The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 939923089.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: domraynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)
Cc: jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, icdc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Dominique,
Jonathon Overpeck forwarded your email to me some time ago, regarding
Holocene ice core data. I apologize for the delay in responding.
Frist, regarding US contacts for ice core data. I am happy to work on
this as you suggest, and it certaintly makes sense to have me involved
since I have been working on ice core data management for some time. I
can probably do a good job representing the US Arctic/Antarctic community,
but Lonnie Thompson should also be contacted, since there is so much
data from tropical glaciers that is not yet publicly available. In any
case, I look forward to working with you on this.
Second, regarding ice core relevant for Holocene studies:
It would be ideal to include all of the Antarctic cores drilled so far:
Dome B, Dome C, Vostok, Komsomolskaya, Byrd, etc. Much of the stable
isotope data for these cores is already available at our "Ice Core Data
Cooperative" web site. Valerie Masson, Jean Jouzel, myself and others
recently submitted a paper comparing isotope data from all of these cores,
and I should be able to get the data from her. Also at the Data Co-op
site are data from the Canadian ice caps (we do not yet have Penny Ice
Cap, but I can talk with David Fisher about this), Mount Logan, and from
some temperate ice cores including Fremont Glacier. These data are better
than commonly believed and may be useful.
I think that any Holocene climate compilation really needs chemistry and
gas data as well as isotope data. Although chemical concentrations have
not been measured on many of the cores, a very important data set that is
missing from our current archive is the chemistry data from the Antarctic
cores. All of the Taylor Dome chemistry data is available at
www.sas.upenn.edu/~esteig/taylor.html but as far as I am aware there is no
other chemistry data out there. It would be wonderful if you could
convince Michel Legrand and colleagues to send these data to me, for
inclusion on the Ice Core Data site, for both the Holocene the glacial
periods.
All of the data that I currently have are available via the NOAA
web server "International Ice Core
Data Cooperative". The site also lists cores which exist but for which
data are still needed. The direct link is:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/iicdc.html
I apologize that the pages are not in very good order; most of my time
when I had hoped to be working on this was devoted to the production of
the GISP2/GRIP CDROM, which took considerably more effort than expected.
I plan to begin improving those pages soon. Let me know if you have
additional questions.
Warm regards,
Eric Steig
Original Filename: 941483736.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: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:15:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Cc: rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your detailed response about your use of the SRES scenarios.
I'm sure it will be useful to Bob Watson. I wish I could explain better
what Bob's problem entails -- it is intensely political. My judgement is
that, if I tell you more, then this will indirectly help Bob in answering
the questions posed of him by Sensenbrenner; particularly should Bob need
to get back to you. Please note that this is confidential information.
Please note, too, that I am making my own judgement on this in the
interest of clarifying a complex issue. I have not been authorized by
Bob, or anyone associated with IPCC, to divulge this information.
The stated concern of Sensenbrenner is that the use of the SRES scenarios
prior to their ratification might, in some way, jeopardize IPCC's
"independence and objectivity". Sensenbrenner apparently uses as
guidelines in making his judgement "IPCC's 'Principles' (as) approved in
Vienna, Austria in October 1998" together with "June 11 and 28, 1999
letters" giving "Appendix A to the Principles, which is entitled
'Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and
Publication of IPCC Reports' (which was) approved ... in April 1999".
Sensenbrenner implies that these documents "raise concerns about the use
of preliminary IPCC material by Dr. Wigley and the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change for non-IPCC purposes, apparently without IPCC sanction".
He considers that "these issues (are) significant because they relate
directly to the integrity of the IPCC process".
In my case, I bypassed the "IPCC process" by obtaining permission, in
writing, from the 4 groups who produced the marker scenarios. I did not
acknowledge the CIESIN web site. In your case, apparently, you did. The
problem here is that this site stated very clearly that the data were "not
for citation or quotation". Did you take notice of this?
My view is, and has always been, that contributors to such data sets or
distribution sites do not give up the intellectual property rights to
their own data. They could do so, of course, by signing appropriate
legal/copyright documents; but I have never done this, nor, as far as I
know, has anyone who contributed to the CIESIN site. This is why I went
to the individual authors in order to obtain permission to use their data
in my Pew report. I hope you can see that there is an important
difference between what you did and what I did. At face value, it would
appear that you have ignored the clearly-stated message that the CIESIN
site data were "not for citation or quotation". (More on this point
below.)
You refer back to the July 1998 Bureau meeting agreeing that the
preliminary SRES scenarios (in your words) "could, and should, be used by
scientists". From my reading of the background material, this is subtly
wrong -- the Bureau only agreed that the data could be used by "the GCM
modeling community". As it happens, I am part of that community, and I
acted as the interface between the scenarios and the rest of the NCAR GCM
team, providing SRES data to them in a form that could be used for our GCM
runs. I do not think you can claim to have filled this particular and
quite specific role in your work.
However, there are some interesting subtleties here that, I think,
vindicate your position. The issue is what is meant by the "GCM modeling
community". In my view, anyone who uses GCM data either to provide data
sets to the impacts community or to carry out diagnostic studies directly
to improve GCMs is part of this community. (Note that this does *not*
allow one to include the impacts modelers as part of the GCM community.)
The two stated aspects are precisely what you do. Furthermore, SCENGEN
(which I presume you have used in your work) makes direct use of GCMs in
order to produce spatially-specific climate results based on any given
emissions scenarios (including the SRES scenarios). The SCENGEN method is
simply an alternative way of translating emissions scenarios into
GCM-based and GCM-type output. In my view, anyone using the SRES
scenarios in the development of SCENGEN, or applying SCENGEN to produce
spatially-specific climate results for dissemination to others, must be
included as part of the "GCM modeling community" referred to in the
Bureau's agreement regarding use of the SRES scenarios. You may have
interpreted the Bureau's statements even more broadly than this -- but
this is of no consequence, since what you have done also falls squarely
within the more restricted interpretation that I have given above.
Nevertheless, I think it would have been wiser for you to have done things
the way I did, rather than to have acknowledged the CIESIN site as your
source.
The next issue, raised in your email, concerns the DDC. I have not looked
at this site, but I presume it duplicates what was on the CIESIN site. If
so, then its use (and the use of the preliminary SRES data) must be
controlled by the rules under which the DDC was set up and operates. The
key questions, therefore, are:
(1) Do these rules allow the use of these data by anyone?
(2) Do the SRES data, as it appears on this site, include the statement
"not for citation or quotation"?
(3) Does this make moot the whole issue of the use of the SRES scenarios?
In other words, if these data are available to all and sundry, with no
restrictions, through DDC, then no one can complain about their use.
(Although, in your case, since you acknowledged CIESIN rather than DDC,
you may still be subject to criticism.)
What this could amount to is a loophole in the IPCC rules of procedure.
