all for the hard work and a job well done. I like
>to think that may feedback helped here--so I take some
>pride here as well.
>
>best regards,
>
>mike
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> Michael E. Mann
>________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
>Adjunct Assistant Professor | Assistant Professor
>Department of Geosciences | Dept. of Environmental Sciences
>Morrill Science Center | Clark Hall
>University of Massachusetts | University of Virginia
>Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx | Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_________________________________|_____________________________________
>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; memann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (attachments)
> Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike
>
>
Raymond S. Bradley
Professor and Head of Department
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climate System Research Center Web Site:
<http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/climate.html
Original Filename: 926947295.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Shrikant Jagtap <sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: franci <franci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Felzer <felzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).
'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.
Dave
On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant Jagtap wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I'm enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using
> the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model
> runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
> and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to
> use different data will be hard to explain.
>
>
> Shrikant
>
> Dr. Shrikant Jagtap
> 104 Rogers Hall, Ag & Biol. Engineering
> University Of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611
> Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx(Work) & Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx(Work)
> http://www.agen.ufl.edu/~sjagtap/ssj/
>
> Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx(Home)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: franci [mailto:franci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 1999 3:58 PM
> To: Benjamin Felzer
> Cc: Mike Hulme; schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
> sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: CO2
>
>
> dear ben,
>
> You just showed that the Hadley transient run we are supposed to use for the
> national assessment is too high, forcing-wise, because it assumes an overall
> 1.2% increase in total forcing.
>
> My question is then the following:
>
> -why are we using a 1% annual increase in GHG forcing (corresponding to the
> 1.2% increase) as a criteria for GCM simulations to then be used for the
> national assessment? Is it because of the possible confusion you refer to
> below? If so, that criteria needs to be revised.
>
> I still have a problem with the real CO2 calculations, in connections to
> hadley or CCCM. It seems to me it is still arbitrary to use one or another
> CO2 curve.
> However, in this arbitrariness, two easy solutions are possible ( i am just
> summarizing previous e-mails, at the cost of being highly repetitive and
> obvious):
> -one is dave's, i.e, assume no change i GHG forcing mix from today, and
> apply 1% compounded increase to the 1990 actual levels.
> That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S
> 50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst
> emission case devised in IS92f.
> -the second is tom's. Just use the co2 in IS92a, and assume that all other
> further changes necessary to get the hadley forcing (whatever they are)
> happen in GHG other than CO2.
> I will repeat that I like the latter solution.
>
>
> Whatever the consideration of self-consistency and physics are when you make
> this decision, I do not think we should carry out the national assessment by
> using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. I thought the numbers that come out of our
> exercises (from the impact side of things) were supposed to serve as some
> basis to be used in the process of decision making at the national and
> regional level. Am i out of line here? There are dozens of people right now,
> out there, including our group at giss, who are gathering data, fine-tuning
> models, making connections among physical and socio-economic variables,
> etc., at a very low "effort spent/retribution received", and then we are
> going to run things at 1000 ppm in 2100?
> As far as my specific contribution is concerned, it surely might make a big
> difference in crop yield changes under climate change whether I use 700 ppm
> in 2100 (the IS92a) curve, or >1000 ppm (the 1% compounded increase).
>
> The problem is the same for the 2040's (the other decade we have decided to
> simulate), although possibly not as bad as the 2090's case.
>
> Either solution we opt for, we have to make clear to whomever will receive
> our results that the climate forcing scenario is on the "high" side of
> things.
>
> Ah! It was so nice and easy when we were working with doubled-CO2
> equilibrium runs!
>
> cheers,
>
> francesco
>
> PS what about the CCCM scenario?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Felzer <felzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: franci <franci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
> wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
> sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
> Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: CO2
>
>
> >Please disregard the previous message and replace with this message (1st
> >paragraph is unchanged).
> >
> >On Fri, 14 May 1999, Benjamin Felzer wrote:
> >
> >> Going back to some of the original radiative forcing values, it would
> >> appear that the 1% increase is true of RADIATIVE FORCING, whether of CO2,
> >> CH4, etc, or the total (to an approximation). However, once we convert
> >> back to CO2 concentration (using the exponential relationship), the
> actual
> >> increase in concentration is more along the order of 0.7% (all
> >> compounded). Is it possible that the original 1% assumption was
> >> mistakenly applied to CO2 concentrations for the modelers when it was
> >> actually meant for radiative forcing??
> >>
> >Therefore for the ecological models we should use Dave's original
> >suggestion, because the models really did use a 1% increase in equivalent
> >CO2, which approximates a 1% increase in CO2 alone. The point here is
> >that this 1% increase is much higher than IS92a, but that might be because
> >of the confusion between radiative forcing increase and concentration
> >increase discussed above. In fact a 0.7% increase in equivalent CO2 might
> >have been a more realistic assumption for IS92a, but the 1% increase in
> >concentration is what was actually used in these earlier models. The CO2
> >concentrations used in the ecological model should correspond to those
> >used in the GCMs, not to what we think they should be.
> >
> >
> >> Any other thoughts?
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Original Filename: 927042520.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: David Viner <d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Sensitivity
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:48:40 +0100
Mike
The climate sensitivity of HadCM2.....pick a value between 2.5 and 4.1K
D
>Envelope-to: f046@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:27:48 +0100 (BST)
>From: T Johns <tcjohns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: Climate Sensitivity
>To: d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: tcjohns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Status:
>
>Hi David,
>
>I have just got back from leave today - sorry for the lack of response
>to your emails.
>
>On climate sensitivity, the equilibrium sensitivity in HadCM2 was difficult
>to get a definitive answer for initially as the conventional slab experiment
>was unstable, so we estimated it from part of a transient coupled run
>instead. We quoted 2.5 K in the original Nature paper. Recently we
>have done a HadAM2 slab experiment (modified sea ice and slab ocean physics)
>which indicated 4.1 K rather than 2.5 as an equilibrium value. This is
>quoted in a paper submitted as a CMIP study. The HadAM3 conventional
>slab experiment gave the 3.3 K figure I think. The HadCM2 discrepancy
>indicates the perils of this yardstick; other research here suggests that
>the effective climate sensitivity does respond to climate change feedbacks
>in transient experiments (with HadCM2 particularly). The early 2.5 K
>estimate has been revised upwards based on a long coupled run of HadCM2 to
>be closer to the 3.3 K we got from HadCM3 equilibrium slab experiments.
