Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 933254004.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jennifer F Crossley <J.Crossley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: masking of WWF maps
Date: Thu Jul 29 09:13:xxx xxxx xxxx

Jenny,

Thanks for these.

After entering into debate with Barrie Pittock, I have decided to shift to using the 1 sigma level as a mask for all maps. This will not affect any of the temperature plots you have done until now, but means that the China and C.America precipitation maps will need re-drawing using 1 sigma. Please let me know when these are done.
Note also for Russia and that everything from now on for WWF (both T and P) should use 1 sigma as the mask.

Sorry about this and I realise this squeezes even more time away from the RCM.

Given what has happened and your role in producing these plots, you may interested in the exchanges I have had with Barrie Pittock - it illustrates nicely the nuances of presenting climate scenarios in different Fora. Read these three emails in reverse order.

Mike

___________________________________________


Dear Mike,

Thank you for your careful consideration of my "trenchant comments". I
am now much happier with what you are doing, and indeed grateful for
your hard work and enterprise is getting the new scenarios out so
quickly for both IPCC and WWF. Shifting to a one standard deviation is
certainly an improvement, along with some discussion of possible changes
in extremes. I fully appreciate that analysis of daily output is a
time-consuming future task, but meantime an appropriate caveat is
needed. Maybe an additional upfront paragraph discussion of the very
issues we have discussed re providing best estimates of changes, even if
their statistical detectability can only be established after a long
time period has elapsed, would be useful?

I should perhaps explain my delicate position in all this. As a retired
CSIRO person I have somewhat more independence than before, and perhaps
a reduced sense of vested interest in CSIRO, but I am still closely in
touch and supportive of what CAR is doing. Also, I have a son who is now
a leading staff member of WWF in Australia and who is naturally well
informed on climate change issues. Moreover, Michael Rae, who is their
local climate change staffer, is a member of the CSIRO sector advisory
committee (along with some industry people as well) and well known to
me. So I anticipated questions from WWF Australia, and from the media
later when the scenarios are released, regarding the scenarios. I did
not want to be in the position of feeling the need to seriously question
in public their presentation or interpretation. You have allayed my
fears on that score, so that is great.

Roger may still follow up with some more detailed comments he is
collating from people in CAR.

Best regards,

Barrie.

________________________________


Barrie,

Thanks for your trenchent comments re. the scenario maps.

Let's get the bit about extremes out of the way because in what WWF have asked us to do (or what Tim Carter and I have done for WGII) we cannot produce new detailed analyses for all the 15 regions we are doing of GCM-based changes in daily or sub-daily events. Clearly for (some, many?) impacts such changes will be important and we (do and will) make comments to this effect in various places. [By the way, we do show some analyses of changes in the probability of extreme *seasons*, if not extreme days].

Your main point of contention, however, is about the portrayal of changes in mean seasonal T and P (and we are talking about 30-year climate averages here).

My reason for introducing the idea of only showing changes in T and P that *exceed* some level of 'natural' variability was a pedagogic one, rather than a formal statistical one (I concede that using '95% confidence' terminology in the WWF leaflet is misleading and will drop this). And the pedagogic role of this type of visual display is to bring home to people that (some, much or all of) GCM simulated changes in mean seasonal precip. for some regions do *not* amount to anything very large in relation to what may happen in the future to precip. anyway - a classic example is the African Sahel where *none* of the GCMs get precip. changes anything like as large as have been seen this century.

The reasons for this may be 1) because the GHG signal is poorly defined, i.e., a scatter of GCM P changes both above and below zero, and/or 2) because even with a tighter bunching of GCM predictions in one direction these may still not be large relative to 'natural' variations in 30-year mean precip. My approach of taking a pseudo-ensemble of GCMs, standarising and scaling and then plotting the Median *in relation to* natural variations is I think one of the more elegant ways of showing this. Of course, we could define natural variability to be the 1 sigma rather than the 2 sigma level, or simply the interquartile range of control climates or even just the xxx xxxx xxxxpercentile range. What one chooses is a matter of judgement and probably for WWF I should use a less extreme threshold than 2 sigma.

The point behind all this is to emphasise that precip. changes are less well-defined than temp. changes *and* that we should be thinking of adaptation to *present* levels of precip. variability, rather than getting hung up on the problems of predicting future precip. levels. This pedagogic thinking is hard to communicate in a short WWF brochure.

Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only 'where they are large relative to natural variability', and to reduce my threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario).

But I do not intend to abandon the concept. I think it important - even for Greenie groups - to present sober assessments of magnitudes of change. Thus making it clear that future changes in T are better defined that future changes in P, and also to point out that future emissions (and therefore climate change) may be as low as the B1 scenario (is B1 climate change negligible? I almost think so), whilst also being possibly as high as A2 is I think very important.

The alternative is to think that such a more subtle presentation is too sophisticated for WWF. But I think (hope) not.

Thanks again Barrie for forcing me to think through this again.

Mike

_________________________________________________________

At 17:52 28/07/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Hello Mike,
>
>I am giving a preliminary response to your suggestion that Peter Whetton
>comment on your scenario material in case there is some urgency. Peter
>did write an email last Friday night before going on a week's holiday,
>but unfortunately the email system failed and it probably did not go and
>has been lost. He asked Roger Jones to respond on behalf of the group
>but Roger is snowed under at present.
>
>Peter and I did discuss it on Friday. Our main concern (although there
>are other more detailed ones) is your use of the 95% confidence limits
>of natural climatic variability as some sort of threshold for change.
>This is a reasonable thing to do if you are addressing the question of
>whether climatic change will be detectable at a "scientific level" of
>confidence, but that is certainly not the question I would expect WWF to
>want answered, nor is it the one most relevant to giving policy advice.
>The relevant question is "What is the best estimate of climate change,
>given the assumption that increasing GH gases will cause change?". The
>contrast between these questions, the statistical criteria they require,
>and thus the answers, is what I was driving at in my comment on your
>paper in Nature. It is a very serious difference with serious
>consequences for how people will interpret your advice. The results as
>you present them suggest that many areas will have precipitation changes
>(particularly) which are small compared to natural variability, and
>therefore it does not matter. But if the change in mean is some
>appreciable fraction of natural variability, say, 50%, that is a very
>serious matter which ought to concern policy makers, because it will
>have cumulative impacts, especially in regard to large changes in the
>frequency and magnitude of extremes (floods and droughts). Surely you
>understand that! - refer to the standard diagrams of the impact on
>extremes of shifting a normal distribution by one standard deviation.
>
>What you are doing is using a strict Type I error criterion when others
>(WWF?) might think a Type II error criterion is more suitable (the
>Precautionary Principle), and reasonable people (like me of course!?)
>think a criterion in between which measures risk of serious impacts is
>what is needed for policymakers. The reference I gave in my comment in
>Nature may not be the best - but look at my argument in QJRMS, 109,
>pp.xxx xxxx xxxx(1983) for a clearer exposition on this point.
>
>The other related matter is that your scenarios for WWF, and for that
>matter for IPCC WG2, do not discuss the importance of changes in
>extremes, which are arguably the most important changes, however poorly
>understood they may be at present. This and the other caveats you are
>intending to include in the IPCC material, re scaling, sulfate aerosol
>effects, longer timescales, and change after stabilisation of
>concentrations, should be in the WWF material also, even if they
>complicate things a bit (I have not checked whether some of that is in
>your WWF stuff as yet).
>
>I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices
>in a way that can be interpreted as saying that "even a
>greenie group like WWF" thinks large areas of the world will have
>negligible climate change. But that is where your 95% confidence limit
>leads.
>
>Sorry to be critical, but better now than later!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Barrie.
>
>Dr A. Barrie Pittock
>Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact Group
>CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
>Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx, email:
><barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>WWW: http://www.dar.csiro.au/res/cm/impact.htm
>
>* As from 1 March 1999 I have become a CSIRO Post-Retirement Fellow.
>This means I do not have administrative responsibilities, and am
>working part-time, primarily on writing for the Intergovernmental Panel
>on Climate Change. Please refer any administrative matters or contract
>negotiations for the CIG to Dr. Peter Whetton, the new Group Leader, at
><peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tel. xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
>"Far better an approximate answer to the right question which is often
>vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can always be
>made precise." J.W. Tukey as cited by R. Lewin, Science 221,xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
>

Original Filename: 933255789.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Adam Markham <Adam.Markham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.sheard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Mike,

I'm sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they've said to me so
far.

They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.

I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
"The Question of Significance" by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657

Let me know what you think. Adam

Original Filename: 933716462.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:41:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: calvert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Tom,

Thanks for bringing that to our attention...

I checked out that page and, unfortunately what he has
done is *so* ridden with problems that it isn't even
worth confronting. Many of us (e.g., me,
Phil Jones, Henry Pollack, Shao-Yang Huang, Rob
Harris, and others) have been scratching our heads
trying to find a statistically defensible way of combining
the information in boreholes and "conventional" proxy
indicators, and as yet it is not clear if it can be done,
given in particular the loss of information due to
geothermal diffusion, and the overriding important
of land-usage changes and snowcover variations, on borehole
temperature profiles. I don't think Hoyt has added
anything scientifically productive in this regard.
Looks more like he has wrecklessly convoluted
borhole data with our reconstructions to get just
the kind of result he wants to get...

Of course, there are issues with regard to secular trends
in dendroclimatic reconstructions (which form an important,
but not exclusive, role in oure reconstructions) and nobody
is better qualified to discuss these than Keith, or Malcolm Hughes,
who have highlighted these issues in recent publications
(there is a link to a nice recent "Nota Bene" Science piece by
Keith and Tim Osborn on my webpage:
http://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/climate/mike/mbh99.html

With regard to "Co2 fertilization", it is ironic that
Hoyt frames his analysis in these terms, when it
precisely this effect (for better or for worse)
we took great pains to account for in our recent millennial
temperature reconstruction (see the above web page
for more info). At least, we have done this in a reasonably
statistically-defensible, if imperfect, manner, rather
than an ad hoc attempt to get an answer, rather than follow
a scientifically meaningful process.

This thing wouldn't have a chance at passing
peer-review (at least, not on this planet), so
he posts it on the web--the downside of absolute
freedom of dissemination I suppose. The material in
question is the scientific equivalent of trash, plain and
simple.

Like a lot of the "skeptics" out there, D.H. appears
far less interested in honest scientific discourse,
than in misleading as many unlucky soles as possible
who wander into his den of disinformation (kind of like the
"scientist" equivalent of an Ant Lion I suppose).

Every once and a while, I do choose to respond to this
type of crap (e.g., with regard to Pat Michaels--my
soon-to-be "neighbor"'s recent pieces in his
"World Climate Report"). In D.H.'s case, I doubt even
more that this would be at all productive. We just have
to wait and see if he ever tries to get this kind of
thing published in the peer-reviewed literature. For
our part, I think the best approach is to, as Jonathan
Overpeck has so effectivley been doing, try whenever
possible to educate the lay public about the essential
distinction between peer-reviewed science and un-peer-
reviewed...., well, whatever you want to call it.

Again, thanks for the head's up on this.

best regards,

mike mann

>X-Sender: tfp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>From: Tom Pedersen <pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Skeptics
>Cc: calvert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Steve Calvert), k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Hi Ray:
>My colleague, Steve Calvert, has just brought to my attention a website of
>which I was unaware but you probably know well. It's at
>http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1
>and run by Doug Hoyt.
>Amongst other things Hoyt has taken the Mann reconstruction and
>reconstructed it by "removing the effect on tree ring thickness that
>results from CO2 fertilization" (paraphrased). You will see the figure on
>his site. He concludes that there is no significant warming in the last
>half of this century relative to the last millenium. Do you know this guy?
>Are you familiar with his reconstruction of your reconstruction? Didn't
>Keith Briffa correct his tree-ring reconstructions for CO2 fertilization?
>[Keith: any comments?]. Steve and I would be most interested to hear your
>collective comments...
>
>To close this, here is a bit cut and pasted from Hoyt's sight:
>
>
> Three Final Points
>
>There are three important points to make about the reported warming of the
>last 20 years:
>
>1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This
>result is inconsistent with a warming
>caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and
>other surface effects.
>
>2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the
>upper atmosphere. This type of warming is
>completely opposite to what is predicted if greenhouse gases are the cause.
>Again these observations are consistent
>with problems in the surface measurements.
>
>3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere
>mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical
>regions. This result is consistent with urban influences, but is
>incompatible with the climate warming predicted from
>greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions.
>
>In short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to
>greenhouse gases in its temporal, vertical, and
>geographical distribution. The reported warming is consistent with problems
>in the surface network.
>
>
>Cheers, Tom
>
>
>T.F. Pedersen
>Oceanography, Earth and Ocean Sciences, 6270 University Boulevard,
>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4
>Telephone: xxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxxEmail: pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.eos.ubc.ca/
>
>

_______________________________________________________________________
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: 934921858.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Karl E.Taylor" <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: to mask or not
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx



Mike,

I thought maybe I could contribute a few comments to your concern
over using a common coverage mask for surface and MSU temperatures.
(Copy of your relevent paragraph copied below.)