Sensenbrenner might then argue that this loophole should be closed by
clarifying and tightening the rules for the DDC.
The bottom line is that I think you have done things in a perfectly
legitimate way. Even acknowledging the CIESIN site is legitimate, since
your primary application was in the production of climate change scenarios
as a member of the "GCM modeling community" as I believe this community
should be defined. You have then distributed these results to the global
climate impacts community who, in turn, will be feeding their results back
into the IPCC process through WGII. Your chosen method of distribution
(especially the WWF pathway) might be judged as less than ideal; but I
cannot see anything that you have done that goes explicitly or implicitly
against IPCC regulations.
Below the bottom line is the concern expressed by Sensenbrenner that these
actions (yours and mine) might, in some way, have undermined the
"integrity of the IPCC process". It would be interesting to hear from
Sensenbrenner just how he thinks that might have happened. All we have
done is distribute credible and defensible scientific information. If
this information were to be in conflict with the currently best-available
science, this might be an issue of concern -- but it is not. The more
such credible scientific information is distributed to the community,
particularly when it is presented in an easily-read, non-technical yet
authoritative way, the better. I can see no way that this can distort the
IPCC process. Some people, however, appear to think that it might. (A
less kind interpretation might be that they are just trying to slow down
the process by tying it up in legal and procedural knots -- but I have no
evidence that this is what they are trying to do.)
I hope you can see from the above quotes and somewhat convoluted arguments
what a legal and political minefield this is. These sorts of issues do
not seem to arise outside of the USA; but here they take on an enormous
importance. One must tread very cautiously.
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Bob,
>
> You will have seen Tom Wigley's email asking me about the climate scenarios
> I prepared for WWF and which were distributed 2 weeks ago. I have just got
> back from a trip away and am concerned that *you* are concerned, hence my
> immediate reply.
>
> These CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios *do* use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions scenarios that are posted on the CIESIN and IPCC DDC web sites.
> The CRU/WWF reports state that preliminary emissions scenarios sre used,
> they acknowledge the CIESIN source of these emissions, and they make it
> clear that the derived climate scenarios are the work and responsibility of
> the authors alone.
>
> Maybe some background would help explain why I do not think that from my
> perspective there is cause for concern (although I am aware of the
> criticism the SRES report has increasingly been receiving and that the
> issues are bigger than I may realise):
>
> __________________________________________
>
> July '98: IPCC Bureau meeting agreed that the preliminary SRES emissions
> scenarios could, and should, be used by scientists in their unapproved
> form.
>
> Dec '98: the above was reiterated to WGI scientists at the Paris LA
> meeting. In particular, it was recognised that SAR science would have to
> be used in the interim (i.e., next xxx xxxx xxxxmonths) to generate the climatic
> (and consequently impact) implications of the SRES emissions.
>
> Jan '99: the SRES Open Process ended. The IPCC DDC placed the preliminary
> SRES98 emissions scenarios on the open DDC web site as requested by the
> IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impact Assessment (Chair Martin
> Parry). The objective of the DDC right from its original 1997 commission
> was to provide timely access to emissions scenarios, observed climate
> datasets and new GCM experiments (all of which would be assessed in the
> IPCC TAR), thus enabling impact scientists worldwide to construct and apply
> consistent climate scenarios (this information has already been used by
> several 100 scientists, including many in developing countries). Only in
> this way would it be at all possible for WGII to have access to
> impact/adaptation science that was in any way consistent with the WGIII
> (SRES emissions) and WGI (climate modelling) material. The placing of the
> SRES98 emissions on the DDC web site was widely discussed in the TGCIA and
> was publicised at the time to the research community using the DDC,
> including through the A4-flier advertising the DDC that was sent to the WGI
> (and WGII?) mailing list.
>
> Feb '99: Hulme&Carter used the preliminary SRES98 emissions (and other DDC
> products) to develop climate scenarios
> for the European Union as part of the EU-funded ACACIA assessment
> (unrelated to Tom's US-based ACACIA). The approach
> I took in using the SRES98 emissions for the ACACIA climate scenarios was
> *my* decision and was not part of any IPCC activity. The ACACIA climate
> scenarios, and indeed entire EU ACACIA impacts assessment, have been widely
> reviewed within Europe, and are part of the draft report presented to
> Brussels last month. They will published in their final form in June 2000.
> This EU-ACACIA activity has done in my view *exactly* what the DDC was
> intended to do, namely allow impact scientists to generate results using
> consistent scenarios and assumptions; these results provide the raw
> material for IPCC LAs to assess in their TAR chapters!
>
> My approach for converting the preliminary SRES98 emissions into climate
> scenarios is also being used in many other EU and UK-funded impact research
> programmes and is generating a variety of scientific reports and papers -
> several of the latter are under peer-review at the moment and may be
> citeable in time for the 2nd-order WGII drafts.
>
> ***Is an apology needed for this activity? If so, then I and others on the
> IPCC TGCIA totally misunderstood the brief of the DDC and the intent of the
> July 98 and Dec. 98 IPCC decisions.***
>
> May '99: WWF commissioned me to prepare a set of national/regional climate
> scenarios for them to launch in October 1999. It seemed entirely
> appropriate and legitimate to me to use the same method I had adopted for
> EU-ACACIA to generate these WWF scenarios.
>
> June '99: Tom's Pew Report was published using SRES98 emissions is a not
> dissimilar way to me (i.e., using them to drive a simple climate model
> based on SAR science).
>
> July '99: following some controversy over the Pew Report, there was an
> email circular from WGI TSU (Griggs) reminding LAs that there was 'active
> encouragement' from IPCC for scientists to use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions in modelling work. The conditions were that it should be stated
> that they were unapproved by IPCC (i.e, preliminary) and that work using
> them should ideally be peer-reviewed and published. Tom Wigley followed-up
> on this circular by explaining *his* use of SRES98 in the Pew Report, the
> conditions he met and his justification for using them. I noted this
> correspondence at the time and did not feel that my use of SRES98 emissions
> in my WWF work was out of order.
>
> Oct '99: the 15 sets of CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios were published
> and widely distributed by WWF. These leaflets state that 'preliminary IPCC
> emissions scenarios' are used, acknowledge the source of these emissions as
> the CIESIN site, and make clear that the climate scenarios are the work of
> the authors alone and no other organisation. Furthermore, the approach I
> have taken (which I originally designed back in December 1998) has been
> subject to a diversity of peer-review activities, and will shortly be
> published.
> _______________________________
>
> Sorry for making this a lengthy reply, but it seems best to spell out the
> history and my thinking to avoid any room for misunderstanding. In
> summary, the only two grounds on which I think I could be criticised for
> using the SRES98 emissions in my CRU/WWF climate scenarios are if:
>
> 1) the IPCC DDC was wrong to put the SRES98 emissions on its web site back
> in January 1999 and to publicise its purpose in doing so. If we *were*
> wrong, then this error goes back to January 1999 and the TGCIA
> fundamentally misunderstood its brief.