>
>Comparing transient temperature responses to similar time-varying forcing
>may be a better indication of real sensitivity, but so long as we quote
>single climate sensitivity numbers I fear that there is scope for confusion.
>
>Tim.
>
>PS: I will try to get an update on the HadCM3 references sorted out for you.
>
>> Tim
>>
>> I'm a bit confused as now I have seen a numeber of different values, in
>> HCTN2 you mention that HadAM3 has a climate sensitivity of 3.3 degrees K
>> and that this is similar to HadCM2. Is this the case and is such a value
>> available from a comparable HadAM2 experiment.
>>
>> Many regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> PS Did you get my message about references?
>
#--------------------------------------------
# Dr. David Viner
# Climate Impacts LINK Project
# Climatic Research Unit
# University of East Anglia
# Norwich NR4 7TJ
# UK
# mailto://d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
# WWW: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link
# WWW: http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk
# Tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
# Fax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
#---------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 927145311.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: CO2 concentrations
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:21:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Mike,
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did
and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets
(more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers you
gave in your email!! The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up,
but their "errors" don't really matter given all of the uncertainties. I
didn't mention this because I thought that opening up that can of worms
would confuse people even more.
In my view (trying to keep things as simple as possible), the key points
are these:
(1) The HadCM2 run purports to be IS92a, and it is a good approximation
to this.
(2) Their use of 1% compounded for CO2 *is* a reasonable approximation to
the IS92a GHG forcing (which, itself, is uncertain).
(3) The climate model output is also uncertain.
(4) The pure CO2 input to IS92a is what I have distributed from the Bern
model.
(5) Hence, the best and simplest combination is to use HadCM2 climate
output with these (point (4)) *a priori* defined "pure" CO2 concentrations
for IS92a.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.
>
> I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley
> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by
> Mitchell and Johns. There, they make it clear that the model was presented
> with CO2-equiv. rising from 473ppmv in 1990 to 1414ppmv in 2100, i.e., a 1%
> p.a. increase. This *seems* precise and unambiguous, so I don't think they
> do adjust the CO2-equiv. growth ratio (C2100/C1990) to 3.127 (i.e., about
> 1.05% p.a.) as you suggest.
>
> This concentration scenario yielded a 1xxx xxxx xxxxmodel forcing of 6.5Wm-2
> (sic), "close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992" [Mitchell
> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both
> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for
> IS92a. With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else
> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2
> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not
> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model). Hence my
> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:
>
> pCO2 = 279ppmv * (exp(F/(3.47/ln(2))))) where F is the proportion in
> MAGICC of total forcing due to CO2 alone for IS92a.
>
> The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also
> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1xxx xxxx xxxxHadCM2 forcing of
> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of
> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)
> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2. Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the
> HadCM2 forcing is '12% higher' than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.
>
> The bottom line ... the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2
> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to
> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used. These are still
> some way short of 1% p.a.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for
> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.
>
> At 15:36 18/05/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I've just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding CO2. I must say
> >that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue.
> >Basically, I and MacCracken are *right* and Felzer, Schimel and (to a
> >lesser extent) Hulme are *wrong*. There is absolutely, categorically no
> >doubt about this. Let me explain.
> >
> >(1) The Hadley Centre run is meant to simulate the climate change
> >consequences of the full IS92a emissions scenario.
> >
> >(2) In this scenario, there are the following concentration and forcing
> >changes over 1xxx xxxx xxxx:
> > Item C(21xxx xxxx xxxxDQ(1xxx xxxx xxxx)
> > COxxx xxxx xxxx 4.350
> > CHxxx xxxx xxxx 0.574
> > N2O xxx xxxx xxxx.368
> > Halos 0.315
> > TropOxxx xxxx xxxx 0.151
> > -----------------------------
> > GHGs 5.758
> > SO4 (dirxxx xxxx xxxx0.284
> > SO4 (indirxxx xxxx xxxx.370
> > -----------------------------
> > TOTAL 5.104
> >
> >These are the numbers I used in Ch. 6 of the SAR. They do not agree
> >precisely with numbers in Ch. 2, because I used the models and formulae
> >embedded in MAGICC. The differences between Ch. 2 and Ch. 6 are
> >irrelevant to the present issue.
> >
> >(3) How does one simulate the combined effects of all the GHGs in a
> >climate model that only has CO2? The standard way is to take the GHG
> >radiative forcing (ending in 5.758W/m**2 in 2100 in this case) and
> >convert this to *equivalent* CO2 concentration changes. If one uses
> >the old (IPCC90) forcing formula for CO2 (which is what was used in the
> >SAR), viz DQ=6.3 ln(C/C0), then C(2100)/C(1990) is 2.494. Note that the
> >1% compounded change would be C(2100)/C(1990)=(1.01)**110=2.988. Thus,
> >1% compounded CO2 gives roughly the correct *forcing*.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGES ARE *NOT* THE CO2 CHANGES USED IN THE
> >MODEL. THE MODEL USES ARTIFICIAL CO2 CHANGES, SCALED UP TO ACCOUNT FOR
> >FORCING FROM OTHER GHGs.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGE IS FROM 354ppmv IN 1990 to
> >708ppmv IN 2100. THIS IS *NOT* A 1% COMPOUNDED INCREASE.
> >
> >NOTE, FURTHER, THAT WHAT MIKE HULME SUGGESTS IN HIS POINT 8 IS ALSO
> >WRONG. IT IS WRONG TO *BACK OUT* THE CO2 FROM FORCINGS. THE CO2 WAS
> >SPECIFIED A PRIORI.
> >
> >NOTE FINALLY THAT MIKE *DOES* GIVE THE 708ppmv VALUE IN HIS POINT 9.