Whether or not to mask depends on the question being addressed. If
we wanted the best estimate of global mean MSU temperatures, then
clearly we wouldn't want to mask. The issues we address, however,
are largely based on an expectation (from models and observations)
that over large portions of the globe strong vertical coupling tends
to lead to large positive correlations between surface and lower
tropospheric temperatures. There is a further (model-based) expectation
that any warming trend at the surface should be slightly amplified
higher up in the troposphere. These expectations seem to be
contradicted by the MSU data (at least for global mean trends).

Masking makes most sense if there is in fact strong coupling between
the surface and troposphere. Suppose the CO2 warming signal were
one with relatively strong warming over land areas and weaker
warming over ocean. Suppose further that we only had surface
temperature measurements over land, but had MSU retrievals over all the
globe. Also assume a case of perfect coupling (1K rise in local upper
air temperature for every 1K rise in local surface temperature).

In this case the unmasked global mean MSU temperature increase would be
less than the "global" mean surface temperature increase, falsely
indicating a damping with height of the CO2 signal. If we masked
the MSU temperature (sampling only over land), then the global
means would be computed over the same area as the surface temperature
and the MSU temperature change would equal the surface temperature
change, indicating no damping of the response with height. This
second conclusion would be the correct one. Note, however, that
the true global mean temperature change (both at the surface and
aloft) would be best estimated using the MSU unmasked data (under
the conditions of this hypothesized case).

Under different conditions, and again depending on what question is
being addressed, it might be best not to mask the MSU data. In our
paper we wanted to determine whether the apparent discrepancy between
the MSU trend (very small) and the surface trend (positive, and larger)
could be explained by coverage differences. This makes sense since
models seem to indicate that the trends should be comparable. One
explanation for the discrepancy is that in models true global
means had been considered until now, whereas in the data the MSU mean
was computed from global coverage, but the surface changes were
computed from data covering about 70% of the globe. In our study
both model data and observations were treated with the same mask
so we rule out different sampling as a full explanation for
the difference between surface and MSU temperature trends.

Hope this doesn't confuse things further.

cheers,
Karl
------------------------------------
Mike wrote (in part):

I think one needs to be very careful about this coverage
argument--basically becuase the atmosphere can move anomalies around
compared to the surface. One would just not expect therir spatial patterns
to be the same, so taking a common spatial maskwill not resolve this (even
if it seems plausible). To illustrate, take an extreme example of there
only being sfc msmts for the equatorial eastern Pacific (the El Nino
region). There, the MSU and sfc temp go in opposite directions for quite
plausible physical reasons. Doing a mask and comparing for that small
region would make no sens and give negative correlations, etc. Now, in that
sfc obs cover most of the globe, the problem will not be so severe, but it
persists (it was for this reason that I was suggesting extrapolating to the
global value for sfc temp based on changing coverage--not sure how to do
that however). In any case, I believe taht MSU and sfc should only be
compared, if at all, for the globe as a whole.

Original Filename: 935431006.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Holocene paper
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:56:46 +0500
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,
I just come back from Yamal. We collected subfossil wood in Yuribey
River basin xxx xxxx xxxxkm northward of recent timberline) and have found
about one hundred remains of trees.
Before departure for Yamal, on July 17, I have sent you draft outline
of paper for Holocene. I asked Valery Mazepa to send it one more if
any problems in connection. Now Valery is in Polar Ural and I don't
know did you receive this outline.
Could you inform me about this.
Thank you.

Best regards,
Rashit M. Hantemirov

Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx; phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 936652724.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Proposal to IARC
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:18:44 +0500
Reply-to: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,
Some days ago we have got "JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF
OPPORTUNITY" from International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative
Institute for Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks. The
general theme is Global Change Research in the Arctic (full text with
description is attached bellow). As we have read Research Themes from
announcement they seem to be very congenial to our laboratory. What do
you think about this? Is there point in submitting proposal to IARC
and CIFAR at the University of Alaska Fairbanks? Research theme would
be 5,000 year summer air temperature reconstruction from tree rings
and impacts and consequences of global climate change on forest
ecosystems in the Polar Ural and Yamal Peninsula (Subarctic regions of
Russia).
We have no wide experience to submit proposal to any foreign
administration. We need in some advice. Could you give us a piece of
good advice how to do this well.
The questions are:
1. We are not sure whether this action and theme is contrary to our
future cooperative work?
2. If not, how big our chance to get award?
3. Could we submit a proposal from our Institute only without U.S.
partner? (Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have a
U.S. partner. See description bellow). If U.S. partner should be, who
in your opinion would be?

Best regards.
Stepan.

From: ArcticInfo
<arcticInfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: arcticinfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IARC Announcement of Opportunity
For more information on these research
opportunities contact:
Professor Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, Phone: 907/xxx xxxx xxxx,
Fax: 907/xxx xxxx xxxx, or E-mail: sakasofu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative Institute for
Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks
Global Change Research in the Arctic

INTRODUCTION
Proposals are invited on topics of global change and its
effects in the Arctic (detection; interactions and feedbacks;
paleoclimates, arctic haze, ozone and UV; contaminants; impacts and
consequences of change). The proposal deadline is 1 October 1999 and
awards will be made in January 2000.
DESCRIPTION
The International Arctic Research Center (IARC) and the Cooperative
Institute for Arctic
Research (CIFAR) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks announce the
availability of funding for global change research in the Arctic. The
IARC is a new international research center at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, established jointly with Japan. The mission of the
IARC is to provide an environment that will nurture multidisciplinary
research by integrating and synthesizing past, present, and future
studies in global change.
CIFAR is the NOAA-UAF Cooperative Institute
for Arctic Research; it is combining the resources of its Arctic
Research Initiative (ARI) with those of IARC under this announcement.
The goal is to develop a focal point for a pan-Arctic synthesis of
global change in which researchers from many different institutions
throughout the United States and the rest of the world participate to
combine their research results. Further details on IARC can be found
on its web page at http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/ and on CIFAR at
http://www.cifar.uaf.edu/.

Proposals may be submitted from U.S. or
foreign institutions that address studies on any of the following
themes drawn from the IARC Science Plan and the CIFAR Arctic Research
Initiative. Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have
a U.S. partner. The starting date for proposed work should be 1
January 2000, with a duration of up to 24 months. Funding for the
second year will be contingent on the availability of additional
funds, therefore each proposal should have a clear, achievable
objective for the first year's work.
RESEARCH THEMES
1. Detection of
contemporary climate change in the Arctic by ground observations,
remote sensing and climate "fingerprinting".
2. Arctic paleoclimatic
reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, permafrost, lake and ocean
sediments.
3. Atmosphere-ice-land-ocean interactions and feedbacks in
the Arctic that affect change, including observations and modeling.
4. Arctic atmospheric chemistry, arctic haze, ozone and UV radiation and
their effects.
5. Impacts and consequences of global climate change,
including effects on biota and ecosystems in the Arctic.
6. Contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposure to higher
trophic levels and humans in the Arctic.

It is planned to fund several
large projects and a number of medium ($100K) or smaller projects.
Proposals must include the full cost of logistics support required. A
total of about $ 4.5M is available in year 1 for this Announcement of
Opportunity.
Proposals can request support for the following:
*Research on any of the above six themes. Proposals that add value to
ongoing research projects, or that share costs with other funded
investigators, are encouraged.
* Conducting workshops at the IARC to
further define priorities or synthesize available information on any
of the research themes listed above, or any theme from the IARC
Science Plan.
* Visiting scientists, for short- or longer-term visits,
to the IARC in Fairbanks.
* Development of generally useful curricula
and courses in global change, or conducting global change outreach and
educational activities.
* U.S. participation in the work of the Arctic
Council and its AMAP, CAFF, or PAME working groups.

All proposers
should meet the following conditions:
* PIs must attend an annual
synthesis meeting of all IARC/CIFAR investigators in Fairbanks at
which research results will be presented and working groups will
synthesize results. Proposal budgets should include travel to
Fairbanks.
* All activities will be required to acknowledge the
financial support from IARC and CIFAR in reports, papers,
dissertations, etc.
* Progress reports are due from all funded
projects on 1 August 2000.
* Copies of all publications resulting from
funded projects are to be provided to IARC/CIFAR.

Proposals should not
exceed 15 pages in text and illustrations, not counting CVs, budget
page, and appendices. Further details on proposal preparation are
attached below as an appendix.

Review criteria for research proposals are:
* Does the proposal address the research themes listed above?
*Does it propose high-quality research?
* Does it advance the NOAA mission?
* Is the PI (or are the PIs) well qualified to do the
research?
* Can the research be done in a timely manner?
* Is it likely to lead to significant results?
* Is it likely to contribute to
a synthesis of research results on global change?

Proposals must be
received by 1 October 1999. All proposals will be reviewed by a
scientific peer review panel of prominent researchers that will advise
a program management team drawn from NOAA, IARC, and CIFAR. Funds will
be available in early 2000. Please submit proposals (originals and 10
copies) to the address below. Further information can also be obtained
from the same office.
Professor Syun Akasofu, Director
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
930 North Koyukuk Drive
P. O. Box 757340
Fairbanks, AK 99xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel 907/xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax 907/xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: sakasofu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Program Management Team:
Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
John Calder, Director, Arctic Research, NOAA-OAR, Silver Spring, MD
Gunter Weller, Director, CIFAR, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
********************************************

APPENDIX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION
FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL
Proposals should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, but
otherwise be unbound, and have 2.5-cm margins at the top, bottom, and
on each side. The type size must be clear and readily legible, in
a standard font size of xxx xxxx xxxxpoint. The original signed copy should
be clipped together (not stapled) and printed on one side of each sheet
only. The 10 additional copies of the proposal may be printed on both sides.

When submitting collaborative proposals involving more than one
institution, each institution should submit its own cover page with
appropriate signatures and its own budget. The title of the proposal,
the text, disclosures, vitae, etc., should be the same and a cover
letter should indicate that the proposal is a collaborative one
jointly submitted with another (or other) institution(s) which should
be named.

SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL
1. Cover page. The cover page
should include a title, the Principal Investigator's name(s) and
affiliation(s), complete address, phone, fax, e-mail information, and
budget summary broken out by year. It must be signed by an official
authorized to legally bind the submitting organization.
2. Half-page
abstract (on a separate page). This should list the nature of the
proposed work (e.g., hypotheses to be tested, the relationship of the
proposed studies to the research themes, the goals of any proposed
workshops, relationship to the Arctic Council, etc.) and a summary of
the key approach.
3. Project Description. This section should present
the problem or opportunity to be addressed by the project, and state
the questions, hypotheses, and project objectives, clearly relating
them to the goals of this competition. Proposals should: summarize the
approach that will be used to address the questions, hypotheses, and
objectives; describe how the PIs and co-PIs would contribute to the
overall study approach; describe the methods to be used; and present
expected results.
4. Data Plan. The proposal should include a plan on
how the data generated by the proposed research will be made available
to other scientists (e.g., web pages) and deposited in a recognized
data archive.
5. References cited.
6. Milestone chart for the project.
7. Statement of the project responsibilities of each Principal
Investigator and participant.
8. Budget. Pattern your budget after NSF
budget Form 1030. Budget categories include the following: salaries
and wages, fringe benefits, equipment, travel, materials and supplies
(expendable), publication costs, consultant services, computer
services, sub-awards, tuition, other expenditures, and indirect costs
(facilities and administration). The full cost of logistics should be
included in the budget. Travel to an annual PI meeting in Fairbanks
should be included. Travel expenses need to be broken down by airfare
and per diem. Salaries for Government PIs will not be supported.
9. Biographical Sketch. This is limited to two pages for each Principal
Investigator and should be focused on information directly relevant to
undertaking the proposed research.
10. A short list of possible peer
reviewers with whom you have no close working or personal relationship
(optional).
11. Federal employees. Proposals are welcome from those
Federal agencies whose legislated mission allows participation.
NONDISCRIMINATION The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
provides awards for research in the sciences. The awardee is wholly
responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the
results for publication. NOAA, therefore, does not assume
responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. IARC and
CIFAR welcome proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and
engineers, and strongly encourage women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and
research-related programs described in this document. In accordance
with Federal statutes and regulations, and NOAA policies, no person on
the grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability
shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
financial assistance from NOAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcticInfo is administered by the Arctic Research Consortium of the
United States (ARCUS). Please visit us on the World Wide Web at
http://www.arcus.org At anytime you may: Subscribe to ArcticInfo by
sending an email to arcticinfo-sub@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Unsubscribe by sending an
email to arcticinfo-unsub@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. These actions are automatic.
Barring mail system failure you should receive responses from our
system as confirmation to your requests. If you have information you
would like to post to the mailing list send the message to
dan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or arcus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. You can search back issues of
ArcticInfo by content or date at
http://www.arcus.org/ArcticInfo/fr_Search.html If you have any
questions please contact the list administrator: dan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ARCUS
600 University Avenue, Suite 1 Fairbanks, AK 99xxx xxxx xxxx/xxx xxxx xxxx
907/xxx xxxx xxxxfax

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: 936728245.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: Proposal to IARC
Date: Tue Sep 7 14:17:xxx xxxx xxxx

Stepan
I have just returned from a week at a PAGES meeting in Switzerland. I presented the Yamal and Taimyr chronologies along with our recent analyses of the spatial patterns of variability in the northern network and the pressure and temperature interpretation of the patterns. All of this was well received.

As for you questions, it is very short notice to consider getting a well organised proposal together. My answers to your specific questions are
1. Such work would not necessarily be contrary to our current and future plans but there is undoubtedly a potential overlap and possible problem in distinquishing tasks and outputs. The next EC proposal must be clearly separate and I would be concerned if the potential referees asked what was the clear difference.

2. I have no experience ( and presumably neither has anyone else as this is a new initiative) but I think the chances would depend on the degree of synthesis involved in the work and possibly how extensive the overall scope of the work is and also maybe who the U.S. collaborator is. I think your chance would be better as part of a large project , somewhat as we envisage for the next EC application. This is my opinion only and it may , of course, be wrong.

3.I see nothing preventing an application from your laboratory alone . If you do put in an application I wolud hope it made clear our ongoing collaboration. If you went for a collaborator in the U.S. the obvious person is Gordon Jacoby. I do not know if he is already submitting but I would think so. Please let me know what you decide . I will be phoning Gordon anyway to ask him about future collaboration on the EC front. I will keep you informed on that.
very best wishes
Keith


At 05:18 PM 9/6/99 +0500, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>Some days ago we have got "JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF
>OPPORTUNITY" from International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative
>Institute for Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks. The
>general theme is Global Change Research in the Arctic (full text with
>description is attached bellow). As we have read Research Themes from
>announcement they seem to be very congenial to our laboratory. What do
>you think about this? Is there point in submitting proposal to IARC
>and CIFAR at the University of Alaska Fairbanks? Research theme would
>be 5,000 year summer air temperature reconstruction from tree rings
>and impacts and consequences of global climate change on forest
>ecosystems in the Polar Ural and Yamal Peninsula (Subarctic regions of
>Russia).
>We have no wide experience to submit proposal to any foreign
>administration. We need in some advice. Could you give us a piece of
>good advice how to do this well.
>The questions are:
>1. We are not sure whether this action and theme is contrary to our
>future cooperative work?
>2. If not, how big our chance to get award?
>3. Could we submit a proposal from our Institute only without U.S.
>partner? (Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have a
>U.S. partner. See description bellow). If U.S. partner should be, who
>in your opinion would be?
>
>Best regards.
>Stepan.
>
>From: ArcticInfo
><arcticInfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: arcticinfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: IARC Announcement of Opportunity
>For more information on these research
>opportunities contact:
>Professor Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, Phone: 907/xxx xxxx xxxx,
>Fax: 907/xxx xxxx xxxx, or E-mail: sakasofu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.
>
>RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
>JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
>International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative Institute for
>Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks
>Global Change Research in the Arctic
>
>INTRODUCTION
>Proposals are invited on topics of global change and its
>effects in the Arctic (detection; interactions and feedbacks;
>paleoclimates, arctic haze, ozone and UV; contaminants; impacts and
>consequences of change). The proposal deadline is 1 October 1999 and
>awards will be made in January 2000.
>DESCRIPTION
>The International Arctic Research Center (IARC) and the Cooperative
>Institute for Arctic
>Research (CIFAR) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks announce the
>availability of funding for global change research in the Arctic. The
>IARC is a new international research center at the University of
>Alaska Fairbanks, established jointly with Japan. The mission of the
>IARC is to provide an environment that will nurture multidisciplinary
>research by integrating and synthesizing past, present, and future
>studies in global change.
>CIFAR is the NOAA-UAF Cooperative Institute
>for Arctic Research; it is combining the resources of its Arctic
>Research Initiative (ARI) with those of IARC under this announcement.
>The goal is to develop a focal point for a pan-Arctic synthesis of
>global change in which researchers from many different institutions
>throughout the United States and the rest of the world participate to
>combine their research results. Further details on IARC can be found
>on its web page at http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/ and on CIFAR at
>http://www.cifar.uaf.edu/.
>
>Proposals may be submitted from U.S. or
>foreign institutions that address studies on any of the following
>themes drawn from the IARC Science Plan and the CIFAR Arctic Research
>Initiative. Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have
>a U.S. partner. The starting date for proposed work should be 1
>January 2000, with a duration of up to 24 months. Funding for the
>second year will be contingent on the availability of additional
>funds, therefore each proposal should have a clear, achievable
>objective for the first year's work.
>RESEARCH THEMES
>1. Detection of
>contemporary climate change in the Arctic by ground observations,
>remote sensing and climate "fingerprinting".
>2. Arctic paleoclimatic
>reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, permafrost, lake and ocean
>sediments.
>3. Atmosphere-ice-land-ocean interactions and feedbacks in
>the Arctic that affect change, including observations and modeling.
>4. Arctic atmospheric chemistry, arctic haze, ozone and UV radiation and
>their effects.
>5. Impacts and consequences of global climate change,
>including effects on biota and ecosystems in the Arctic.
>6. Contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposure to higher
>trophic levels and humans in the Arctic.
>
>It is planned to fund several
>large projects and a number of medium ($100K) or smaller projects.
>Proposals must include the full cost of logistics support required. A
>total of about $ 4.5M is available in year 1 for this Announcement of
>Opportunity.
>Proposals can request support for the following:
>*Research on any of the above six themes. Proposals that add value to
>ongoing research projects, or that share costs with other funded
>investigators, are encouraged.
>* Conducting workshops at the IARC to
>further define priorities or synthesize available information on any
>of the research themes listed above, or any theme from the IARC
>Science Plan.
>* Visiting scientists, for short- or longer-term visits,
>to the IARC in Fairbanks.
>* Development of generally useful curricula
>and courses in global change, or conducting global change outreach and
>educational activities.
>* U.S. participation in the work of the Arctic
>Council and its AMAP, CAFF, or PAME working groups.
>
>All proposers
>should meet the following conditions:
>* PIs must attend an annual
>synthesis meeting of all IARC/CIFAR investigators in Fairbanks at
>which research results will be presented and working groups will
>synthesize results. Proposal budgets should include travel to
>Fairbanks.
>* All activities will be required to acknowledge the
>financial support from IARC and CIFAR in reports, papers,
>dissertations, etc.
>* Progress reports are due from all funded
>projects on 1 August 2000.
>* Copies of all publications resulting from
>funded projects are to be provided to IARC/CIFAR.
>
>Proposals should not
>exceed 15 pages in text and illustrations, not counting CVs, budget
>page, and appendices. Further details on proposal preparation are
>attached below as an appendix.
>
>Review criteria for research proposals are:
>* Does the proposal address the research themes listed above?
>*Does it propose high-quality research?
>* Does it advance the NOAA mission?
>* Is the PI (or are the PIs) well qualified to do the
>research?
>* Can the research be done in a timely manner?
>* Is it likely to lead to significant results?
>* Is it likely to contribute to
>a synthesis of research results on global change?
>
>Proposals must be
>received by 1 October 1999. All proposals will be reviewed by a
>scientific peer review panel of prominent researchers that will advise
>a program management team drawn from NOAA, IARC, and CIFAR. Funds will
>be available in early 2000. Please submit proposals (originals and 10
>copies) to the address below. Further information can also be obtained
>from the same office.
>Professor Syun Akasofu, Director
>International Arctic Research Center
>University of Alaska Fairbanks
>930 North Koyukuk Drive
>P. O. Box 757340
>Fairbanks, AK 99xxx xxxx xxxx
>Tel 907/xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax 907/xxx xxxx xxxx
>e-mail: sakasofu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Program Management Team:
>Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
>John Calder, Director, Arctic Research, NOAA-OAR, Silver Spring, MD
>Gunter Weller, Director, CIFAR, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
>********************************************
>
> APPENDIX
>INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION
>FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL
>Proposals should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, but
>otherwise be unbound, and have 2.5-cm margins at the top, bottom, and
>on each side. The type size must be clear and readily legible, in
>a standard font size of xxx xxxx xxxxpoint. The original signed copy should
>be clipped together (not stapled) and printed on one side of each sheet
>only. The 10 additional copies of the proposal may be printed on both sides.
>
>When submitting collaborative proposals involving more than one
>institution, each institution should submit its own cover page with
>appropriate signatures and its own budget. The title of the proposal,
>the text, disclosures, vitae, etc., should be the same and a cover
>letter should indicate that the proposal is a collaborative one
>jointly submitted with another (or other) institution(s) which should
>be named.
>
>SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL
>1. Cover page. The cover page
>should include a title, the Principal Investigator's name(s) and
>affiliation(s), complete address, phone, fax, e-mail information, and
>budget summary broken out by year. It must be signed by an official
>authorized to legally bind the submitting organization.
>2. Half-page
>abstract (on a separate page). This should list the nature of the
>proposed work (e.g., hypotheses to be tested, the relationship of the
>proposed studies to the research themes, the goals of any proposed
>workshops, relationship to the Arctic Council, etc.) and a summary of
>the key approach.
>3. Project Description. This section should present
>the problem or opportunity to be addressed by the project, and state
>the questions, hypotheses, and project objectives, clearly relating
>them to the goals of this competition. Proposals should: summarize the
>approach that will be used to address the questions, hypotheses, and
>objectives; describe how the PIs and co-PIs would contribute to the
>overall study approach; describe the methods to be used; and present
>expected results.
>4. Data Plan. The proposal should include a plan on
>how the data generated by the proposed research will be made available
>to other scientists (e.g., web pages) and deposited in a recognized
>data archive.
>5. References cited.
>6. Milestone chart for the project.
>7. Statement of the project responsibilities of each Principal
>Investigator and participant.
>8. Budget. Pattern your budget after NSF
>budget Form 1030. Budget categories include the following: salaries
>and wages, fringe benefits, equipment, travel, materials and supplies
>(expendable), publication costs, consultant services, computer
>services, sub-awards, tuition, other expenditures, and indirect costs
>(facilities and administration). The full cost of logistics should be
>included in the budget. Travel to an annual PI meeting in Fairbanks
>should be included. Travel expenses need to be broken down by airfare
>and per diem. Salaries for Government PIs will not be supported.
>9. Biographical Sketch. This is limited to two pages for each Principal
>Investigator and should be focused on information directly relevant to
>undertaking the proposed research.
>10. A short list of possible peer
>reviewers with whom you have no close working or personal relationship
>(optional).
>11. Federal employees. Proposals are welcome from those
>Federal agencies whose legislated mission allows participation.
>NONDISCRIMINATION The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>provides awards for research in the sciences. The awardee is wholly
>responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the
>results for publication. NOAA, therefore, does not assume
>responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. IARC and
>CIFAR welcome proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and
>engineers, and strongly encourage women, minorities, and persons with
>disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and
>research-related programs described in this document. In accordance
>with Federal statutes and regulations, and NOAA policies, no person on
>the grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability
>shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be
>subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
>financial assistance from NOAA.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ArcticInfo is administered by the Arctic Research Consortium of the
>United States (ARCUS). Please visit us on the World Wide Web at
>http://www.arcus.org At anytime you may: Subscribe to ArcticInfo by
>sending an email to arcticinfo-sub@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Unsubscribe by sending an
>email to arcticinfo-unsub@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. These actions are automatic.
>Barring mail system failure you should receive responses from our
>system as confirmation to your requests. If you have information you
>would like to post to the mailing list send the message to
>dan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or arcus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. You can search back issues of
>ArcticInfo by content or date at
>http://www.arcus.org/ArcticInfo/fr_Search.html If you have any
>questions please contact the list administrator: dan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ARCUS
>600 University Avenue, Suite 1 Fairbanks, AK 99xxx xxxx xxxx/xxx xxxx xxxx
>907/xxx xxxx xxxxfax
>
>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: 936823492.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Proposal to IARC
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:44:52 +0500
Reply-to: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,

Thank you for answers to my questions. We decided do not participate
in this project, as many problems are originated. And there is no time
to write such proposal.