> 2) the pronouncements of the IPCC in July 1998 and December 1998 were
> intended to apply *only* to scientists who had a formal role in the IPCC
> and that the SRES98 emissions could only be used for 'official' IPCC
> scientific activities whatever these may be. This would draw a very
> dubious line between science done for IPCC and science done 'not for IPCC'.
> IPCC's brief is to assess *all*, done by no matter whom or for what
> purpose.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mike
>
> Dr Mike Hulme
> Reader, Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ
> (tel: xxx xxxx xxxx; fax: xxx xxxx xxxx)
> (email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
> (web: http//www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh)
>
> ----------
> > From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
> > Date: 27 October 1999 19:02
> >
> > ****In strictest confidence****
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> > Bob Watson contacted me last week asking about some climate results that
> > he apparently saw on the CRU and/or WWF web pages. The CRU web site
> > states that you have produced (and already distributed) a set of regional
> > scenario leaflets based on "new ghg emissions scenarios", which I think
> is
> > what Bob may be concerned about.
> >
> > I hope that "new" does not refer to the SRES scenarios. You may recall
> > that, when I was in CRU, I showed you, in confidence, a letter from F.
> > James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives
> > Committee on Science, criticizing IPCC for "allowing" me to use these
> > scenarios in my Pew Report.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this issue is not going away, and any further perceived
> > "misuse" of the SRES scenarios prior to their IPCC ratification would
> > exacerbate the problem considerably.
> >
> > I do hope, therefore, that you have *not* used the SRES scenarios. I
> > expect not, since I explained the potential problems to you in July.
> > Please reassure me -- and Bob.
> >
> > If, by chance, you *have* used the SRES scenarios, but not yet
> distributed
> > the WWF leaflets, I urge you to hold fire until you have contacted Bob.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box 3000 *
> > *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> > **********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
**********************************************************
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
Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
**********************************************************
Original Filename: 942448792.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley
Subject: MAGICC/SCENGEN
Date: Fri Nov 12 18:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: s.raper,m.salmon,m.hulme,barrow
Tom,
Sorry I couldn't say goodbye - I was actually on the phone to Bo Lim at the time. I also wanted to ask you about your views on the UK national climate change centre, but this can wait until later.
Anyway, about MAGICC/SCENGEN Workbook I think we agreed the following things for this UNDP version ........
- a select number of emissions scenarios, IS92, SRES98, 550 and 750 stabilisation cases, some Kyoto variants (perhaps from IS92a,e,d reference), and 1-2 others you may recommend. I would be keen to use your *.gas files if that's OK, even though I have some of my own. You may have done the SO2 into regions, which I haven't. Could you send me a selection?
- you would think about how to handle the CH4 adjustment to ensure SAR replicability across the emissions scenarios. This may require a tweak in the MAGICC code which Mike will have to recompile.
- we should aim to reproduce the SAR results as closely as possible in this version, e.g. use 6.37Wm-2 rather than 5.5, and not use Prather's methane concentrations (an Annex in the Workbook will explain this).
- the variable upwelling rate will be hard-wired. Choices will remain for the Dn80s, climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing.
- SCENGEN will have the new DDC patterns included and we will switch off the buttons for the older 2xCO2 patterns.
- SCENGEN will output values over land and ocean.
- the Help Screens will need updating. I will attempt this and then check them all with you to make sure you agree.
The only problem I can forsee is that the 2.32 version that Mike and you produced in the summer corrected the aerosol calculations and also used Prather's methane concentrations. If we now want a version with correct aerosol concentrations and IPCC SAR Chapter 6 CH4 concentrations, *plus* a CH4 tweak to handle the ad hoc adjustment, then Mike Salmon will need a new and unique FORTRAN version of MAGICC. Am I right?
I have agreed with Bo Lim to get a first draft of the Workbook by 17 December, but the final version and all the CDs will not be agreed until February 2000.
Have I missed anything?
Regards,
Mike
Original Filename: 942777075.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
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: 942953601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "F. Ian Woodward" <F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Nigel W. Arnell" <N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alberte Bondeau <Alberte.Bondeau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Smith <Ben.Smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Colin Prentice <Colin.Prentice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Harald Bugmann <bugmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jos
Original Filename: 947541692.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Simon,
I have talked with Tim O'Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
- Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
- ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:
- ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
- Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board
You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.
I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.
Cheers,
Mike
At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
>dear colleagues
>
>re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
>from for the Tyndall Centre
>
>This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
>afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
>should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
>is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
>I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
>change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
>less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
>
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin's below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I've come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley
>
>
>
>
>
Original Filename: 947802707.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,ifor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,fritz.schweingruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: EC contract proposal
Date: Thu Jan 13 17:31:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Stepan and Eugene ( Eugene are you getting these messages?)
You will have the first idea of things now and soon the first forms will come which must be filled in and signed and stamped and returned here by FAX and as soon as possible by REAL mail. The original forms must be submitted from here in February. This message is to reiterate that the reviewing process this time is going to look very carefully at the reakdown of costs in relation to precise tasks. There is even a section of the form that asks for proportional costs associated with individual deliverables. Therefore it is important to specify ( at least for the sake of the plan) precisely what work can be done and the person hour costs, materials, travel, fieldwork, equipment ( corers, durable equipment like computer ,GPS, etc: consumable costs like xray film etc.etc.) . I need you to think in terms of intensive sampling of modern and sub-fossil wood with the emphasis on major contributions to extending the network in Russia both ringwidth ( in Ekaterinburg) and a major part of the densitometry , perhaps of Russian and non-Russian samples(?) (in EKaterinburg). THIS IS NOT TO SAY I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE ONLY DATA PROVIDERS . I do not look on you in this way. It is simply that I have to make a strong @SPECIAL CASE@ for your both being partners and the relatively large funds that I have suggested must be convincingly justified. Your involvement is crucial on the scientific side and I will emphasise this strongly. But it is also important to display to referees what the money will go on. Hence yoy need to suggest various options to me in terms of possible sampling work, laboratory work and analysis and cost out these different options to cover different possible plans. We will then sort out an optimum one . You must budget realistically for travel, fieldwork travel and equipment - which I believe are expensive. ALso note our earlier message as regards travel to Europe. I would very much appreciate help with up to date information on state of the art of the Russian data for background, potential of new areas or your ideas of where best to concentrate updating work.