> >USING THIS WOULD BE OK, BUT I RECOMMEND USING THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
> >BERN MODEL RESULTS (SEE BELOW).
> >
> >(4) Now, some minor wrinkles. In the Hadley Centre model for CO2,
> >DQ=5.05 ln (C/C0). Hence, to get a forcing of 5.758W/m**2, they need to
> >use C(2100/C1990)=3.127. Note that this is a little closer to the 1%
> >compounded result than my above calculation. The Hadley Centre may well
> >have used a slightly different total 1xxx xxxx xxxxGHG forcing than mine, so
> >they may have backed out a compounded CO2 increase rate even closer to
> >1% than the above. In any event, if they decided to go with 1%, then
> >this was a perfectly reasonable choice in order to capture the total GHG
> >forcing.
> >
> >(5) The 708ppmv C(2100) value is what comes out of my carbon cycle
> >model. In the SAR, in Ch. 2, we considered results from three different
> >carbon cycle models; mine, the Bern (Joos) model, and Atul Jain's
> >model. For illustrations in the SAR, we used the Bern model. The
> >mid-2100 value with this model, for IS92a, was 711.7ppmv. A later
> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain's model
> >gave 712.3ppmv.
> >
> >(6) The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley
> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went
> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers.
> >The climate response reflects all GHGs, whereas the plants are
> >responding only to CO2.
> >
> >(7) I am attaching the Joos CO2 time series. I recommend using the
> >actual values rather than trying to fit a compound CO2 increase to
> >them---which, in any event, should not be done using just the end point
> >values. This, however, is your choice. Differences will be negligible
> >in terms of plant response.
> >
> >I hope this clarifies things. It has always seemed pretty obvious and
> >clear cut to me. I hope it will now to all of you.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tom
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box 3000 *
> > *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> > **********************************************************
> >Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachIs95a.dat"
> >
>
**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley *
*Senior Scientist *
*National Center for Atmospheric Research *
*P.O. Box 3000 *
*Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
*USA *
*Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
**********************************************************
Original Filename: 927817076.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Orson Vandeplassche <ovdplassche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: tree rings
Date: Thu May 27 10:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@uea
Dear Orson
Very sorry for such a slow reply.
The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies.
For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently. For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data. Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only. This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve. Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information.
The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N. This was purely for comparison with the other curves shown in our Science piece; for this curve, this region is by no means the optimum, and the temperature anomalies would no doubt differ in magnitude if a regional temperature from northern Eurasia had been used instead. This offers one explanation of why the xxx xxxx xxxxwarming differs from Briffa et al. (1992). The second is that only ring-width has been used. The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average. So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong.
Hope this helps with your choice of what to use.
We will send you a reprint to your Middletown address when they arrive. I am now going to mail you hard copy (black & white) of the Tornetrask uncalibrated ring-width record (annual and 50-yr smoothed) from the PAGES article, and also a hard copy of the calibrated northern Eurasia record from the Science paper. The northern Eurasian record should preferably be referenced using both Briffa & Osborn and Briffa et al.
Best regards
Tim
Original Filename: 929044085.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: VARIANCE PROBLEM
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:48:05 +0100
Cc: d.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Chris,
Sorry to be flooding you with another email, but I was discussing
this with Tim. Tim reminded me of a paper that he'd written
in that well known journal Dendrocronologia ! I've sent down
a copy of the proofs to you both. The paper has been in press for
the last 2 years ! This must be the slowest journal in the
world. This has some more theory in it and some variance
corrections for tree-ring and temperature series.
We are going ahead with the method I've outlined over the
last few emails. Tim and I have modified a couple of things
slightly :
1) Using the present combined dataset ( Jones, 1994 and Parker
et al. 1995) we will calculate monthly rbars for each 5 by 5
box. The grid-box time series will be filtered with a 30-
year Gaussian filter. rbar will be calculated from the residual
grid-box time series. Tim reckons that a longer filter is better
(an analysis in the paper). He suggests 40 years, but this
involves more problems with the ends, so we'll go with 30. I
don't think 20,30,40 will make that much difference to the
rbar values.
We are using the combined dataste for the estimation as this
should produce better rbar values around coasts and islands. If we
used the land only dataset we would have real problems with
isolated islands and with some coasts ( where all neighbouring
boxes will be in one direction from the coastal box).
2) Having got fields of the monthly rbars we'll then apply the
formula to the land-only dataset. As you're doing something
similar with the marine dataset, we can remerge the two
variance corrected datasets using David's merging ( growing
land and neighbour checking) program.
3) We will then write this up as a small paper for GRL, about
the land only results. Both of you can be on this if you want.
We can decide later what to do about the merged dataset.
4) applying the correction in real time in the future will mean
that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last
15 years data - because of the filter end effects. Best would
seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply
this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !).
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 929392417.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Paul Valdes <P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: PRESCIENT
Date: Mon Jun 14 16:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: njs5@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Paul
I have been told PRESCIENT is positive. It has been factored into NERC finances -for the full 8 million I believe. No official written statement has been declared as far as I know but someone from NERC visited here while I was away in Russia last week and talked of a first call for proposals in April 2000. At present this is all I know. Will keep you informed if I here more.
best wishes
Keith
At 04:41 PM 5/29/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>I met Simon Tett the other day and he said that you thought that the
>thematic proposal had definetely been funded. Is that true? The
>last thing I heard was very promising but not the final word!
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Paul
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Paul Valdes Dept. of Meteorology,
>Email: P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University of Reading,
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx Earley Gate, Whiteknights,
>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx PO Box 243
> Reading. RG6 6BB. UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Original Filename: 929565152.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Density data from Polar Urals
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:32:32 +0500
Reply-to: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Keith,
I am reminding your promise to send me raw density data from Polar Urals
remnants of larches as soon as possible, as I must prepare samples for
Fritz until the end of June. Leonid Agafonov will bring them to
Slovenia to Fritz.