Last week I came back from the Polar Urals. The fieldwork was
successful this summer. We remeasured all trees and seedlings along
the transect, mapped forest-tundra ecosystems and tree-line over a
large territory, made about 100 photos. I found very old living twigs
of Juniperus sibirica (up to xxx xxxx xxxxyears)and took samples from many
dead twigs. We also collected many wood samples from living and dead
larches of various ages. But we were bited by many thousands of mosquitos
especially small ones.

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: 937153268.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: c.flack@uea,c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea, m.hulme@uea,r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea, parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Discussion document for Tues/Wed
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:21:08 +0100

Attached is a discussion document. It incorporates material provided by
Simon Shackley (UMIST) & Mike Hulme. Jean has commented on it. It is
intended to circulate this to consortium partners on Monday. if you have
chance to read it & comment on it before it goes, that would be good; but I
recognise that - in practice - time is too short. My apologies for that.
(However, I do think there is a danger in presenting our partners with too
'final' a draft application at this stage. And we do need their bright
ideas!).

CHRIS - please will you liaise with Jean to:

1. Get this document out to outside attendees.
2. Send out a list of attendees
3. Give outside people details of where to get the Research Councils'
document 'Information for applicants to run the Centre' (web), if they
don't already have it.
4. Send out an agenda (Jean is doing this)
5. Send out Kerry's diagram (Jean has)

CHRIS - will you also please fax copies of the ICER document (in your
tray) to John Shepherd (Southampton 596258) and Nigel Arnell (I don't have
fax number). [For info to others - we didn't send Soton a copy of the ICER
bid earlier, because they were sitting on the fence].

Very many thanks.


Trevor
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachClimate Change Centre.doc"


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++From ???@??? Fri Sep 24 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from [139.222.104.46] (helo=taff.cru.uea.ac.uk)
by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 11UUPxxx xxxx xxxxQM-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:24:46 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990924132145.00a5ea6c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Sender: e022@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:21:45 +0100
To: n.adger@uea,j.alexander@uea,g.bigg@uea,k.briffa@uea,p.brimblecombe@uea,
s.dorling@uea,k.heywood@uea,t.jickells@uea,m.kelly@uea,b.maher@uea,
j.plane@uea,a.jordan@uea,m.penkett@uea,s.raper@uea,c.vincent@uea,
a.j.watson@uea
From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Outline bid for new Climate Change Centre (CCC)
Cc: c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea,m.hulme@uea,
r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea,parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status:

CONFIDENTIAL TO ENV - State of Play

The research councils want a 5000 word outline bid by mid-October. The
councils are putting up 2 million pounds per year for 5 years are NERC,
EPSRC and ESRC. The research councils are putting the emphasis on
"solutions" to climate change. They are clearly not looking for another
version of CRU, the Hadley Centre, or any other existing centre in the UK.
The focus is "downstream" of these existing centres.

Much of what they appear to want we anticipated in our JIF ICER (Institute
for Connective Environmental Sciences) bid and, indeed, we made a
provisional early strike for the CCC in that bid, although the research
councils' intentions were not known at that point. Even if the JIF ICER bid
is unsuccessful (& at this stage we are still optimistic), then we will
still be able to take advantage of this "early" thinking in the final CCC bid.

We are aware of 3-4 competitors, which are mainly consortia of some form.
Our consortium includes UMIST (number of departments), Southampton (number
of departments), Cambridge (Dept of Econometrics), Sussex (Science Policy
Research Unit), Cranfield (Ecotechnology Unit- Complex Systems Modelling),
and Leeds (Institute for Transport Studies). There will also be a number of
institutes associated with us, including Inst. Hydrology, BAS, Inst.
Terrestrial Ecology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Building Research
Establishment, John Innes Centre, and possibly other Institutes such as the
Plymouth Marine Lab & the Proudman Oceanographic Lab. The hub of this
consortium will be UEA. Visiting fellows etc will work in the Centre (&
possibly also at 'secondary' centres like UMIST).

Business/industry links are important, as are links with relevant
institutes abroad. We anticipate writing in some industrial/business partners.

Our philosophy is not to seek to maximise the input of resources to UEA, or
to the consortium, in the short term, but to build a Centre which has the
credibility and the authority to identify, initiate, orchestrate research
programmes, and to include the best people available. We see this as the
likeliest way to attract long-term funding & to ensure the long-term future
of the CCC.

We have a fairly clear idea of the "science framework" of the CCC and,
together with our partners, are now agreeing the "research challenges". At
the moment the research challenges look something like this:


1. DEVELOPING THE TOOLKIT

Given that the Centre's starting point is to take advantage of the best
research internationally (extant, on-going, and planned), it will be
necessary to apply, refine, and develop methods of 'integration'. Much
science and engineering research is focused on specific disciplinary
issues. This has to be brought together with critical analyses of social
and economic factors, to design more adaptive and effective policies, and
more effective and appropriate engineering/technology. The best aspects of
'integrated assessments' will be applied with a UK focus. An important part
of such assessments will be isolate emerging opportunities (for
business/industry) afforded by climate change - in order to identify
competitive opportunities it will be necessary to consider global pressure
points. Existing models need to be linked. Reduced complexity modelling has
a significant role.

The Toolkit can also be developed and tested via geographically-focused
studies. For example, integrated coastal (incl. estuaries) management which
will include: risk analysis; valuation of coastal environments; effects of
adaptation (soft/hard engineering solutions) on coastline;
ecological/economic models; etc.

Methods to characterise/measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity.

The Toolkit will also include some of the consultation/inclusion techniques
outlined in UEA's JIF bid for ICER.


2. ABRUPT CHANGES AND EXTREMES

'Climate' research on abrupt/non-linear changes (in 'underlying' climate)
and on changes in extreme event frequency (some of the Tools will need to
be applied - or adapted for - this Challenge: for example,
vulnerability/adaptation, risk analysis, reduced complexity modelling). Of
particular importance is how the possibility of abupt/non-linear change
should be assimilated into decision-making frameworks (perception/risk
analyses, etc.).

It will be necessary to consider the implications of non-climate 'shocks' -
political and economic shocks; or combinations, for example,
climate/weather extremes influencing perceptions (amongst business
community and politicians) leading to sudden shifts of policy, investments,
etc.


3 CARBON MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Adoption of clean technology (includes 'alternative' energy sources, and
removal of C from emissions). In particular, clean technologies and
solutions for developing countries link into identifying business
opportunities. The impacts of clean technologies - landscape/lifestyle
valuation. Incorporation (technological) into existing
infrastructure/supply networks.

a. Carbon 'sequestration' - options, waste C recycling, use in building
materials, long-term storage, etc. Oceans. Ambitious bio-engineering?
(discussions with Norwich's John Innes Centre on-going).

b. Energy efficiency (technological), including control systems, especially
when concentrated on one of the scale 'foci' (e.g. the household).


4. MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE.

Factor 4 and beyond 1. We will need to go well beyond Factor 4 to stabilise
the climate system. This programme would analyse and assess different
emission trajectories, and look at how we would in practice achieve Factor
4+. It would include assessment of tools such as: C trading, domestic
tradeable carbon quotas, regulation and taxation, voluntary agreements,
opportunities for win-win scenarios through resource use minimisation,
etc. Also, it would look at changes to a low-C economy at different
scales: households, SMEs, large firms, MNCs; local to regional to national
to global, etc., to sectoral: transport, energy supply, heavy & light
manufacturing, services & finance, etc. Techhnology uptake. This includes
reducing transport emissions and exploring low-consumption (water, energy,
carbon) households. What about air traffic?


The research challenges above are not intended to be all-inclusive. We
intend to use Research Challenges such as these 4, as "examplars" of the
sort of thingw we will expand upon in the final bid.

The research councils have emphasised the importance of attracting a
top-rate international scientist as Research Director. They also wish us to
name the Executive Director at this point. We believe it should be someone
with a reputation in climate research in their own right, good links etc
with the "impacts" people and with funders, as well as being a good
manager/organiser. We anticipate naming Mike Hulme. From what we have
heard, that will give us an additional advantage over other bids.

At this point, we will welcome your comment, input, suggestions.

Trevor




++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: 937952556.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Additional material for final report and proposal
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:22:36 +0500
Reply-to: "Stepan G. Shiyatov" <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,
I am sending you an additional material which can be useful for
writing the final report and the next proposal.

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
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachyamal-99.doc"

Original Filename: 938018124.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Phil Jones' <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks for your response Keith,

For all:

Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both
raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no
fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very
clearly to the
others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own
(Mann et al) series. I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
each
of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I
certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.

I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
seasonality
*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
problem we
all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.

So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
Keith can
help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones
et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting
doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that
doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
to give it fodder!


The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
additional piece of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
revised draft.
Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
some independent new information in this estimate.

One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html

THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
on this point,
since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.

We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
historical/instrumental data are used!

SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.

One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
important details...

I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.


Looking forward to hearing back w/ comments,

mike

At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>Hi everyone
> Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers
>summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion
>would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed
>separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds
>that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true
>is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures
>mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also
>definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and
>land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal
>timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with
>the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones
>et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and
>both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring
>density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low
>frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do
>a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and
>new Crowley series - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents
>'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is
>the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of
>other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of
>other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent
>very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could
>calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true
>optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any
>other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that
>the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely
>contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do
>believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or
>Jone's et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that
>shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science
>piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I
>don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different
>temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories
>without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific )
>long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the
>contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
> Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I
>thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to
>go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.
>
> cheers to all
> Keith
>
>At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
>>Dear All
>>
>>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
>>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
>>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
>>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
>>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
>>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
>>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is
>>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>>> Sent: 22 September 1999 12:58
>>> To: Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>> Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
>>> wheelchair
>>> because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
>>> for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
>>> Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>>>
>>> As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
>>> the
>>> tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
>>> character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
>>> possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
>>> upon.
>>> If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
>>> one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
>>> al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
>>> into context.
>>> The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
>>> of
>>> 'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and
>>> I
>>> would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
>>> time.
>>>
>>> One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
>>> proxy-only
>>> chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>>>
>>> On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
>>> reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
>>> discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
>>> can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
>>> and
>>> the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
>>> in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
>>> a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
>>> ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
>>> main findings of the Venice meeting.
>>>
>>> Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
>>> you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>>>
>>> How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
>>> always off giving skeptical talks ?
>>>
>>> Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
>>> looking
>>> into dates soon for coming to see you.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 938019494.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:58:14 +0100
Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Mike,
Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a wheelchair
because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.

As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude the
tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
upon.
If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
into context.
The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion of
'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and I
would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
time.

One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a proxy-only
chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?

On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types and
the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
main findings of the Venice meeting.

Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !

How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
always off giving skeptical talks ?

Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
looking
into dates soon for coming to see you.

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: 938031546.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Phil Jones' <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Hi everyone
Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents 'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or Jone's et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these isssues.
Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.

cheers to all
Keith

At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
>Dear All
>
>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is
>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
>
>Chris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>> Sent: 22 September 1999 12:58
>> To: Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>> Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
>> wheelchair
>> because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
>> for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
>> Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>>
>> As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
>> the
>> tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
>> character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
>> possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
>> upon.
>> If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
>> one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
>> al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
>> into context.
>> The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
>> of
>> 'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and
>> I
>> would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
>> time.
>>
>> One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
>> proxy-only
>> chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>>
>> On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
>> reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
>> discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
>> can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
>> and
>> the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
>> in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
>> a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
>> ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
>> main findings of the Venice meeting.
>>
>> Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
>> you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>>
>> How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
>> always off giving skeptical talks ?
>>
>> Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
>> looking
>> into dates soon for coming to see you.
>>
>> 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: 938108054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks for your comments Phil,

They look quite reasonable, and I will seek to incorporate them. I'll need
Keith's comments by tomorrow morning (my time) at the very latest if I am
to have time to assess them and incorporate them.

Some important specifics:

1) I am definitely using the version of the Briffa et al series you sent
in which Keith had restandardized to retain *more* low-frequency variability
relative to the one shown by Briffa et al (1998). So already, the
reconstruction I'm using is one-step removed from the published series
(as far as I know!) and that makes our use of even this series a bit
tenuous in my mind, but I'm happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if
they see any problem. If I understand you correctly, there is yet a new
version of this series that is two steps removed from Briffa et al (1998)?
Frankly, at this stage I think we have to go w/ what we have (please see
Ian Macadam's plot
when it is available--I think the story it tells isn't all that bad,
actually) for the time being. Things as you say will change following
review anyways.

2) One other thingp--I'm actually averse to shortening the section on
sediments. Even if they haven't contributed to some of the multiproxy
studies (they certainly *did* contribute to Overpeck et al!) there are some
important
results there irrespective of the role of the proxies in multiproxy
studies. Lets, again, wait for reviews before shortening this...

3) We could eliminate the map of the boreholes, although I actually think
it is essential to see what the contributing spatial sampling (and,
accordingly, the potential bias of that sampling in determining "global
mean temperature") actually is. So I vote for keeping it for the time
being. Again, it's an
extremity that we can afford to lose if necessary in the end..

4) One important note on references: We don't have time at this late stage
to dig up incomplete citations, so you'll need to give me full citations
for any suggested added references (e.g. the Villalba paper). FYI, the
Crowley and Lowery paper is Tom's Ambio paper. He observes a mean warming
of about 0.5 C since the 17th century giving us yet another datapoint in
the scatter of
estimates...

5) I agree, the ranking of centuries is more specific than it needs to be.
I don't know what I was thinking. You sure that didn't come from the text
you originally contributed?? In any case, we can eliminate much of it in my
opinion too...

On the whole, I have never been under the assumption that you and I would
have independently assessed the evidence quite the same way. I would hope
we would have come up w/ the same key points, and so your comments in that
regard are reassuring. I feel confident in my ability to defend the science
that is presented here, so let the reviews fall where they may. I'm sure we
will be forced to admit some changes, as well as "minority viewpoints" and
alternative interpretations along the way. That's what will make this all
interesting...

mike

At 05:20 PM 9/23/99 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
> as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
> whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
>the
> one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
> looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
> it looks better in plots we have here.
>
> Specifics :
>
> p1 line xxx xxxx xxxxsay mid-19th century rather than the 20th century
>
> lines xxx xxxx xxxxseems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
> sediments.
>
> line 46 Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).
>
> p2 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .
>
> line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
> Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.
>
> p3 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
> Villalba (1990 ) in QR.
>
> line 108 change 'key' to 'vital'
>
> line 119 'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
> where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
> iterations to go it is not that important yet !
>
> The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
> devoid of references !
>
> p4 line 151 I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
> 'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
> The Holocene 7, 351-4. This is the Law Dome core which is the best
> available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
>there.
>
> As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
> cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
> I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
> criticism. Just a warning !
>
> As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
> this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.
>
> p189 century-scale add in the 'y'
>
> p5 The borehole section is also a bit overlong. I don't know whether the
> map really adds something. Not that vehement on this.
>
> With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
> comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
> Chris. It is in :
>
> Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
> CET series. Progress in Physical Geography 23, xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> line 245 the 'is' is not needed.
>
> p6 I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
> here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
> Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500. Again it shows
> how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
> with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.
>
> Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996: Glacial change in northern
> Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
> of Glaciology 42, xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> line 268 IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96
>
> p 7 line 295 I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
> as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
> millennium.
>
> line 334 I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
> Ray in Venice.
>
> pxxx xxxx xxxxAll need a careful read through for English and the arguments.
>
> At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
> ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
> the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
> resolve the timescales then.
>
> Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?
>
> I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
> are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
> On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
> don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
> last 1000 years but we can differ on that.
>
> I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
> with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
> have been the same.
>
> 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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 938108842.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Phil Jones' <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks alot Keith,

Your comments and suggestions sound good on all counts.

Clearly there is one overiding thing to make sure of here: that
we have the right version of your series. I *think* that we do,
and you might have been looking at an old version of the comparison
Figure??

Please check out the data here ASAP:

ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/MILLENNIUM/

This directory has all the series, aligned as I described to have
a 1xxx xxxx xxxxbase climatology (or in the case of your series, a pseudo
1xxx xxxx xxxxbase climatology achieved by actually matching the mean of your
series and the instrumental record over the interval 1xxx xxxx xxxxinterval).
These are the data that Ian Macadam is hopefully presently plotting up,
and I don't think the discrepancies between the different series are
as bad as we percieved earlier (other than the late 19th century where
you are somewhat on the warm side relative to the rest). Please confirm
ASAP that we have the right version of the series (note, these have all
been 40 year lowpassed)...

One other thing, I think you misinterpreted my statement:

>
>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>

I wasn't talking about the comparison of our two series! I was talking
about our two different opinions on how confident we are about our ability,
as a community, to assess the actual climate changes over this timeframe.
And perhaps we're closer here than I assumed anyways. Sorry about the
misunderstanding. With your interpretation, my comment must I have sounded
really obnoxious!



At 06:29 PM 9/23/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>Dear Mike ( and all)
>
>Some remarks in response to your recent message
>
>I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
>>will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
>>robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
>>each
>>of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases
>
>Mike , I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated
>by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might
>actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not
>'muddy the waters' by including contradictory evidence worried me . IPCC is
>supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the
>evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in
>series ( such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is
>equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest
>contradiction where it does not exist.
>
>
> And I
>>certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.
>>
>
>I sincerely hope this was not implied in anything I wrote - It was not
>intended
>
>>I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
>>Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
>>liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
>>The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a
>reasonable
>>way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
>>we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding
mean
>>values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
>>
>
>Again I agree. Also , I am not sure which version of the curve you are now
>refering to. The original draft did show our higher frequency curve i.e.
>the version with background changes effectively filtered out (intended to
>emphasise the extreme interannual density excursions and their coincidence
>with volcanic eruptions) . The relevant one here is a smoothed version in
>which low-frequency changes are preserved. I can supply this and it will be
>in press by the time of the next reworking of the text.
>
>Your above point on correct scaling is relevant also to Phil's curve which
>was not originally calibrated ( in a formal regression sense) with the
>summer temperature data - it was just given the same mean and standard
>deviation over a specific period. Hence the issue of equivelent scaling of
>all series is vital if we are to discuss specific period temperature
>anomalies in different series or compare temperature trends in absolute
>degrees.
>
>>So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
>>series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
>>(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
>>patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
>>discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
>>spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
>>here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
>>explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
>>seasonality
>>*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
>>exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
>>problem we
>>all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
>>was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
>>concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
>>series.
>>
>
>I am not sure this is true if the relevant series of ours is used. We need
>to reexamine the curves and perhaps look at the different regional and
>seasonal data in the instrumental record and over common regions in the
>different reconstructed series. We would be happy to work with you on this.
>Also remember that our (density )series does not claim hemispheric or
>annual coverage.
>
>
>>So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
>>"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
>>Keith can
>>help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
>>and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the
Jones
>>et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
>>regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting
>>doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these
>estimates
>>and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
>
>The best approach here is for us to circulate a paper addressing all the
>above points. I'll do this as soon as possible.
>
> I don't think that
>>doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
>>to give it fodder!
>>
>>
>>The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
>>additional piece of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
>>revised draft.
>>Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
>>reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
>>information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
>>a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
>>basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
>>some independent new information in this estimate.
>>
>
>fair enough - but I repeat that the magnitude of the observed warming in
>the 20th century is different in summer and annual data
>
>
>>One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
>>press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:
>>
>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html
>>
>>THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
>>variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
>>same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
>>certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
>>back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
>>timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
>>on this point,
>>since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
>>variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.
>>
>>We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
>>and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
>>Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
>>the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
>>historical/instrumental data are used!
>>
>
>
>This is certainly relevant and sounds really interesting. I need to look at
>this in detail. The effect of the including tree-ring data or not, is
>moderated by the importance of the particular series in the various
>reconstructions ( relative coefficient magnitudes). There is certainly some
>prospect of affecting (reducing) the apparent magnitude of the 20th century
>warming by loading on high-pass filtered chronologies , but equally a
>danger of exagerating it if the series used or emphasised in th calibration
>have been fertilized by CO2 or something else. As you know we ( Tim, Phil
>and I ) would love to collaborate with you on exploring this issue (and the
>role of instrumental predictors) in the various approaches.
>The key here is knowing much more about the role of specific predictors
>through time and their associated strengths and weaknesses.
>
>
>>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>>
>
>I certainly do not disagree with you - the scale of your input data
>undoubtedly must contain more information than our set . I have never
>implied anything to the contrary. I do not believe that our data are likely
>to tell us more than summer variability at northern latitudes . The
>discussion is only about how close our and your data likely represent what
>they are calibrated against , back in time. Let's not imagine a
>disagreement where there is none.
>
>
>
>>One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
>>opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
>>we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
>>important details...
>>
>>I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
>>looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
>>about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.
>>
>>
>
>Yes indeed. The reviewing will lead to much comment and likely disagreement
>by the masses. This is the way of these things. It is always a thankless
>task undertaking these drafting jobs and I think you are doing a good job.
>Tommorrow I'll send some very minor comments on typos and the like if you
>want them - or have you picked many of them up? Anyway , keep up the good
>work .
>
> best wishes
> Keith
>
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 938121656.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:20:56 +0100
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Mike,
Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
the
one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
it looks better in plots we have here.

Specifics :

p1 line xxx xxxx xxxxsay mid-19th century rather than the 20th century

lines xxx xxxx xxxxseems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
sediments.

line 46 Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).

p2 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .

line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.

p3 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
Villalba (1990 ) in QR.

line 108 change 'key' to 'vital'

line 119 'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
iterations to go it is not that important yet !

The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
devoid of references !

p4 line 151 I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
The Holocene 7, 351-4. This is the Law Dome core which is the best
available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
there.

As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
criticism. Just a warning !

As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.

p189 century-scale add in the 'y'

p5 The borehole section is also a bit overlong. I don't know whether the
map really adds something. Not that vehement on this.

With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
Chris. It is in :

Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
CET series. Progress in Physical Geography 23, xxx xxxx xxxx.

line 245 the 'is' is not needed.

p6 I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500. Again it shows
how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.

Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996: Glacial change in northern
Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
of Glaciology 42, xxx xxxx xxxx.

line 268 IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96

p 7 line 295 I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
millennium.

line 334 I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
Ray in Venice.

pxxx xxxx xxxxAll need a careful read through for English and the arguments.

At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
resolve the timescales then.

Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?

I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
last 1000 years but we can differ on that.

I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
have been the same.

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: 938125745.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Phil Jones' <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu Sep 23 18:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Dear Mike ( and all)

Some remarks in response to your recent message

I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
>will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
>robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
>each
>of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases

Mike , I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not 'muddy the waters' by including contradictory evidence worried me . IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series ( such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.