In both Yamal and Taimyr , the continued work on the long chronologies to greatly increase sample numbers is still very high on my lisy of priorities and the work Stepan (and Rashit) are doing to reconstruct tree-line changes on a detailed resolution is very very important. So please try to think about the details of new sampling sites( need bigger sample numbers with different age trees at each to look at age-dependent growth chages); best areas needing updating; subfossil continuation; real numbers for different cost options and start to interact with me and Tim ( and Fritz) re the possible distribution of densitometry work. Finally, Eugene, I think your comments on the ring structure and using inpu from simulations and model (GCM) data are important. Can we factor in some exploratory work on this or is it better to do it as part of a separate proposal - I have two more in mind in the coming months ( one to NERC in UK and one to the Leverhulme Foundation - more about these later).
for now that better be all
best wishes
Keith (p.s please copy all replies to Tim )
Original Filename: 950712852.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Sujata Gupta" <sujatag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Tyndall Centre bid
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:54:12 +0530
Cc: <ritu.kumar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >, "R K Pachauri" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Mike
Thank you for sending the outline bid submitted last October. After reviewing the document, my colleagues and I were of the view that TERI should go non-exclusive. Our primary interest is to be part of the project and given that we (TERI) would have the role of an affiliate in both the bids, it was decided that we go non-exclusive.
We understand that the outline bid is confidential and I can assure you that it will not be shared with anyone outside the concerned colleagues at TERI. Also, I assure you of all possible support TERI can provide in developing the final bid. We look forward to a fruitful association with you on the project.
Wishing you all the best in securing the bid.
Kind regards
Sujata
Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
************************************************************************
TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
Be a part of the future.
More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
************************************************************************
T E R I
New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
Web www.teriin.org
>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 02/12/00 11:56PM >>>
Dear Sujata,
I attach a copy of our outline bid from last October - it is now evolving
rapidly of course in preparation for final submission. This gives you a
quick idea about our Consortium and plans. You will also see the names and
institutes of our partners. May I re-iterate that this document is
confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone outside your immediate
colleagues in TERI.
TERI was *not* listed as a formal co-applicant (non-UK institutions are not
eligible to be formal co-applicants), but was listed as an 'affiliated
organisation' along with about 10 others here in the UK. We would propose
to do the same in the final bid, but say a little bit more about where and
how TERI would interact with us were we to win the Centre.
If you decide to remain exclusively with our bid, then I will send you the
first draft of our final submission during the next week - this will
indicate more details about our research programmes and where TERI may be
seen to interact with us as a key overseas collaborator.
However, if you decide to join with both bids - Imperial and UEA - then we
will simply continue to list you as a collaborator, but we could not then
agree to any further interaction over the next 2 weeks.
Best Regards,
Mike
At 10:45 10/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Dear Mike
>
>Thank you for your email. I appreciate your understanding of our
position. TERI is essentially interested in working on the project. I can
assure you that we will not disclose any information provided by you to the
other finalist or anyone else for that matter and maintain strict
confidentiality.
>
>However, I did not receive the original bid document or an outline of the
proposal. We are not clear if TERI has been listed as a partner up-front or
has been mentioned as an associate. I would greatly appreciate it if you
could let me know TERI's status in the original document. This will help in
our taking a decision on the exclusivity front, as yet we are still
debating on the matter and have not reverted to the Imperial team. Also,
who are the other members of the team headed by you.
>
>We look forward to working with you and hope we are able to reach a
decision which is mutually beneficial.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Sujata
>
>
>
>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>Fellow and Dean
>Policy Analysis Division
>************************************************************************
>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>Be a part of the future.
>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>************************************************************************
>T E R I
>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>Web www.teriin.org
>
>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 02/08/00 01:49AM >>>
>Dear Sujata,
>
>I have consulted with colleagues in our Consortium and we consider the
>following to be the position .....
>
>- we clearly would prefer TERI to affiliate to only one of the two
>finalists, and obviously we prefer that one to be our bid. This is
>espeically the case since we made our initial approach to you last
>September when there were still seven bids in the making; no-one else
>approached you at that stage and therefore we feel we have some preference
>through prior approach.
>
>- we recognise that *you* may now consider it in your interest to affiliate
>to both finalists to cover yourselves either way (although *we* consider
>there are strong grounds for you not to do so). This is your choice of
>course, although were you to do this then I must point out the following
>two consequences:
>
>a) since I believe I sent you last October/November a copy of our outline
>bid for the Centre I would need to insist that you do not divulge the
>contents of this outline to Imperial College. This is clearly a case of
>professional integrity which we are sure you understand.
>
>b) if you indicate that you are also joining with Imperial then this
>effectively precludes any further dialogue between us over the remaining 3
>weeks before submission. All that we would be able to do would be to name
>you and your expertise in our submission rather than engage you
>interactively in shaping 1-2 of our ideas (which was my original intention
>as our final bid shapes up).
>
>Please let me know how you wish to proceed - either way, I look forward to
>a fruitful association between us in the event of our bid succeeding with
>the UK Research Councils.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Mike
>
>At 16:00 01/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>Dear Mike,
>>
>>TERI has a presence in London as of 25 January. My colleague Dr Ritu Kumar
>there has been approached by the consortia led by Imperial College
>>for TERI to join them. I am writing to explore the possibility of TERI
>joining both consortia on a non-exclusive basis. This would of course imply
>that we do not share/participate in the preparation of the bid. Any inputs
>provided by TERI would be common to both consortia, unless it was in
>response to a specific request by a particular partner.
>>
>>As we have committed to you first, we will revert to Imperial College for
>a non-exclusive tie-up, only after discussing the matter with you.
>>
>>I am copying this email to my colleague Dr Kumar.
>>
>>Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Sujata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>Fellow and Dean
>>Policy Analysis Division
>>************************************************************************
>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>Be a part of the future.
>>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>>************************************************************************
>>T E R I
>>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>>Web www.teriin.org
>>
>>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 01/19/00 02:52PM >>>
>>Thank you Sujata ...... I will keep you informed about our needs for
>>bidding for the UK Climate Change Centre.
>>
>>And it *was* me that you had a conversation with in Canberra about
>>reviewers for Chapter 3 on scenarios. I will forward your suggestion on to
>>the TSU II.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>At 11:56 19/01/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>>Dear Dr Hulme
>>>
>>>TERI will be happy to provide sole support to the consortium led by you
>>and UEA. I was on travel and hence could not respond earlier. Please let
>>me know if we can assist in any way in the preparation of the bid.
>>>
>>>If I recollect we had a discussion on a possible reviewer for the
>>scenarios chapter from India who was thus far not involved with the IPCC
>>process. I can suggest the name of Dr Shreekant Gupta at the Delhi School
>>of Economics, New Delhi. It is quite possible that I had this discussion
>>with Tom Downing. Please let me know if I am communicating to the wrong
>>person on this matter.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the new year
>>>
>>>Sujata
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>>Fellow and Dean
>>>Policy Analysis Division
>>>************************************************************************
>>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>>Be a part of the future.