Tomorrow I will lie down in hospital for 7-9 days, as I get the
infection from a tick in Iremel area, not encephalitis, but a new
kind of infections from ticks, namely "lime-borrelious" (I do not know
its name exactly in English). The sign of this disease is red field
approximately 5-8 centimeters in diameter around the point where
a tick bite a body. This place itches greatly. If you have such
characteristics, you must apply to doctor. This disease is not so
dangerous as encephalitis and can be easy recovered from antibiotics.
I hope that your tick did nod contained such infection.
I wish you the best.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 929719270.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Density data from Polar Urals
Date: Fri Jun 18 11:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Stepan
I am attaching the raw density measurements (max. latewood den.) for the Sob River site as we extracted them from Fritz data bank. The format is Tucson like (index) except for a different header on each sample series. For your purposes the start and end date of each series are shown as the 2 I4 fields in columns xxx xxxx xxxxof these identifier lines. I hope this is all you need. You may also refer to Figure 2a in our paper in the NATO ASI Volume edited by Phil. The article on Low Frequency Signal problems that you are a co author on. This Figure shows the number of density samples through time in this chronology - very low before 1200 and between 1400 and 1600!!
I am sorry to hear of your tick infection. This is no laughing matter and you should ensure that you are well treated and rested. As of yet I have no problems other than worrying about how we will organise future proposals to the EU. Thankyou again for your hospitality and the warm reception from your excellent group. I sincerely hope we will be able to continue our collaboration for many years to come. I hope too that Eugene also feels committed to this working relationship. Perhaps he was tired but I got the impression his priorities were not so much concerned with our work.
I await detailed description of the full network - locations and correspondence with the density network positions and names - that I believe Valerie will work on. Perhaps the outline and draft of something from Rashit would also be forthcoming soon.
Meanwhile I send my best wishes to you and I await news of your continued health
Keith
At 04:32 PM 6/16/99 +0500, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>
>I am reminding your promise to send me raw density data from Polar Urals
>remnants of larches as soon as possible, as I must prepare samples for
>Fritz until the end of June. Leonid Agafonov will bring them to
>Slovenia to Fritz.
>
>Tomorrow I will lie down in hospital for 7-9 days, as I get the
>infection from a tick in Iremel area, not encephalitis, but a new
>kind of infections from ticks, namely "lime-borrelious" (I do not know
>its name exactly in English). The sign of this disease is red field
>approximately 5-8 centimeters in diameter around the point where
>a tick bite a body. This place itches greatly. If you have such
>characteristics, you must apply to doctor. This disease is not so
>dangerous as encephalitis and can be easy recovered from antibiotics.
>I hope that your tick did nod contained such infection.
>
>I wish you the best.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
>
>Lab. of Dendrochronology
>Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
>8 Marta St., 202
>Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
>e-mail: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
>Phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>
>
Original Filename: 929985154.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: sdecotii@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, clarkea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, climate@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pfrich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgroisma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jwhurrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.oerlemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tpeterso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drobins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, walsh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, swwang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Plan of action for Chapter 2
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Below is the text and attached is a file in MSWord regarding a plan of
action for Chapter 2 leading up to the IPCC Meeting in Arusha, Tanzania.
June 21, 1999
Dear Lead Authors and Key Contributors,
This note is to outline a plan of action for Chapter 2 leading up to the
IPCC meeting in Arusha, Tanzania to take place 1-3 September. As you know,
we are now in the midst of a
Original Filename: 930776203.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: State of health
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:56:43 +0500
Reply-to: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Keith,
I recovered from tick's infection, at any case I do not have high
temperature during the last week. I hope that your health is also
good. Now I am preparing for field work.
I selected 32 new samples of dead larch trees from the Polar Urals and
sent them to Fritz via Leonid Agafonov. A new version of the
chronology will be up to 170 years longer and a better replicated between
1xxx xxxx xxxxAD.
The hard disk is working perfectly, thank you very much.
My best wishes to your family and Phil.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 930934311.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea,m.hulme@uea, r.k.turner@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea
Subject: Climate change centre info.
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 12:51:51 +0100
>Envelope-to: t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>From: "Andrew Watson" <a.j.watson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: "Trevor Davies" <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Climate change centre info.
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:11:01 +0100
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>
>Hi Trevor
>I was with John Shepherd earlier this week. He told me he
>was phoned up last Friday by Tariq Ali at Imperial College,
>seeking to sign him up to the IC bid; it seems that IC's
>relations with Oxford may have gone sour. If that is the
>case, IC will probably make strenuous efforts to detach some
>of the members of the consortium that UEA is trying to put
>together.
>I was attending a meeting on the "miilliesym" proposal, and
>we were treated to a talk from Ian Dwyer of NERC (new
>position to co-ordinate global change research) on the
>climate change centre. Two things I picked up that I didn't
>know before (but you may) were
>(1) All the decisions, both on the outline proposals and
>full proposals, will be taken by a panel of experts
>(academics from overseas and industry). There will not be
>the normal peer review system. I asked if there would be the
>opportunity to suggest names for this panel, but the answer
>appeared to be no; the panel will be selected and organised
>by the research councils, chiefly NERC.
>(2) The split of funding for the centre will be (per year) 1
>million NERC, 0.75 million EPSRC, 0.25 million ESRC.
>Cheers, Andy
>***********************************
>Prof Andrew J. Watson
>email: a.watson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> or : a.j.watson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>phone: (xxx xxxx xxxxdirect
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxswitchboard
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxfax
>School of Environmental Sciences
>University of East Anglia
>NORWICH NR4 7TJ
>U.K.
>http://www.uea.ac.uk/~ajw/ajw.htm
>***********************************
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Original Filename: 931964410.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Janice Darch <J.Darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: env.faculty@uea
Subject: Modeling & Data Analysis Research NRA-99-OES-04 <fwd>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:00:10 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
Reply-to: J.Darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: OES Comments <oescomm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Modeling & Data Analysis Research NRA-99-OES-04
Sender: OES Comments <oescomm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: OESCOMM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Reply-To: OES Comments <oescomm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<3.0.32.19990713164217.0069a378@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Investigations that Contribute to the NASA Earth Science Enterprise's
Modeling and Data Analysis Research
General Information
Solicitation Number: NRA-99-OES-04
Response Date: Sep 27, 1999
Description
NASA is soliciting proposals for investigations that will contribute to
modeling and data analysis research that is
supported by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise. This NRA solicits proposals
directed to the interests of disciplinary
research and analysis, interdisciplinary science, and data analysis
programs that include global and regional modeling
activities and large-scale data analysis, especially model-driven analysis.