And I
>certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.
>

I sincerely hope this was not implied in anything I wrote - It was not intended

>I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
>Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
>liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
>The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
>way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
>we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
>values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
>

Again I agree. Also , I am not sure which version of the curve you are now refering to. The original draft did show our higher frequency curve i.e. the version with background changes effectively filtered out (intended to emphasise the extreme interannual density excursions and their coincidence with volcanic eruptions) . The relevant one here is a smoothed version in which low-frequency changes are preserved. I can supply this and it will be in press by the time of the next reworking of the text.

Your above point on correct scaling is relevant also to Phil's curve which was not originally calibrated ( in a formal regression sense) with the summer temperature data - it was just given the same mean and standard deviation over a specific period. Hence the issue of equivelent scaling of all series is vital if we are to discuss specific period temperature anomalies in different series or compare temperature trends in absolute degrees.

>So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
>series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
>(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
>patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
>discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
>spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
>here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
>explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
>seasonality
>*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
>exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
>problem we
>all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
>was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
>concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
>series.
>

I am not sure this is true if the relevant series of ours is used. We need to reexamine the curves and perhaps look at the different regional and seasonal data in the instrumental record and over common regions in the different reconstructed series. We would be happy to work with you on this. Also remember that our (density )series does not claim hemispheric or annual coverage.


>So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
>"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
>Keith can
>help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
>and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones
>et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
>regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting
>doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
>and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

The best approach here is for us to circulate a paper addressing all the above points. I'll do this as soon as possible.

I don't think that
>doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
>to give it fodder!
>
>
>The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
>additional piece of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
>revised draft.
>Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
>reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
>information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
>a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
>basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
>some independent new information in this estimate.
>

fair enough - but I repeat that the magnitude of the observed warming in the 20th century is different in summer and annual data


>One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
>press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:
>
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html
>
>THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
>variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
>same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
>certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
>back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
>timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
>on this point,
>since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
>variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.
>
>We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
>and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
>Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
>the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
>historical/instrumental data are used!
>


This is certainly relevant and sounds really interesting. I need to look at this in detail. The effect of the including tree-ring data or not, is moderated by the importance of the particular series in the various reconstructions ( relative coefficient magnitudes). There is certainly some prospect of affecting (reducing) the apparent magnitude of the 20th century warming by loading on high-pass filtered chronologies , but equally a danger of exagerating it if the series used or emphasised in th calibration have been fertilized by CO2 or something else. As you know we ( Tim, Phil and I ) would love to collaborate with you on exploring this issue (and the role of instrumental predictors) in the various approaches.
The key here is knowing much more about the role of specific predictors through time and their associated strengths and weaknesses.


>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>

I certainly do not disagree with you - the scale of your input data undoubtedly must contain more information than our set . I have never implied anything to the contrary. I do not believe that our data are likely to tell us more than summer variability at northern latitudes . The discussion is only about how close our and your data likely represent what they are calibrated against , back in time. Let's not imagine a disagreement where there is none.



>One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
>opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
>we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
>important details...
>
>I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
>looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
>about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.
>
>

Yes indeed. The reviewing will lead to much comment and likely disagreement by the masses. This is the way of these things. It is always a thankless task undertaking these drafting jobs and I think you are doing a good job. Tommorrow I'll send some very minor comments on typos and the like if you want them - or have you picked many of them up? Anyway , keep up the good work .

best wishes
Keith

Original Filename: 938712073.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jim Fairchild-Parks <jparks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: crossdating difficult tree-ring series
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Forumites,

Ouch, my hackles are rising so high, it hurts. (Just what exactly are
hackles, anyway?).

Yes, computer crossdating ring series with special problems is always
dangerous. But this is where good old skeleton-plot dating with
intensive and thorough visual examination of the WOOD becomes the way
to go.

I don't know about Thuja, but with the Juniperus species in the U.S.
I've worked with, rings piching in and out can be a problem. You can
lose xxx xxxx xxxxrings that way, sometimes. However, a different radius of
the sample may possess all those absent rings. It's nice to have
a cross-section of the subject tree, though I know this isn't always
possible.

I don't understand physiologically what's going on with the Canadian
cedars, but dendrochronologically speaking, absent rings are absent
rings, no matter what the reason for the rings not forming on any
given portion of the tree. I'll leave the reasons to scientists like
Frank Telewski.

I do know that with some dying trees -- like the pinyons from New
Mexico that died in the Great 1950s Drought -- the ring series on the
outside became so suppressed that individual rings were
indiscernable. Fortunately, other trees growing in more favorable
spots had distinguishable -- though still suppressed -- rings.
Traditional skeleton-plot croosdating -- along with its concomitant
intensive visual analysis -- made it possible to sort though these
problems.

I am not, however, an America-centrist skeleton-plot-dating bigot! I
have a true appreciation for computer crossdating where it is
appropriate and indeed necessary. I myself was recently involved
dating high-elevation bristlecone pine from northern Arizona, U.S.A.
The multi-millenial length of the chronology -- as well as the
freedom from absent rings and the presence of frost-year marker rings
-- made computer crossdating advisable. Of course every significant
computer dating correlation was thoroughly checked out on the WOOD,
and if the visual characteristics of the tree rings themselves did
not support the computer dating, we threw out the date -- right out
the window. Discarded computer dates collected on the parking lot
beneath our offices and needed to be hauled off to the dump everyday.

I apologize for the aggressive (though sincere) tone of this message,
but every few years I feel the need to rant and rave about the
importance of WOOD and "pure" forms of crossdating.

Best Regards,

Jim Parks
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
jparks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 939003588.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <c.bentham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.palutikof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.liss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <r.k.turner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <a.watkinson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.brown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: national climate change centre meeting - documents
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:19:48 +0100
Cc: <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear All,

Here are some notes and suggestions for our national climate centre meeting
on Monday morning (1000hrs). A suggested agenda of the main points we need
to cover is in this email. The attached document has three components
(also appended as text to the email):

A suggested Outline Bid structure with some comments/questions
A draft of a possible 600-word opening statement
A draft of the six (from original four) research challenges (ca. 2,400
words)

We really need to aim to get a first full draft of the bid out to our
Partners by late Wednesday this week, thus allowing 7 days for iterations.

Mike


NCCC: UEA Working Group Meeting, 4 October


Suggested Agenda


1. The research challenges (draft attached)

2. RD and Schneider (?)

3. The Assessment Panel; key issues for Schellnhuber

4. The structure of the outline proposal (see attached suggestion)

5. The name of the Centre

6. Timetable for submission (8 working days left)


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

Outline Proposal
Suggested Contents

Original Filename: 939141116.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@uea, p.jones@uea, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Tim,

Thanks for the information. I don't want to speak for Tom Karl, but I think it
may be a bit too late (past the Oct 1 deadline) to make further revisions
in the draft 1.0. It would be a bit of an imposition on Tom at this point
given what he's been through in finalizing the draft. However, I see no
reason that we can't make that revision when the paper comes back from
expert review in a couple months. We'll have the further advantage that
the supporting manuscript you describe should be available at that point
(a requirement in the IPCC peer-review process). I think we'll all be
looking forward to updating the plot w/ the latest series you describe...

As for decisions about the most appropriate baseline period to use for the
series, that is as you point out an important issue and one we have to
consider with some circumspection, especially if a "modern" calibration
(e.g., 1xxx xxxx xxxx) to the instrumental record gives a substantially
different alignment
from the more 19th century-oriented calibration you describe. The tradeoff
of course is that the instrumental series itself is considerably less certain
prior to the 20th century while, as you point out, the non-climatic influence
on tree growth may be setting in by the mid 20th century. Something I think
we can iron out satisfactorily at the next juncture.

I hope the above sounds ok to you guys. Let me know. Thanks,

mike


At 04:18 PM 10/5/99 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
>Dear Mike and Ian
>
>Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
>reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
>attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
>stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
>is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
>smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
>the same filter was used for all curves.
>
>The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
>that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
>different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
>is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
>from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
>for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
>
>A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
>method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
>other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
>Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
>Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
>Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
>density network. In preparation.
>Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
>completion.
>
>I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
>curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
>eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
>series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
>what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
>figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).
>
>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1xxx xxxx xxxxmatches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1xxx xxxx xxxxbut I don't see that this improves
>things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod.
>
>If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
>me and/or Keith.
>
>Best regards
>
>Tim
>
>Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1xxx xxxx xxxx
>averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N
>
>
>Year Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.283
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.334
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.124
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.220
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.129
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.386
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.319
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.172
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.322
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.282
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.143
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.411
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.160
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.105
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.357
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.137
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.358
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.199
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.366
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.397
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.230
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.209
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.237
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.056
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.376
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.513
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.327
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.208
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.125
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.245
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.244
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.146
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.394
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.526
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.264
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.233
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.415
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.306
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.011
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.157
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.162
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.135
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.180
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.166
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.035
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.384
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.302
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.541
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.467
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.586
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.417
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.451
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.398
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.584
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.448
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.009
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.047
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.285
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.419
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.347
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.202
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.445
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.488
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.674
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.324
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.273
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.623
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.483
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.551
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.409
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.580
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.530
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.591
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.475
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.403
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.414
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.472
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.564
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.822
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.789
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.617
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.681
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.733
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.524
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.706
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.714
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.662
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.387
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.566
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.665
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.759
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.654
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.396
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.067
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.092
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.649
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.632
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.554
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.368
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.572
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.215
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.268
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.332
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.182
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.260
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.440
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.837
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.857
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.779
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.871
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.463
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.663
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.870
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.523
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.794
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.768
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.701
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.518
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.369
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.688
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.481
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.229
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.254
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.316
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.955
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.687
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.054
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.630
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.818
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.510
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.420
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.527
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.344
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.242
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.110
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.427
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.249
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.633
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.723
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.426
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.373
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.206
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.557
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.734
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.594
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.808
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.501
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.150
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.389
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.168
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.227
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.259
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.431
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.340
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.429
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.544
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.547
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.421
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.186
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.550
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.339
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.164
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.757
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.179
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.023
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.030
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.243
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.028
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.228
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.117
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.020
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.089
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.582
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.458
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.855
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.861
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.629
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.680
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.246
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.276
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.140
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.293
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.033
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.087
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.045
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.621
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.660
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.647
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.775
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.771
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.267
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.144
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.077
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.435
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.101
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.106
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.079
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.165
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.250
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.538
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.126
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.029
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.555
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.303
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.437
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.119
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.321
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.213
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.352
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.487
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.120
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.184
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.717
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.281
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.153
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.313
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.065
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.574
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.205
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.034
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.214
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.147
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.297
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.198
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.018
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.081
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.057
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.007
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.019
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.060
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.113
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.053
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.059
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.038
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.107
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.269
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.118
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.127
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.474
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.171
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.599
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.355
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.563
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.262
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.336
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.507
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.558
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.363
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.522
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.423
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.430
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.424
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
>1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa et al.ps"
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
>University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
>UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 939154709.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@uea,p.jones@uea

Dear Mike and Ian

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.

The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.

A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
density network. In preparation.
Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
completion.

I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new
series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see
what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).

With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1xxx xxxx xxxxmatches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1xxx xxxx xxxxbut I don't see that this improves
things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod.

If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
me and/or Keith.