>>>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>>>************************************************************************
>>>T E R I
>>>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>>>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>>>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>>>Web www.teriin.org
>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 01/05/00 06:54PM >>>
>>>Dear Colleague,
>>>
>>>Thank you very much for your support for our bid to run the new UK Climate
>>>Change Centre being established by three of our national research councils.
>>> We have heard that just two of the seven outline bids have been invited to
>>>submit detailed proposals and that the Consortium led by UEA is one of
>>>these two. Final bids are required by 29th February. The UEA-led bid
>>>proposes the new Centre to be called the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
>>>Research (named after the 19th century British physicist who experimented
>>>with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, John Tyndall).
>>>
>>>Assuming you are happy to continue sole support for our initiative, and on
>>>the undertaking that you do not disclose our outline bid to other parties
>>>who may be aligned with the other finalist (a Consortium led by Imperial
>>>College and involving the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford and the
>>>U. Edinburgh), then I will send you a copy of our outline proposal.
>>>
>>>There are a number of aspects of this outline bid that we will change and
>>>develop before 29th Feb. and it may be that I am back in contact with you
>>>to ask for some additional text of support about some concrete ways the UK
>>>Tyndall Centre could collaborate with your organisation.
>>>
>>>We would also, of course, welcome any suggestions you may have about such
>>>future collaboration.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the New Year,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>>Dr Mike Hulme
>>>Reader in Climatology tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>Climatic Research Unit fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>University of East Anglia web site:
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
>>>Norwich NR4 7TJ
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>> The estimated annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 is +1.16
>>>degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341
>>>years
>>> *****************************************************************
>>> The estimated global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for
1999 is
>>> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet
>recorded
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>> Neither of these estimates have yet been confirmed
>>> **************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>***************************************************************************
>>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
>>***************************************************************************
>>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
>+1.16
>> degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
>> *****************************************************************
>> The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
>> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>>***************************************************************************
>>
>>
>***************************************************************************
>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
>***************************************************************************
>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
+1.16
> degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
> *****************************************************************
> The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>***************************************************************************
>
>
Original Filename: 951431850.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: John Shepherd <John.G.Shepherd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:37:30 +0000
Mike
BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a
letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in
time...
The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they're having to
get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer)
just a few weeks ago, so we've had to work around the new CE, to whom all
this is news...). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.
Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.
Hope the drafting is coming together well.
John
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachJGS_CV_informal.doc"
Original Filename: 951763817.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: newest reconstruction
Date: Mon Feb 28 13:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@uea, t.osborn@uea
At 11:56 25/02/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>I need your newest northern hemisphere density-based tree-ring reconstruction
>and appropriate reference for updating IPCC. Please send in ASCII format as
>soon as possible so we can incorporate. I hope all is well. Thanks,
Hi Mike
Keith asked me to get back to you on this. The reconstruction is the same as the one I sent on the 5th October 1999, but I'm sending it again in case that e-mail isn't handy. The reconstruction has now been published, in the following paper:
Briffa K.R. (2000) Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, xxx xxxx xxxx.
This paper does not, however, give full details about how the reconstruction was obtained. The details are not yet published, but will soon be submitted:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC, Jones PD, Shiyatov SG and Vaganov EA (2000) Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network. In preparation (to be submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research).
Details about the file I'm sending you (repeated from 5th Oct 99):
The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1994, 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 data I've sent are calibrated over the period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over all land grid boxes (that have 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.
(I've already truncated the series at 1960 because of the problems with the recent period.)
Best regards
Tim
Original Filename: 951977522.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Frank Oldfield <frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: PAGES QSR volume
Date: Thu Mar 2 01:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: matti.saarnisto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brigham-grette@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, D.Jewson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fritz.schweingruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Frank
I have two names - one of which you know well. First , I strongly urge that one copy be sent to
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
This is the home of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology , headed by
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov and I would suggest you consign the book to him,
or through him , to a genearl library if one exists.
e-mail: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
I know they have very limited resources but they will make real use of the volume . They are genuinely active and the work they do is truly 'world class'. You will remember also that one of their younger scientists (Rashit Hantemirov) won a prize in London at the Open Science meeting for his poster on the long Yamal chronology. This group gets my first and strongest vote.
My other suggestion is to send one to Eugene Vaganov's Institute of Forest.
They are not so strapped for resources as the Ekaterinburg lab. but they are large and have many active areas of research and the book would get a wide audience.
Eugene's email is
ifor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Then there is the question of getting them there . The post is not reliable. You might send then to Fritz Schweingruber's laboratory from where they could be picked up or carried to Russia ?
Hope this helps
best wishes
Keith
e-mail: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
At 12:58 PM 3/2/00 +0100, Frank Oldfield wrote:
>Dear Keith, Julie, Matti and David,
>
>We are compiling a list of people and/or institutions in the former USSR to
>whom we should send FREE copies of the PAGES Open Science Meeting Special
>issue of Quaternary Science Reviews. For this, we need some help and advice
>in the way of key addresses and contacts. Where it seems best to send the
>book to a library we'd quite like to inform at least one key academic in
>the Institution that we are doing this. Where we are sending to an
>individual, we need to be able to trust in a degree of collegiality and we
>shall indicate that we want to be sure the book will be made as widely
>available as possible. We do not anticipate being able to send more than 10
>or so copies for free; others may be available at a reduced rate at the end
>of the year. This means a selective and carefully compiled 'hit list' is
>required.
>
>Over to you - we need your help.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Frank
>
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html
>
>
>
Original Filename: 952106664.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Shaopeng Huang <shaopeng@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Nature paper and beyond
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:04:24 +0000
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Shaopeng and Henry,
First, congratulations on the Nature paper. Can you send me some
reprints when you get them ?
I was at a meeting this week with Tom Crowley and we were discussing
ways to reconcile the high-freq proxies with your borehole data. Here
are a couple of our thoughts. Involving Mike Mann and others here in CRU, as
they all have an input.
1. I've shown that the borehole data in Europe agree well with the long
instrumental data in both the UK and Europe. The biggest differences/problems
seem to come with the North American borehole data, which show the 16/17/18th
data much cooler than the European/Asian/African data in the 16/17th century.
I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally
in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too
cool. I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is
a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide
us all about the course of change over the last millennium. Is it possible
to subdivide the North American borehole data into regions where we can
be confident of no land-use changes (possibly and thinking aloud say Canada
and the western US and Alaska) ? The aim of this (possibly joint work) is
to try and reconcile the low- and high-freq proxies. Tom Crowley has a
series for the NH where he's combined about 20 series (a few of which are
in Mike's and the series we've produced here but he has over half the series
from less-well resolved proxies - shallow marine and lake sediments) and
he gets something very similar to Mike and CRU.
2. As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of
the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some
flak from the skeptics saying we're wrong because everyone knows it was
warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct
with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding
proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of
a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years.
Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good
science in that we will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about
the course of temperature change over the past millennium. It is important
as studies of the millennium will help to show that the levels of natural
variability from models are reasonable. Tom has run his EBM with current
best estimates of past forcing (Be-10 as a proxy for solar output and Alan
Robock's ice core volcanic index) and this produces a series similar
to all series of the last 1000 years.
The above is just ideas of how we, as a group, could/should try and reduce
criticisms etc over the next year or so. Nothing is sacred. Your North
American borehole series could be correct as it is annual and most of the
high-freq proxy series respond mainly to summer variations. Is yours really
annual when there is a marked seasonal snow cover season ?
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: 952619617.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "ifor" <ifor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Briffa Keith" <K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: No Subject
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:33:37 +0700
Dear Keith,
we Mukhtar and me are definitely out from Abisko workshop,
so you are free to present any material suitable.
Make the same in France, no problem with permission.
Best withes, Gene.
From ???@??? Wed Mar 08 20:29:xxx xxxx xxxxReceived: from [139.222.230.3]
(helo=mailgate3.uea.ac.uk) by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id
12SxCi-0001SB-00 for f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:17:52 +0000 Received: from
DarkOne.ural.net [195.64.192.49] by mailgate3.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id
12Sx7z-00020G-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:12:59 +0000 Received: from relay.uran.ru
(atreyu.ural.net [195.19.137.69]) by DarkOne.ural.net (8.10.0/eTn) with ESMTP id
e297CwJ06512 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:12:58 +0500 (ES) Received: from ipae.uran.ru
([195.19.128.15]) by relay.uran.ru (8.9.3/eTn) with SMTP id MAA56670 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000
12:12:49 +0500 (ES) Received: from mail.ipae.uran.ru (rashit.ipae.uran.ru [195.19.135.143]
) by ipae.uran.ru (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:16:06 +0500 Date: Thu, 9
Mar 2000 12:15:07 +0500 From: Rashit Hantemirov X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.00 Build 1311)
Registered to Andy Malyshev Reply-To: Rashit Hantemirov Organization: IPAE Priority: Normal
Message-ID: <3511.000309@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: meeting in Sweden
References: <3.0.1.32.20000308021839.00746228@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: Dear
Keith, I'm glad that chance to see you in Sweden has arisen, because I will hardly come to
Mendoza. I was invited to Abisko under curious circumstances and was pleasantly surprised
seeing you among participants. I apologize if my participating give you trouble with
preparing your paper. I'm going to present results of tree line reconstruction in Yamal,
based on about 50 radiocarbon data (from 9500 BP) and about 500 samples dated using Yamal
chronology (from 7000 BP). May be some short-scale falls in summer temperature will be
examined as a potential cause of tree line recession. Organizers will pay for my travel,
accommodation and food (otherwise I could not come to Sweden). I don't know about other
participants. 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: 954268691.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: r.k.turner@uea,g.bentham@uea,t.oriordan@uea,n.pidgeon@uea,p.jones@uea, j.palutikof@uea,n.adger@uea,i.bateman@uea,m.hulme@uea,a.lovett@uea
Subject: JIF news
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:38:11 +0100
We have heard from ESRC that the ICER bid has been successful. We are to be
funded at a "reduced level", although we don't know what that is yet. Our
guess is that it will be close to the 10 million we were asked to approach
(the revised bid was about 12.5 million).
Well done everyone.
The letter asks us not to make any public announcement, publicity or press
releases until 4 April, when there will be a JIF press conference (altho we
are encouraged to prepare the press as soon as possible). Please,
therefore, continue to regard this information as confidential as far as
the outside world is concerned - I shall ask the Press Office to do the
necessary.
I will send a note out to all faculty later this afternoon.
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: 955699514.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,ifor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Mendoza, intas
Date: Fri Apr 14 04:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Stepan and Eugene
I was very much looking forward to seeing you both and talking over progress and future plans. I am very sorry that you were not able to attend the Mondoza meeting. I used my introductory talk for the long chronology session to illustrate the great progress and important potential of the Yamal and Taimyr work - and gave a clear indication of the quality and world significane of the continuing research at Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk , and the work of Rashit and Muchtar.
Please also let me appologise that Fritz may have been over zealous in requesting receipts for the small amount of money he is to forward to you. I have received these but it was not my intention that he should keep this money until the receipts were to hand. I hope no offence was taken and I am sorry that this money has not been forwarded earlier. I have asked him to send it straight away. Also I hope Stepan that you are now well. I am now back as you see and my first job is to write and send the INTAS report . I will forward copies as soon as it is complete.
I have heard nothing about our proposal to the European Commission but I am not confident.
I will be sending your manuscripts back with comments in the near future for the Holocene issue.
It is my greatest hope that collaboration is continued between us even if our latest application fails and I will do my very best to find other sources of support in the future. I really want to understand more about the cell growth model and the link between long term changes in treelines and the lack of very long term evidence of climate change in our ring width and density chronologies. Please let us stay more closely in touch in the future.
my very best wishes
Keith
Original Filename: 956161482.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Schmutz <schmutz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper (fwd)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Juerg Luterbacher <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Elena Xoplaki <xoplaki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dimitrios Gyalistras <gyalistr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cullen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Christoph,
I have time for just a few brief comments. I'll leave Ed and the others to
follow up if they wish...
mike mann
At 05:13 PM 4/19/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Dear Prof. Cook
>
>I have received your comments and the comments of Prof. Mann (Juerg
>kindly forwarded me the messages).
>
>First I would like to point out that our paper clearly has the intention
>to contribute in a constructive way to the discussion of proxy-based
>climate reconstructions. This was the reason for fitting available
>proxy-based indices onto J, in order to assess the potential of the
>complementary information in the proxy data. In fact, we need proxy-data
>to go further back. But it is essential to know the limitations and there
>ARE obviously major limitations.
>
>As you mentioned, there might be some non-stationarities in the NAO.
>
Hmmm. I *think* what Ed actually meant is that if one samples e.g. only a
subset of the quadrapole set of temperature "lobes" of the NAO (especially,
if one samples only, say, one of them--the European one), then one will
necessarily be seeing a combination of the NAO, and any other climate
patterns that have a distinct regional overprint in that region. In the case
of Europe, there are several. So the "nonstationarity" isn't in the *true*
NAO, it is
an the attempt to *define* the NAO in terms of an insufficent subsample of
regions influence by it.
>However, the signature of the NAO shows to be quite robust for most of the
>20.th century. As you said, we do not know if there is in fact a probably
>strongly biased signal towards the European continent back in time.
>
>I have downloaded the preprint paper by Cullen et al. In a first overview
>it seems to me that one of my main conclusions, which states that it is
>important to use the complementary information in the data is confirmed by
>their work. In fact this was already one of the conclusions in the
>Luterbacher et al. 1999 paper (number of used predictors are an important
>factor for the obtained skill).