It also solicits proposals from instrument science teams and/or guest
investigators being newly competed or recompeted in which global and
regional modeling and/or
model-driven data analysis constitute major elements of the proposal. This
NRA is expected to result in research funding
of approximately $65 million over three years. The individual program
elements included in this NRA, and the responsible NASA Program Managers are:
Program Element Manager
a. Global Modeling and Analysis Program (GMAPxxx xxxx xxxxK Bergman
b. Atmos. Chemistry Modeling & Analysis Pgm. (ACMAP) J Kaye
c. Phys. Oceanogr. Research & Analysis Pgm. (PORAP) E Lindstrom
d. Ocean Vector Winds Science Team (OVWSTxxx xxxx xxxxE Lindstrom
e. Pathfinder Data Set & Associated Science Pgm.(PDSP) J Dodge
f. EOS Interdisciplinary Science Program (EOS/IDSxxx xxxx xxxxJ Dodge
In keeping with overall NASA goals and those of the Office of Earth
Science, research supported by this NRA will be
directed toward demonstrating successful use of data from satellite
observing systems, in conjunction with other kinds of
data, to improve models and assimilation systems for the Earth system or
one or more of its components.
Participation in this program is open to all categories of domestic and
foreign organizations, including educational
institutions, industry, non-profit institutions, NASA centers, and other
U.S. agencies. In accordance with NASA policy
as described in Appendix C, all investigations by foreign participants will
be conducted on a no-exchange-of-funds basis,
i.e., investigators whose home institution is outside the United States
cannot be funded by NASA. Proposals may be submitted at any time during the
period ending September 27, 1999. Proposals
submitted to NASA will be evaluated using scientific peer review. Proposals
selected for funding will be announced in November, 1999.
All prospective proposers are strongly encouraged to submit a letter of
intent (LOI) to propose to this Announcement by
August 27, 1999. This letter should contain a brief description of the
research to be proposed. Please see Appendix E of
the NRA for details.
Point of Contact
Name: Kenneth H. Bergman
Title: Manager, Global Modeling and Analysis Program
Phone: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (2xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: kbergman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--- End Forwarded Message ---
Dr. J.P. Darch
Research Administrator
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
U.K.
Tel : 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 932158667.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Edward R. Cook" <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Vagonov et al. Nature paper
Date: Fri Jul 16 16:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ed
to be really honest, I don't see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature. It is a confusing paper that leaves me asking what actually have they done and what is the so-called testable Hypothesis of which they speak. Why didn't they do the testing? Yes Sob river is the Polar Urals site and I don't know why they get the results they do for it. Thei precip. trends are dubious and our detailed regional response functions do not show a significant effect of high precip. in winter. I really have not had time to fully digest their message but I can't see why either they or Nature did not ask my opinion of it. My instinctive first reaction is that I doubt it is the answer but we do get results that support a recent loss of low-frequency spring temperature reponse in our data that may be consistent with their hypothesis of prolonged snow lie in recent decades. I have not spoken to Iain yet about the isotope data but I will. If you get any detaied thoughts on the Nature paper please let me know, as I don't know how to respond , if at all.
best wishes
Keith
At 04:11 PM 7/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>What is your take on the Vagonov et al. paper concerning the influence of
>snowfall and melt timing on tree growth in Siberia? Frankly, I can't
>believe it was published as is. It is amazinglly thin on details. Isn't Sob
>the same site as your Polar Urals site? If so, why is the Sob response
>window so radically shorter then the ones you identified in your Nature
>paper for both density and ring width? I notice that they used Berezovo
>instead of Salekhard, which is much closer according to the map. Is that
>because daily data were only available for the Berezovo? Also, there is no
>evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the
>post-1950s (I assume that you didn't apply a bodge here). This fully
>contradicts their claims, although I do admit that such an effect might be
>happening in some places.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>
>
Original Filename: 932773964.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Sarah Raper <s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tar13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Chapter 13 review
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:52:44 +0100
Cc: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pvanderlinden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
COMMENTS ON CH. 13 (SCENARIOS) FROM TOM WIGLEY
(Page and line numbers are from the May 14 zero order draft.)
*****************************************************************
Dear contributors to Ch. 13,
Here are my comments on your chapter. I think you all know me
well enough that you will not be offended by my occasional
bluntness. The chapter needs a lot of work (not surprisingly),
but it has at least touched most of the bases. It suffers from
a lack of overview perspective, making the detail hard to wade
through. I was disturbed by the lack of credit given to
MAGICC/SCENGEN, since this software already addresses many of the
key issues that arise in scenario development.
Apologies for not proof reading this. By the time I got to the
end of typing it, I'd had enough.
*****************************************************************
Page 3 (lines 86-89) : Critically, this information doesn't give
a full assessment of uncertainties.
3 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Sentence too long.
3 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: State 'illuminate uncertainty' earlier, since this
is a primary purpose of, e.g., MAGICC/SCENGEN.
3 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: 'indeterminate' is far too strong.
4 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
4 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: What is 'integrated assessment'? Define and/or
explain earlier.
5 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: Clumsy grammar.
5 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Silly! Scenarios per se do not have ANY uncertainty
associated with them, by definition. They are, however, a very
(if not the most) useful tool for assessing and quantifying
uncertainties. For example, a primary purpose of MAGICC/SCENGEN
is to quantify uncertainties. Major text revision is needed to
clarify this point.