Best regards

Tim

Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1xxx xxxx xxxx
averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N


Year Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
1xxx xxxx xxxx.283
1xxx xxxx xxxx.334
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.124
1xxx xxxx xxxx.220
1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.129
1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
1xxx xxxx xxxx.386
1xxx xxxx xxxx.319
1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
1xxx xxxx xxxx.172
1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.136
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.322
1xxx xxxx xxxx.282
1xxx xxxx xxxx.143
1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
1xxx xxxx xxxx.411
1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.160
1xxx xxxx xxxx.105
1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
1xxx xxxx xxxx.357
1xxx xxxx xxxx.137
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.358
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.199
1xxx xxxx xxxx.366
1xxx xxxx xxxx.397
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.230
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.209
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.237
1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
1xxx xxxx xxxx.122
1xxx xxxx xxxx.056
1xxx xxxx xxxx.320
1xxx xxxx xxxx.376
1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
1xxx xxxx xxxx.513
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.327
1xxx xxxx xxxx.208
1xxx xxxx xxxx.125
1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
1xxx xxxx xxxx.245
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.244
1xxx xxxx xxxx.146
1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
1xxx xxxx xxxx.394
1xxx xxxx xxxx.526
1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
1xxx xxxx xxxx.264
1xxx xxxx xxxx.233
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.415
1xxx xxxx xxxx.306
1xxx xxxx xxxx.011
1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.226
1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.157
1xxx xxxx xxxx.162
1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
1xxx xxxx xxxx.135
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.180
1xxx xxxx xxxx.166
1xxx xxxx xxxx.035
1xxx xxxx xxxx.384
1xxx xxxx xxxx.302
1xxx xxxx xxxx.541
1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.467
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.586
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.417
1xxx xxxx xxxx.350
1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
1xxx xxxx xxxx.451
1xxx xxxx xxxx.398
1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
1xxx xxxx xxxx.406
1xxx xxxx xxxx.584
1xxx xxxx xxxx.448
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.312
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.009
1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
1xxx xxxx xxxx.047
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.285
1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.419
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.347
1xxx xxxx xxxx.116
1xxx xxxx xxxx.202
1xxx xxxx xxxx.278
1xxx xxxx xxxx.445
1xxx xxxx xxxx.488
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
1xxx xxxx xxxx.674
1xxx xxxx xxxx.324
1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
1xxx xxxx xxxx.273
1xxx xxxx xxxx.623
1xxx xxxx xxxx.483
1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
1xxx xxxx xxxx.551
1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
1xxx xxxx xxxx.280
1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
1xxx xxxx xxxx.409
1xxx xxxx xxxx.580
1xxx xxxx xxxx.530
1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
1xxx xxxx xxxx.354
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
1xxx xxxx xxxx.591
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.436
1xxx xxxx xxxx.475
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.403
1xxx xxxx xxxx.414
1xxx xxxx xxxx.472
1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
1xxx xxxx xxxx.564
1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
1xxx xxxx xxxx.822
1xxx xxxx xxxx.789
1xxx xxxx xxxx.617
1xxx xxxx xxxx.681
1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
1xxx xxxx xxxx.733
1xxx xxxx xxxx.428
1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.524
1xxx xxxx xxxx.706
1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
1xxx xxxx xxxx.714
1xxx xxxx xxxx.662
1xxx xxxx xxxx.387
1xxx xxxx xxxx.566
1xxx xxxx xxxx.671
1xxx xxxx xxxx.665
1xxx xxxx xxxx.759
1xxx xxxx xxxx.654
1xxx xxxx xxxx.379
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.521
1xxx xxxx xxxx.222
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.252
1xxx xxxx xxxx.396
1xxx xxxx xxxx.382
1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.067
1xxx xxxx xxxx.092
1xxx xxxx xxxx.649
1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
1xxx xxxx xxxx.632
1xxx xxxx xxxx.554
1xxx xxxx xxxx.368
1xxx xxxx xxxx.572
1xxx xxxx xxxx.215
1xxx xxxx xxxx.317
1xxx xxxx xxxx.529
1xxx xxxx xxxx.268
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.400
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.332
1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
1xxx xxxx xxxx.182
1xxx xxxx xxxx.260
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
1xxx xxxx xxxx.433
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.440
1xxx xxxx xxxx.837
1xxx xxxx xxxx.857
1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
1xxx xxxx xxxx.779
1xxx xxxx xxxx.871
1xxx xxxx xxxx.463
1xxx xxxx xxxx.434
1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
1xxx xxxx xxxx.663
1xxx xxxx xxxx.870
1xxx xxxx xxxx.523
1xxx xxxx xxxx.670
1xxx xxxx xxxx.794
1xxx xxxx xxxx.768
1xxx xxxx xxxx.701
1xxx xxxx xxxx.380
1xxx xxxx xxxx.518
1xxx xxxx xxxx.364
1xxx xxxx xxxx.369
1xxx xxxx xxxx.688
1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
1xxx xxxx xxxx.481
1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
1xxx xxxx xxxx.229
1xxx xxxx xxxx.254
1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
1xxx xxxx xxxx.316
1xxx xxxx xxxx.955
1xxx xxxx xxxx.816
1xxx xxxx xxxx.687
1xxx xxxx xxxx.054
1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
1xxx xxxx xxxx.630
1xxx xxxx xxxx.818
1xxx xxxx xxxx.510
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.420
1xxx xxxx xxxx.527
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.257
1xxx xxxx xxxx.465
1xxx xxxx xxxx.493
1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
1xxx xxxx xxxx.344
1xxx xxxx xxxx.345
1xxx xxxx xxxx.242
1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.390
1xxx xxxx xxxx.309
1xxx xxxx xxxx.270
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.110
1xxx xxxx xxxx.427
1xxx xxxx xxxx.005
1xxx xxxx xxxx.193
1xxx xxxx xxxx.249
1xxx xxxx xxxx.497
1xxx xxxx xxxx.381
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.133
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.633
1xxx xxxx xxxx.723
1xxx xxxx xxxx.426
1xxx xxxx xxxx.371
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.373
1xxx xxxx xxxx.330
1xxx xxxx xxxx.206
1xxx xxxx xxxx.557
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.734
1xxx xxxx xxxx.594
1xxx xxxx xxxx.808
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.501
1xxx xxxx xxxx.150
1xxx xxxx xxxx.389
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.168
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.227
1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
1xxx xxxx xxxx.377
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.221
1xxx xxxx xxxx.259
1xxx xxxx xxxx.431
1xxx xxxx xxxx.340
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.466
1xxx xxxx xxxx.291
1xxx xxxx xxxx.473
1xxx xxxx xxxx.378
1xxx xxxx xxxx.212
1xxx xxxx xxxx.429
1xxx xxxx xxxx.544
1xxx xxxx xxxx.343
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.265
1xxx xxxx xxxx.547
1xxx xxxx xxxx.421
1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.186
1xxx xxxx xxxx.288
1xxx xxxx xxxx.178
1xxx xxxx xxxx.550
1xxx xxxx xxxx.339
1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
1xxx xxxx xxxx.164
1xxx xxxx xxxx.757
1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.179
1xxx xxxx xxxx.432
1xxx xxxx xxxx.207
1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
1xxx xxxx xxxx.023
1xxx xxxx xxxx.030
1xxx xxxx xxxx.243
1xxx xxxx xxxx.028
1xxx xxxx xxxx.565
1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
1xxx xxxx xxxx.228
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
1xxx xxxx xxxx.117
1xxx xxxx xxxx.020
1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
1xxx xxxx xxxx.094
1xxx xxxx xxxx.251
1xxx xxxx xxxx.089
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
1xxx xxxx xxxx.582
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.459
1xxx xxxx xxxx.545
1xxx xxxx xxxx.458
1xxx xxxx xxxx.588
1xxx xxxx xxxx.855
1xxx xxxx xxxx.861
1xxx xxxx xxxx.629
1xxx xxxx xxxx.680
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.351
1xxx xxxx xxxx.159
1xxx xxxx xxxx.246
1xxx xxxx xxxx.276
1xxx xxxx xxxx.263
1xxx xxxx xxxx.140
1xxx xxxx xxxx.293
1xxx xxxx xxxx.033
1xxx xxxx xxxx.087
1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
1xxx xxxx xxxx.045
1xxx xxxx xxxx.621
1xxx xxxx xxxx.660
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.647
1xxx xxxx xxxx.775
1xxx xxxx xxxx.771
1xxx xxxx xxxx.359
1xxx xxxx xxxx.267
1xxx xxxx xxxx.144
1xxx xxxx xxxx.077
1xxx xxxx xxxx.337
1xxx xxxx xxxx.435
1xxx xxxx xxxx.101
1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
1xxx xxxx xxxx.106
1xxx xxxx xxxx.079
1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
1xxx xxxx xxxx.393
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.165
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.174
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.418
1xxx xxxx xxxx.250
1xxx xxxx xxxx.538
1xxx xxxx xxxx.126
1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
1xxx xxxx xxxx.231
1xxx xxxx xxxx.029
1xxx xxxx xxxx.555
1xxx xxxx xxxx.303
1xxx xxxx xxxx.407
1xxx xxxx xxxx.256
1xxx xxxx xxxx.437
1xxx xxxx xxxx.413
1xxx xxxx xxxx.119
1xxx xxxx xxxx.321
1xxx xxxx xxxx.213
1xxx xxxx xxxx.352
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.372
1xxx xxxx xxxx.247
1xxx xxxx xxxx.487
1xxx xxxx xxxx.192
1xxx xxxx xxxx.120
1xxx xxxx xxxx.152
1xxx xxxx xxxx.346
1xxx xxxx xxxx.184
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.183
1xxx xxxx xxxx.717
1xxx xxxx xxxx.534
1xxx xxxx xxxx.485
1xxx xxxx xxxx.281
1xxx xxxx xxxx.261
1xxx xxxx xxxx.153
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.313
1xxx xxxx xxxx.138
1xxx xxxx xxxx.301
1xxx xxxx xxxx.134
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.241
1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
1xxx xxxx xxxx.065
1xxx xxxx xxxx.574
1xxx xxxx xxxx.218
1xxx xxxx xxxx.049
1xxx xxxx xxxx.287
1xxx xxxx xxxx.142
1xxx xxxx xxxx.205
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.034
1xxx xxxx xxxx.412
1xxx xxxx xxxx.048
1xxx xxxx xxxx.214
1xxx xxxx xxxx.147
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.631
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.294
1xxx xxxx xxxx.074
1xxx xxxx xxxx.277
1xxx xxxx xxxx.297
1xxx xxxx xxxx.460
1xxx xxxx xxxx.013
1xxx xxxx xxxx.272
1xxx xxxx xxxx.114
1xxx xxxx xxxx.036
1xxx xxxx xxxx.305
1xxx xxxx xxxx.141
1xxx xxxx xxxx.258
1xxx xxxx xxxx.115
1xxx xxxx xxxx.198
1xxx xxxx xxxx.018
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.086
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.081
1xxx xxxx xxxx.057
1xxx xxxx xxxx.007
1xxx xxxx xxxx.037
1xxx xxxx xxxx.019
1xxx xxxx xxxx.060
1xxx xxxx xxxx.163
1xxx xxxx xxxx.075
1xxx xxxx xxxx.113
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.128
1xxx xxxx xxxx.053
1xxx xxxx xxxx.080
1xxx xxxx xxxx.059
1xxx xxxx xxxx.016
1xxx xxxx xxxx.188
1xxx xxxx xxxx.038
1xxx xxxx xxxx.107
1xxx xxxx xxxx.269
1xxx xxxx xxxx.100
1xxx xxxx xxxx.118
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.235
1xxx xxxx xxxx.127
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.194
1xxx xxxx xxxx.308
1xxx xxxx xxxx.224
1xxx xxxx xxxx.076
1xxx xxxx xxxx.104
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.173
1xxx xxxx xxxx.479
1xxx xxxx xxxx.474
1xxx xxxx xxxx.171
1xxx xxxx xxxx.200
1xxx xxxx xxxx.599
1xxx xxxx xxxx.355
1xxx xxxx xxxx.353
1xxx xxxx xxxx.328
1xxx xxxx xxxx.563
1xxx xxxx xxxx.262
1xxx xxxx xxxx.336
1xxx xxxx xxxx.507
1xxx xxxx xxxx.558
1xxx xxxx xxxx.363
1xxx xxxx xxxx.698
1xxx xxxx xxxx.289
1xxx xxxx xxxx.612
1xxx xxxx xxxx.195
1xxx xxxx xxxx.522
1xxx xxxx xxxx.234
1xxx xxxx xxxx.335
1xxx xxxx xxxx.423
1xxx xxxx xxxx.430
1xxx xxxx xxxx.424
1xxx xxxx xxxx.161
1xxx xxxx xxxx.286
1xxx xxxx xxxx.275
1xxx xxxx xxxx.169
1xxx xxxx xxxx.175
1xxx xxxx xxxx.341
1xxx xxxx xxxx.320

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa et al.ps"

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

Original Filename: 939165392.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Sujata Gupta" <sujatag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: UK National Climate Change Centre
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:16:32 +0530
Cc: <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike,

I was on travel and hence the delay in responding to your email. TERI will be interested in being one of the International Supporting Institutes for the Centre. I will fax a letter to you tomorrow and send the original by post.