>
>It would have been nice to find the Luterbacher et al. 1999 index in the
>analyses of the mentioned Cullen et al. paper (e.g. in the Tables 1 to 3).
In fact, the Cullen et al paper was originally written and submitted well
before the paper you cite (GRL has an extremely fast turnaround time
relative to Paleoceanography), and it wouldn't have been appropriate for
Heidi Cullen to redo all the analyses using this additional index, at the
time the paper was already in review/in press.
>
>The loss of skill (1xxx xxxx xxxx) found in table 3 of the mentioned Cullen et
>al. paper implies again that proxy-based index reconstructions have to be
>verified rigorously in the pre-1850 period. The Luterbacher et al. 1999
>index might give some help for the validation of proxy-based
>reconstruction attempts. This index will be open to the public after the
>EGS2000 conference. (http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet)
>
>Since I'm not a specialist in tree-ring proxy-data you could probably
>better explain the following questions that I (honestly) can not explain:
>
>Why are the different proxy-indices not significantly correlated back in
>time (if one considers a serious significance testing procedure) on the
>interannual and decadal time-scale?
Hmmm. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion from the results we show.
Several proxy indices are in fact quite significantly correlated (the
Appenzeller index is the only one that doesn't show close correlation with
the others).
>How is it possible (from a biological and physical point of view) to
>relate the mid- and high latitude tree-ring density and width to the
>main winter circulation pattern in Europe?
>
I'm sure Ed and Keith can point you to the relevant wealth of literature on
this.
>
>
>Sincerely yours, Christoph Schmutz
>
>
>> From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: Ed Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Juerg Luterbacher <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Cc: cullen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
>> k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper
>>
>> Thanks for your comments Ed,
>>
>> I agree with them, and think this needs to be looked into further. I would
>> encourage those who haven't yet, to take a look at the Cullen et al
>> manuscript which covers the same territory and comes to somewhat different
>> conclusions. The manuscript is now in-press in Paleoceanography, and is
>> available in
>> preprint form here (both as postscript and pdf file):
>>
>> http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/climategroup/papers/
>>
>> Would be interested in peoples thoughts.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> mike
>> At 04:34 PM 4/18/xxx xxxx xxxx, Ed Cook wrote:
>> >Dear Juerg,
>> >
>> >I have just completed reading your most recent GRL paper (Schmutz et al.,
>> >2000) on NAO reconstructions in which you show that proxy-based NAO
>> >reconstructions are probably wanting. It is not possible to strongly defend
>> >my reconstruction at this time (indeed I was extremely cautious in my
>> >description of it with regards to over-fitting problems, etc.). However, I
>> >do think that there are some issues that have not been fully explored,
>> >which could help explain some of the non-stationarity in the relationships
>> >found between your index and mine (at least) based on proxy data alone.
>> >First, my NAO reconstruction is based on 6 North American and 4 European
>> >tree-ring chronologies. Because the putuative NAO information in these
>> >records spans the North Atlantic and nicely brackets the NAO centers of
>> >action as we know them now, they potentially contain past information that
>> >is missing from a purely European-based estimate of NAO. This could occur
>> >if the NAO did not affect climate on both sides of the North Atlantic in
>> >the same roughly symmetric way back in time as it does now. If this were
>> >the case (and we have no way of knowing that now as far as I know), then it
>> >is conceivable that your L index is excessively biased towards Europe, as
>> >would be the extended Jones SLP index. If so, any comparisons between your
>> >L index and my proxy index with the Jones index would be hopelessly biased
>> >in your favor. This is not to say that my reconstruction is as good as
>> >yours, but it might not be as bad as your results indicate either.
>> >
>> >Indeed, I did make some effort to "verify" my reconstruction against early
>> >instrumental records, with somewhat contradictory and potentially
>> >interesting results. Over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod, my record correlates
>> >significantly with Stykkisholmer SLP (-0.456) and Oslo temperatures
>> >(0.323), but not Bermuda SLP (0.156) and Central England temperatures
>> >(0.211). The "appearance" of significant verification with only the more
>> >northerly instrumental records may be telling us something about
>> >differences in circulation and SSTs over the North Atlantic from what is
>> >now the case. This could affect the way in which the NAO affects climate
>> >jointly over North America and Europe. Of course, when I added some earlier
>> >observations (same stations) to the verification tests (Table 4 of my
>> >paper), the results weakened considerably. So, maybe this means that my NAO
>> >reconstruction is indeed poor. However, I must admit to having doubts about
>> >the quality of the early instrumental records despite the great efforts
>> >made to homogenize and correct them. This is especially the case with
>> >regards to low-frequency variability, but can also extend to individual
>> >values as well. I talked with Phil Jones about one suspect datum in the
>> >early portion of his extended NAO record that largely destroys any
>> >correlation with proxy-based NAO estimates (the sign of the instrumental
>> >index appears to be wrong to me). Yet, Phil is convinced that that datum is
>> >good and he may very well be right. Either way, more robust methods of
>> >association between series may be jusitified to guard anomalous values.
>> >
>> >Last year I asked you to please send my your reconstruction of the NAO (L).
>> >I never received it and ask you again to please send it.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Christoph Schmutz
> Climatology and Meteorology Tel: (+41) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
> Institute of Geography Fax: (+41) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of Bern
> Hallerstrasse 12
> CH-3012 Bern E-Mail: schmutz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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: 957536665.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.d.davies
Subject: ESSO
Date: Fri May 5 10:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:04:21 +0100
>To: shepherd
>From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: ESSO
>
>John,
>
>I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).
>
>Let me know how this proceeds,
>
>Mike
>
>
Original Filename: 959187643.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: John Shepherd <j.g.shepherd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ESSO
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +0100
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Trevor
I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree
witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...
See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12
noon ??
John
At 14:07 19/05/00 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
>John,
>
>It will be Trevor on the 19th for ESSO - too tricky for my schedule. I
>will pass the Esso booklet onto Trevor.
>
>Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re.
>climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise
>that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term
>actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs
>doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try
>to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and risk
>analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal.
>
>See you Wednesday,
>
>Mike
>
>At 16:23 10/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>Mike
>> Despite my efforts Esso have gone firm on 19th (to fit the schedule of
>>their man from the USA). Can you decide between you who should come (I
>>suggest one is enough) : it'll be lunchtime somewhere in London. I shall
>>be travelling from Ipswich (it's my week for the Aldeburgh Festival) so we
>>could possibly meet on the train there ??
>>
>> Copies of the Esso booklet arrived yesterday and are now on their way to
>>you... I read it last night and wrote "misleading" and "wrong" in the
>>margins in quite a few places !
>>
>> John
>>
>>At 10:04 05/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>>John,
>>>
>>>I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference
>>>for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will
>>>have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with
>>>Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).