Part of the problem here is that the boundary between scenarios
and predictions/projections is indistinct (as is the distinction
between predictions and projections -- this too needs to be
clarified). One could argue that 'scenarios' developed using
MAGICC/SCENGEN are actually better predictions of some aspects
of future climate change than any O/AGCM results. Certainly,
'scenarios' based on scaling are much more than just scenarios
as defined here -- they are true predictions, based on some
assumed scenario (this is the correct word here!) for future
emissions.
Substantial work is required to the present text to clarify
these issues -- they are the crux of the matter.
5 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Note earlier that scenarios (a word I will continue
to use even though it may be inappropriate in many cases)
usually define CHANGES in climate. They are not, in these
cases, 'scenarios', but 'scenarios of change'. Strict (i.e.,
absolute) scenarios are then constructed from them by adding
the changes to a baseline climatology. This needs to be
explained up front.
5 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete '(and art)'. This is a derogatory term, likely
to be misinterpreted/misrepresented.
6 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Comma after 'scenarios'. The text contains many
stylistic and grammatical errors (the most common being the
failure to isolate parenthetical clauses). I will assume that
someone with a better grasp of grammar will catch all these
at some stage, so I will not comment further on them.
6 (22xxx xxxx xxxx: A critical item missed here is inter-variable
consistency. Later, consistency between climate and CO2 is
mentioned; but there is no mention of consistency between, e.g.,
temperature and precipitation, etc. This is a major issue!
7 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Instrumentally-based analogue scenarios were first
introduced by Wigley et al. (Nature, 1979). Credit should be
given. Also, the USDOE 'State of the Art (sic)' reports (1985)
and the Bolin et al. SCOPE report (1986) both review this and
other methods. This reviews should be cited.
7 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : What does 'extrapolating ...' mean?
7 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Wigley et al. (1979) should also be cited here.
8 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Nevertheless, they may do a better job of getting the
inter-variable correlations 'right' than GCMs!
8 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'questionable'. This word is entirely unnecessary
here. More importantly, the authors need to be more careful in
their choice of words, since there are many critics out there who
will be looking for things that can be taken out of context,
misinterpreted, or misrepresented.
8 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Control run? So what? This is only relevant if the
control is used in scenario development. This raises the issue
of 'Definition 1' versus 'Definition 2' for defining climate
change (a terminology introduced by Santer et al., 1994, JGR).
(Later, this difference is attributed to Cubasch et al., but
it was first clearly enuncited by Santer et al.) The difference
is whether or not one subtracts the control from the perturbed
result. More needs to be said about this. It is often assumed
that subtracting the control will remove any spurious drift in
the perturation experiment. This, of course, is clearly wishful
thinking, both a priori, and as shown by Raper and Cubasch (1996).
Basically, there is no way to reliably remove drift in a
perturbation experiment; which makes it all the more important
to have drift-free models. Flux adjustments do not necessarily
remove drift -- just look at some of the ECHAM control-run
results. There are some very important issues here, central to
the use of O/AGCMs in scenario generation. They need better
coverage. More is said later, but this is still inadequate.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Yes, they can be different, but so what? The issue is
whether the differences are statistically significant. To my
knowledge, no one has addressed this issue properly.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: I'm sure (at least I hope) you don't mean 'observed'.
The issue is the difference between the equilibrium PATTERNS
of change and the MODELLED (NOT 'observed') transient patterns
of change.
9 (to 361) : You've missed the most inportant point! The advantage
of an equilibrium result over an O/AGCM result is that the
former is pure signal.
9 (to 376) : The Definition 1 versus Definition 2 issue is relevant
here.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Please don't propogate garbage. The issue here is
natural internally generated variability. There is no need for
such variability to be chaotic, so you should eschew use of
this word.
9 (to 387) : I presume here that you are talking about O/AGCMs.
You should not use just 'GCM' -- you must be specific. Also,
you've missed some vital points: the natural internal variability
problem (i.e., output is signal plus noise -- noted elsewhere,
but must be stated here); and the model-specific natureof the
climate sensitivity.
10(3xxx xxxx xxxx: Please give credit to the first work on this (Santer
et al., 1990). I should point out that this was actually my
idea.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Totally unclear.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Poor wording. Should be '.. to which changes are added'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'appropriate'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Insert 'based' after 'period'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: 'weather generators' comes as a non sequitur here. In
any event, you haven't said what they are!
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : So what? The issue is what period one is measuring the
impacts from. In most cases it will be some nominal 'present-day',
so the baseline climatology must refer to the same period.
Whether or not the period has some sulphate effect in it is
utterly irrelevant.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : What garbage. See above.
11(xxx xxxx xxxx) : More garbage -- think about it! The reason 1990 is
not so useful as a reference 'period' is because the impacts
variable is probably not adequately definable over a single
year. You have really messed up this issue.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Yet more garbage! Given what I have tried to explain
above, it is ludicrous to consider daily data as part of the
baseline climatology. The impacts variable may require daily data
from a baseline period in order to define ITS reference level
(but probably not), but this is NOT the same thing. Either all
this is very badly worded, or you don't know what your doing.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! Think about it!
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! This is NOT the reason.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! Not 'observed' (which is past or present), but
FUTURE data.
11(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Duplication.
12(to 492) : This is a very confused paragraph.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Wrong. For upper air, their is a major paper by Santer
et al. (JGR, 1999), which also touches on some surface issues.
There are also a number of papers by Trenberth that are relevant.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, introduction of an undefined term/concept
(downscaling).
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: At last, mention of changes. Sadly, it is inappropriate
here, since this is NOT the reason.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Why should this Figure be here?
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Wrong. As a scenario, this could be justified. You are
confusing scenario (as you have defined it, which I have already
criticized) with prediction/projection.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: See above.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : This is the Def. 1 vs Def. 2 issue. However, you have
the history and motivation wrong.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Wrong. This issue has nothing to do with cold start vs
warm start; it is to get over the drift problem (which it fails
to do).
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Not 'especially'; mor appropriate may be 'but only'.
13(5xxx xxxx xxxx: 'were'; grammar!
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : So what? Given your definition of scenario, this
doesn't matter.
14(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Why use 'perceived'?
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: This issue was first raised by Kim et al. (1987?).
It was first addressed in a credible manner by Wigley et al.