I have not heard on the DETR proposal as yet.

Best wishes

Sujata

Sujata Gupta, Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
TERI

>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 09/28/99 02:34AM >>>
Dear Sujata,

This may well not be news to you, but the UK government has recently
requested bids from UK universities to house a new 'National Climate Change
Centre'. The Centre would receive funds of 2 million pounds sterling per
year for (at least initially) five years. The role of the Centre would be
to compliment existing work on climate modelling and data analysis (IPCC
WGI areas) by focussing on 'solutions' (mitigation and adaptation options
and their implementation), specifically for the UK government and business
community, but within a global context. The emphasis appears to be on IPCC
WG3 area with a strong commitment to integrated research, but with some
overlap with WG2. The Centre would carry out independent research, but
would also be expected to make use of, and to integrate, exisiting UK
research and expertise. It would be expected to contribute to and to
foster interdisciplinary research that underpins sustainable solutions to
the climate change problem.

UEA is making a bid for this Centre. Applications are due by mid-October.
UEA is well-known for CRU, but it also has strengths in data distribution
to the climate impacts community, in impacts research, and in environmental
economics (CSERGE). While these areas are fundamental foundation stones
for the science that the Centre is expected to develop, the Centre would
need to expand significantly beyond these areas. We have a Consortium in
place as follows

- 6-7 Senior Partners - (UEA, UMIST, U.Southamton, Dept. Economics at
U.Cambridge, Cranfield, Leeds Institute of Transport Studies, IH and ITE)
- Affiliated UK Organisations - (we have 6-8 of these)
- Supporting Business Links
- Supporting International Organisations

If UEA were to succeed in its bid for the Centre, then it would seek to
develop strong links with other institutions abroad in order to strengthen
its own intellectual base and, through such links, to contribute to the
development and implementation of the science. We would see TERI as one of
these Supporting International Organisations.

To this end, we would like a short letter of support from yourself - on
behalf of the Policy Analysis Division, or a wider TERI grouping if you
feel able to represent them - indicating that you fully support the UEA bid
and would exclusively lend your backing to this Consortium and be keen to
interact closely with us at a research level were the Centre to come to
UEA. This interaction may take the form of exchanging scientists, testing
out new methodologies, developing/advising on workshops, providing
entry-points into international policy initiatives, etc., etc.

Nothing too formal or lengthy at this stage, but we would like to provide
the Council's with a flavour of the breadth of our existing and future
colloboration in the field and our ability to mobilise support in our favour.

Many thanks. Please send to Prof. Trevor Davies, Dean, Environmental
Sciences, UEA, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, before the 12th October.

Feel free to ask me for more details, etc. Our written text is beginning to
take shape and we will circulate a draft of this to you before the bid goes
in.

Regards,

Mike

p.s. I have not yet heard anything about the DETR India Programme. Have you?


*****************************************************************************
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 for 1999
is currently about +1.4 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage
***************************************************
The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
was +0.57 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year yet recorded
*****************************************************************************

Original Filename: 939235897.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: outline bid for Centre
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:51:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: j.Rotmans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hasslemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Stephen H. Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike,

I've not yet looked at your Tyndall biography, but I see your logic in
suggesting his name. His 1861 papers in Phil. Mag. Ser. 4, 22, xxx xxxx xxxx
and xxx xxxx xxxxwere arguable the first reasonable descriptions of the CO2
(or, in his words, "carbonic acid") greenhouse effect. However, it is
generally believed that Fourier, in 1827, was the first person to allude
to a greenhouse effect and to suggest that human activities might affect
the climate (see, e.g., Ramanathan, Science 240, xxx xxxx xxxx, 1988).

In my view, however, neither Tyndall nor Fourier would be appropriate for
naming a climate centre devoted to human-induced change. Tyndall is not
appropriate because he did not consider (or even dream of) the human
influence; while Fourier is not appropriate because it would not be P.C.
to name a UK centre after a Frenchman. Furthermore, both Tyndall and
Fourier are well-known and well-recognized for their contributions in
*other* areas.

The person who really deserves the credit is Callendar who, in 1938, not
only suggested that human influences were causing CO2 to increase, but
also that this was causing global warming. Furthermore, he did an amazing
job documenting both the CO2 build up *and* the warming. Essentially, it
was Callendar who, more than 60 years ago, really exposed the problem that
is our current concern. His work was a quantum leap above anything done
previously; and, one could argue, was not really improved upon until
Manabe and Wetherald's seminal 1967 (JAS 24, xxx xxxx xxxx) paper. I doubt
whether there is an intellectual milestone in *any* field that compares
with this.

Best wishes,


Tom


On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Dear 'Advisory Board member',
>
> As tentative nominees for the 'Advisory Board' for the UEA-led bid for the
> new UK National Climate Change Centre, I am sending you a first full draft
> of our outline bid. This is due with the Council's on the 15th October.
> Needless to say, please regard this document as confidential and do *not*
> circulate it to third parties.
>
> I would like to invite your comments in the next few days on the draft. I
> can accept comments until Tuesday 12th October, but earlier comments will
> prove most useful. Appended below is the communication sent out to our
> co-applicants with this draft. Please bear in mind that this is the first
> full draft we have put together and it is very rough and ready.
>
> You may find it easier to download from the named web site.
>
> Thank you for your time. Please direct any comments to the Consortium via me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
**********************************************************
*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: 939437868.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: apologies
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:57:48 +0200
Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike,

I can understand you very well. I would have been more nervous about
this, hadn't the preparations AND registrations been going as well as
they have done: just now, I feel pretty comfortable about the meeting.
Sure, it's a pity not having you around, but I guess you are taking
the appropriate decision under your particular circumstances.

Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this, but let me add a VERY CONFIDENTIAL
piece of information for you. It won't make your life less stressful
during the next few days, and I really MUST ask you to keep this
confidential at your end (since I am effectively breaking a
confidentiality here, and I wouldn't want Edinburgh to know that), but
I received the following e-mail on October 6:


Dear Dr Cramer,

I am contacting you on behalf of Prof Paul Jarvis to check whether you
are willing to have your name mentioned in association with a project
he is hoping to undertake. The project is part of a much larger package
of projects which forms the nucleus of a bid being made by the
University of Edinburgh and other partners to host a new Climate Change
Centre, to be funded by the UK Research Councils at 10 million GBP over
5 years (for further details of this opportunity see:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/aooclim.html). I work in a small unit of
the University of Edinburgh that has responsibility for co-ordinating
multi-disciplinary environmental research bids. Currently we are
preparing the Outline Bid (deadline 15 October), so nothing should be
regarded as firm, and details will be open to modification in the Full
Bid, which we will prepare if the Outline Bid is successful.

Below I reproduce the text we are proposing to include in the Outline
Bid. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to have your name
included.

Please treat this email as confidential.

Best regards,

Simon Allen.
========================================================================
Dr S J Allen, Research Co-ordinator
Centre for the study of Environmental Change and Sustainability (CECS)
University of Edinburgh
John Muir Building, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JK

Tel: 0xxx xxxx xxxx Email: simon.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: 0xxx xxxx xxxx http://www.cecs.ed.ac.uk
========================================================================


Issue: Will terrestrial carbon sinks saturate?

It has been proposed that the assimilation of CO2 by vegetation will
reach saturation within the foreseeable future as atmospheric CO2
concentrations continue to rise and that, conversely, increase in
temperature will lead to open-ended increase in respiration by soil
heterotrophs, so that at some point in the not too distant future, CO2
efflux will come to exceed CO2 influx.

This far-reaching assumption derives from global models that lack a
consideration of acclimation, feed backs and biological constraints
acting on these processes. This proposition will be critically
evaluated using Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVM's) that include
appropriate feed backs derived from new data that are becoming
available from on-going experiments in the UK and elsewhere. This core
project will be executed over two years by a research fellow at the
University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Professor Paul
Jarvis, FRS. The project will involve close collaboration with: the Max
Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie (Prof I Colin Prentice) and the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (Dr Wolfgang Cramer)
where fully operational DGVMs are in use; the Dept of Production
Ecology, University of Uppsala (Prof Sune Linder), currently conducting
soil warming experiments in northern Sweden.

Costs (GBP): Yr xxx xxxx xxxxYr 2

Research fellow 50 k 52 k
Travel/interaction 4 k 4 k

Total project cost: 54 k 56 k

-----end of Edinburgh mail-----

To me, this comes at a very strange moment, since I am, with Bert
Bolin, in a very strange situation with the completion of our second
draft of the IPCC Special Report on Sinks due Land Use and Forestry.
The very issue they propose to collaborate with Colin and myself about
was the most contentious one of all, and Paul on one side, and several
others including myself on the other side, had diametrically opposing
opinions. In fact, I simply believe Jarvis either wasn't able or not
wasn't willing to understand what the real issue was.

Anyway, I don't know whether, and if, in which way, this may or may
not affect your completion of the UEA bid, but I thought I'd better
let you know. Obviously I discussed this with Colin, and his response
is that he a) would place his bet on your rather than the Edinburgh
bid in terms of potential success, and b) that he nevertheless thinks
Edinburgh is proposing the appropriate thing to do here, and that he
therefore will reply positive to their request for collaboration.
Unless you see a strong reason for recommending me to NOT do the same
(we can talk about this in Brussels of course), I shall probably reply
in the same positive way.

Take care,

Wolfgang

PS: I am really uncertain whether I do something terribly bad in
sending this to you, after the explicit request for confidentiality -
so please keep this among the two of us...

On Freitag, 8. Oktober 1999, you wrote:

> Wolfgang,

> I shall have to apologise, but I will not be able to make the ECLAT meeting
> at all. The pressures of getting our UK National Climate Change Centre
> outline bid together for the 15th October are now such that I have to be
> here on the 13th and 14th (being in Brussels in the 12th is not very
> helpful either, but I can at least get back to UEA for Wednesday/Thursday
> to wrap up the bid). I have the lead responsibility now at UEA for
> co-ordinating our proposal - 8 institutions, 24-co-applicants, so you can
> imagine the headaches involved. But we want to make sure Hans-Joachim has
> a good proposal tabled from UEA when he meets with the Assessment Panel
> later in November!

> I really regret not being there - you have done a great job in pulling the
> programme and people together amidst IPCC activities. I have asked Tim
> Carter to present the IPCC/ACACIA speech and I am sure he will!

> Tim Carter and David Viner will co-ordinate over what needs doing for the
> proceedings which I insist will be a Cramer et al. (ed) (1999/2000)
> publication. David and Ruth will bring several dozen copies of the
> Helsinki book for distribution. It is important to get the breakout groups
> to get text together on their deliberations while at the meeting. You will
> see what we have done to the Helsinki material. For the Green Workshop we
> should not exceed 100pp. (cf. 128pp. for Helsink) and colour should be
> avoided where possible. CRU will take over the sub-editing and desk-top
> publishing role again.

> I guess I will see you in Brussels anyway.

> Gabi ......... please cancel my hotel reservation and travel pick-up.
> Thank you for your efficiency in organising all this.

> Best regards,

> Mike



mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 939844657.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "R K Pachauri" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Workshop on "North-South Strategies for Sustainable Development", November 1, 1999
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:57:37 +0530

Workshop on "North-South Strategies for Sustainable Development", November 1, 1999

Dear Dr Hulme,

TERI is hosting an event at the Fifth Conference of the Parties on "North-South Strategies for Sustainable Development". At this event we intend to generate a discussion on the impetus for furthering the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only is there a need to review the provisions in the Kyoto Protocol but also to develop a framework for operationalizing it. In particular, the workshop will focus on the Clean Development Mechanism. The workshop also aims to identify drivers that could maintain the momentum, which was achieved at Kyoto, ratification of the Protocol notwithstanding.

Hoping you were already at Bonn, I would like to invite you to provide your valuable viewpoint as a discussant at our event scheduled for November 1, 1999 at Hotel Maritim from 1xxx xxxx xxxxhours. A brief background note highlighting the issues intended for discussions during the Workshop as well as the Workshop agenda is attached herewith for your perusal. In case you have not planned for Bonn, I would deeply appreciate it if you could forward this mail to prospective participants to COP 5.

Thanking you and looking forward to meeting you at Bonn.

With warm regards,

R K Pachauri


Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWkshp-bkground1.doc"