(1990).
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appending' is a ridiculous word to use. Try 'adding'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'often' to 'usually'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(627,628) : Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
15(635,636) : Clumsy sentence.
15(6xxx xxxx xxxx: Isn't the word 'physical' usually used? The process
does not just involve dynamics.
15(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Mention of 1-way vs 2-way nesting needed here.
15(xxx xxxx xxxx) : You have failed to mention the most important reason
for using LAMs, orography/topography.
16(6xxx xxxx xxxx: Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
16(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'predict and' to 'predictand'.
16(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Once again, you fail to mention the main advantage;
viz. that statistical downscaling involve real-world data and
so ensures that inter-variable relationships are realistic. Of
course, these relationships may change; but LAMs don't even get
the correct relationships for the present.
16(703)-17(716): These are VERY important results. They need far
greater emphasis.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: In Australia? Or anywhere for that matter.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : See, e.g., Wigley (1999 - Pew report- and material
cited therein).
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: 'mulitple'?
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : This sentence sounds stupid. Rephrase.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: You cannot say 'most areas' and then cite only
agriculture cases.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: The first clear exposition of this is in the oft-cited
paper by Wigley (Nature, 1985). See also later paper in Climate
Monitor.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : I disagree. Both methods have strengths and weaknesses.
18(7xxx xxxx xxxx: At last! A definition of 'weather generators'.
18(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Unclear.
18(7xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'more definitive'?
18(8xxx xxxx xxxx: "Wilk's" to "Wilks'".
18(8xxx xxxx xxxx: Hence, the work is irrelevant in the present context.
Delete irrelevant text.
19(to 821) : Most of the agriculture studies dealing with the
effects of variability changes are flawed since they fail to
separate the low-frequency effect of induced changes in
winter soil moisture levels from the specific effect of
within-growing-season variability changes.
19(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Since this should refer back to lines 823,824,
this whole section amounts to a giant non sequitur.
20(8xxx xxxx xxxx: One could be much stronger than this. The use of
high spatial resolution information is more than just
'warranted', it is absolutely essential. However, there is
another approach that you have failed to mention at all.
This is 'upscaling' of the impacts model. There is some
relevant work on this in papers by Jarvis and McNaughton
(and vice versa). Another related approach is the direct
modelling of spatial patterns of agricultural yield (as
in work by Wigley and Tu Qipu, which relates yield patterns
to climate patterns). Presumably one could apply a similar
approach to direct modelling of river flow. These approaches
complement the rather boring direct approach of downcsaling,
and they may well circumvent some of its problems.
20(8xxx xxxx xxxx: Under this comes: model errors; sensitivity
uncertainties; aerosol forcing uncertainties; lag uncer-
tainties, regionalization versus global-mean uncertainties.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: lesser or greater than what??
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'adequacy' is not the right word; hoe about
'appropriateness'?
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: I disagree. Re-analysis data for precipitation are
simply not good enough, and precipitation is the key variable
in most impact areas. Also, in the regions where scenario
data are most needed, real observational data are available.
Re-analyses largely provide useful new data in regions where
data are not needed. The authors seem not to have thought
this through.
21(to 931) : There are two papers by Wigley (conference
proceedings, edited by Hanisch) which address the issue of
the relative magnitudes of different sources of uncertainty
in global-mean projections (emissions, aerosol forcing,
carbon cycle, other trace gases, climate sensitivity).
These papers are singularly relevant to this section.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, the range for total emissions is from
7.9 to 29.0GtC/yr. For fossil CO2 emissions, the range is
6.5 to 28.8GtC/yr.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Not just 'time-dependent evolution', but anything
that has a specific time attached to it.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: The reference to Alcamo et al. here seems either
perverse or ignorant. Recall that the topic is CLIMATE
scenarios. In this context, MAGICC/SCENGEN is FAR better
suited to exploring the consequences (right down the line)
of emissions 'uncertainties'.
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : MAGICC/SCENGEN already does this at the global-mean
level. Furthermore, at least three O/AGCMs have fully embedded
sulphur cycles already.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'specifications' is the wrong word. These things
are NOT 'specified'.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'determine' to 'have'
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: See also Wigley's Pew report (1999).
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not straightforward? This really is utter garbage.
In MAGICC/SCENGEN, this is extremely easy and straightforward.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Ah ha! The 1-way/2-way nesting issue surfaces at last!
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : See above.
23(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, this issue was first raised in Santer et al.
(1990). It has also been addressed in papers by Wigley and
Palutikof (probably before anyone else).
23(1xxx xxxx xxxx): The wording here is not quite right.
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: First done in Santer et al. (1990).
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: If one assumes stable patterns, which has been shown
to be okay for the CO2 component of change, then the SNR problem
can be minimized by using changes over a long time interval.
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: This average response method was alluded to in
Santer et al. (1990). It was first implemented in ESCAPE and
later in MAGICC/SCENGEN. A good illustration of the method,
including some relevant discussion of it, is given in the
Wigley Pew report (1999). One of the critical aspects of this
method (which is not even mentioned here!) is that the results
must be normalized by the global-mean temperature before
averaging.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Is this the ACACIA program run out of NCAR? This
program was established some years ago, and it would be
extremely confusing if there were two programs with the same
acronym.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Not 'a few', but many -- CMIP1.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: 'rations' to 'ratios'.
24(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Not clear.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'non-standard forcing'? In my view, something
like IS92a forcing would be 'standard', whereas 1% compound CO2
is 'non-standard' (i.e., unrealistic and artificial).
24(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Really? Why? I think this statement is wrong. There
are a number of ways to determine SNR values from a single O/AGCM
run. (Note the continuing confusing use of 'GCM', instead of
O/AGCM.)
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: I don't think 'uncertainties' is quite the right word
here. Input emissions scenarios, which are scenarios in the
strict sense of the word, do not directly address uncertainty
issues (although they can, with some trepidation and a not-
inconsiderable amount of ingenuity, be used to define
uncertainties). By the way, as far as I can see, the only
scenario development method/software that does address the
input and uncertainty issues is MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, these are not the most appropriate references.
Key references are Santer et al. (1990), and papers on ESCAPE
and MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(10xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'annotation' here?
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, it was my idea.
25(1105,1106): No! The key assumption is actually linear superposition.
This is the way that SO4 effects are handled. There are a number
of papers that show that this assumption works well for
temperature, and a paper by Ramaswamy and Chen in GRL that shows
that it works also for precipitation. The tricky thing for this
variable would be to prove statistically that it doesn't work.
Given the SNR, it would be very difficult to reject the null
hypothesis that P(A)+P(B)=P(A+B), where A,B are the forcings
and P(.) is the response pattern.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Plus numerous other papers.
25(1112,1113): This is very galling. The method may have been used
in IMAGE, but they got it from ESCAPE, which goes back to
Santer et al. (1990). MAGICC/SCENGEN pushes the idea as far
as is possible. Schlesinger's COSMIC does things quite
similarly tp MAGICC/SCENGEN. (Schlesinger was a co-author of
the Santer et al. paper.)
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Not clear.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: All you can say here is 'may not hold', not 'probably
does not hold'. Indeed, there are reasons to expect it to hold
quite well.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Could begin new paragraph with 'Uncertainties'.
25(1123,1124): I think this statement is categorically wrong. MAGICC/
SCENGEN incorporates SO4 influences, as does COSMIC. There is
no evidence at all that the uncertainties are thereby amplified.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. Penner et al.,
1997). Idle and unsupported speculations like this do nobody
any good.
25(1124,1125): I suspect you argument here would have to hinge on
the possible spatial effects of a THC slowdown or shutdown.
If so, say so. But, if this is the case, you must also note
that the latest non-flux-corrected O/AGCMs do not show these
major THC changes, and scaling approaches may well work out
very well for these situations, even in stabilization cases.
Please avoid jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: I refereed this paper, and I judged it to be an
appalling display of ignorance. It should not be cited.
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Why is this Figure here?
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Ah ha! At last the normalization issue. This must
come much earlier.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): This is simply wrong. It is true that Ramaswamy and
Chen dreamed up a case with big hemispheric-scale responses
but little global-mean response, but this was totally
unrealistic. In all cases that I have looked at, using the
method employed by MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC, this is simply
NOT a problem.
26(1147,1148): Again, this is just WRONG!
26(115xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, this is my idea, and it was first implemented
in MAGICC/SCENGEN. Please give credit where due.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Isn't this ALWAYS the case. In other words, the
scaling method is almost universally applicable and useful.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): I do not think this has been proven.
26(1164,1165): There are other methods, too.
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Oh come on! Scaling handles MANY types of uncertainty
(perhaps all), not just 'one type'.
27(11xxx xxxx xxxx: 'documented' to 'quantified'?
27(to 1185) : etc., etc.
27(11xxx xxxx xxxx: MAGICC/SCENGEN allows the user to consider this issue
by providing data on global precipitation pattern correlations.
Indeed, this software was the first to consider this issue (in
spite of the Whetton and Pittock paper cited on line 1199).
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Very clumsy text.
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): This is an issue we considered years ago in developing
ESCAPE and MAGICC/SCENGEN. The trouble with judging a model on
its regional performance is one of statistical significance.
It is much easier to get a good regional result by chance than
to get results that are good globally.
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Very clumsy text.
27(to 1214) : You have failed to mention a key issue. Is model skill
in simulating present-day climate a reliable indicator of its
skill in predicting future climate change? There is no evidence
to support this idea, although it does sound a priori reasonable.
You must at least raise the issue.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Cite Morgan and Keith (1995) here.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: This is a critical point. It needs more emphasis.
28(123xxx xxxx xxxx: What about inter-variable consistency? This needs to
be discussed.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'the manifold' to 'possible'.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Insert 'give' after 'chapters'.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Not clear.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: So what? It is almost certainly irrelevant unless the
CO2 changes are bigger than anything anticipated, or unless there
are nonlinear effects associated with THC changes (which looks
increasingly unlikely).
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'mimics'? You must be joking! How about 'approximates'?
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'equal' (grammar).
28(1262,1263): How can smart people like this make such an elementary
mistake!
29(1280,1281): This does not seem to be an appropriate reference.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'albino' to 'albedo'.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: This sea level consistency issue was first addressed
by Wigley and Raper (Warrick et al. sea level book). It is,
of course, avoided in MAGICC/SCENGEN.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'dependable' to 'dependent'.
29(1xxx xxxx xxxx): A giant red herring! Maybe some ignorant people
produced inconsistent scenarios like this years ago, but the
issue was also resolved years ago. All you need to say is that
comprehensive software suites avoid these naive problems.
Concentrate on the strengths of existing methods/software;
don't reraise issues that were solved long ago.
29(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Another misleading red herring, that fails to reflect
the current state of the science. Global-mean responses to
aerosol forcing CAN be used to drive regional patterns. This
is just what is done in MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC.
29(1310,1311): Not clear.
29(13xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'scenario'.
29(13xxx xxxx xxxx: 'to daily' to 'in daily'.
30(1329,1330): 'stimulated new techniques' Oh yeah? The MAGICC/SCENGEN
method has not changed in 7 years, and it still represents the
state of the science.
30(1332,1333): True, but you have not explained them very well. Could
you not have a summary Table that lists the strengths and
weaknesses of the various methods, including the direct use of
O/AGCM output. This would have helped you a lot in planning
and structuring this chapter. It can still help in revising it;
and be useful to readers.
30(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Not clear.
30(13xxx xxxx xxxx: You have mentioned this before, but you have failed
to tell us what it is or given any example. A mention alone is
valueless.
30(13xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'semi-formal'. I thought it was a dress
protocol.
30(general) : A crucial need for scenarios (and for simple models)
is to expand the range of cases covered by O/AGCMs.
END *********************************************************************
******************************
* Dr. Sarah Raper *
* Climatic Research Unit *
* University of East Aglia *
* Norwich *
* NR4 7TJ *
* *
* Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx *
* Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx *
******************************