>>>
>>>Let me know how this proceeds,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Original Filename: 962366892.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Noguer, Maria" <mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,'tar10 ' <tar10@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Precipitation map for the Box
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:08:12 +0100
<x-flowed>
Dear Chapter 10,
Sorry I missed out on the meeting.
In general I like the proposed Figure and suggested Box contents (and I
particularly agree that the diversity of downscaling methods and results
precludes using them as a basis of consolidated regional conclusions). I
also agree with others that it looks better with the +- signs
included. However, there are 2-3 points that concern me, mostly from the
perspective of climate scenarios (Chapter 13 - and also Chapter 9).
- it needs to be made very clear if any numbers are cited in the Box (e.g.
2-6degC for continental warming) that these refer to only *one* forcing
scenario, namely 1% p.a.
- rather than talk about GHG and SUL I would suggest the more conventional
nomenclature of GG and GS (the SUL runs are not just SUL forcing of course,
which might give that impression).
- another very important caveat concerns the GS (SUL) results - these all
stem from IS92a type aerosol forcing a la IPCC SAR. Most of the new SRES
forcings used in TAR and Chapter 9 for example have much smaller or even
positive SO4 forcing relative to 1990. In principle this could actually
switch the sign of the precip. changes in some regions. There is the
danger of inconsistency here between Chapter 9 (TAR aerosol effects) and
Chapter 10 Box (SAR aerosol effects) if this is not carefully
explained. For example, in CAM and JJA it appears that aerosols switch the
P change from 'strongly negative' to being 'uncertain' - but this is only
for IS92a aerosol forcing: it is not a conclusion that would be valid for
SRES aerosol forcing!
- as Filippo says, another key uncertainty not represented in the Box is
forcing uncertainty - again, Chapter 9 present a wide range of Tglobal
results, part of which relates to prior assumptions about which SRES
forcing materialises. We do a disservice if we give the impression in
Chapter 10 Box that these regional responses are independent of what future
forcing materialises. For example, under the lowest SRES forcing (B1) the
precip. response in some regions would revert back to being very small and
therefore indistinguishable from noise.
- with regard to temperature and Filippo's comment, Chapter 9 has global
maps of T change, averaged across the standard set of AOGCM experiments
(ranges are also shown). This is in effect the information being
sought-for by readers of Chapter 10 is it not. I would have thought that
back-references in the Box to Figure 9.9 would be sensible.
See you all in Victoria,
Mike
At 14:35 27/06/00 +0100, Noguer, Maria wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Here are two examples that Paul has put together regarding the map of
>changes in precipitation drawn from Figure 10.5
>Do you think it works? Please send me any suggestions that you may.
>
> <<Fig01a.pdf>> <<Fig01b.pdf>>
>
>Regards,
>
>Maria
>
>**********************************************************************
>Dr. Maria Noguer
>IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit
>Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
>The Met Office
>London Road
>Bracknell
>Berkshire, RG12 2SY
>UK
>
>Tel: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>e-mail: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>www.met-office.gov.uk
>www.ipcc.ch
>**********************************************************************
>
>
>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 962724639.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: stepan <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Manuskript of papes
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:30:39 +0600
Reply-to: stepan <stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Keith and Tim,
Thank you for the papers which I have received some days ago. They
produced an impression on me. It is really a big job. I do not have
time now to evaluate in details the results obtained. I want to make
two remarks only.
First, I think, that the method of standardisation is very
interesting, but it is disputable for the regions and sites where
trees grow under extreme climatic conditions, for example at the polar
timberline in Siberia. In such conditions the shape of age curve and
the age of maximum growth are very changeable in different trees
growing at the same site. It will be very interesting if you can
present the age curve obtained for one such site, for example for the
North Taymir Peninsula.
Second, I do not agree that in the northern Siberia the 15th century
summers were warmer than those observed in the 20th century, at least
in the Western and Middle Siberia. May be it is a result of
stundartisation?
We suggest to inscibe in list of references the next papers:
1. Vaganov E.A., Shiyatov S.G., Mazepa V.S. Dendroclimatic study in
Ural-Siberian Subarctic. - Novosibirsk "Nauka", Siberian
Publishing Firm RAS, 1996. - 246 p. (in Russian).
2. Mazepa V.S. Influence of Precipitations on Tree-Ring Growth of
Coniferous in Subarctic Regions of Eurasia //Lesovedenie, No. 6,
1999. - P.14-21. (in Russian).
Abstract. Influence of precipitation on tree-ring variability of coniferous
trees in Subarctic regions of Eurasia has been shown. Depending
on the region, significant ecological factor for tree growth are
precipitation of autumn-winter, winter-spring and summer periods.
Ecological explanation of such influence has been given. On the
base of relationships between tree-rings and rainfall the
reconstructions of precipitation in different regions of
Subarctic for last 200 years have been developed.
3. Mazepa V.S. Spatial Reconstruction of Summer Air Temperature in the North of
the West Siberia since 1690 on the base of Tree-Ring Data.
//Siberian ecological journal, No. 2, 1999. - P.xxx xxxx xxxx. (in Russian).
Abstract. Opportunity of annual reconstruction of summer thermal
conditions from Polar Urals (64-68
Original Filename: 962818260.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
______________________________________________
Original Filename: 963233839.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Frank Oldfield <frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: the ghost of futures past
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, whitlock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>Sorry this kept you awake...but I have also found it a rather alarming
graph. First, a disclaimer/explanation.
The graph patches together 3 things: Mann et al NH mean annual temps + 2
sigma standard error for AD1xxx xxxx xxxx, + instrumental data for 1xxx xxxx xxxx+
IPCC ("do not quote, do not cite" projections for GLOBAL temperature for
the next 100 years, relative to 1998. The range of shading represents
several models of projected emissions scenarios as input to GCMs, but the
GCM mean global temperature output (as I understand it) was then reproduced
by Sarah Raper's energy balance model, and it is those values that are
plotted. Keith pointed this out to me; I need to go back & read the IPCC
TAR to understand why they did that, but it makes no difference to the
first order result....neither does it matter that the projection is global
rather than NH....the important point is that the range of estimates far
exceeds the range estimated by Mann et al in their reconstruction. Keith
also said that the Hadley Center GCM runs are being archived at CRU, so it
ought to be possible to get that data and simply compute the NH variability
for the projected period & add that to the figure, but it will not add much
real information. However, getting such data would allow us to extract
(say) a summer regional series for the Arctic and to then plot it versus
the Holocene melt record from Agassiz ice cap....or....well, you can see
other possiblities.
[......At this point Keith Alverson throws up his hands in despair at the
ignorance of non-model amateurs...]
But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo
reconstruction. First, I should point out that we calibrated versus
1xxx xxxx xxxx, then "verified" the approach using an independent data set for
1xxx xxxx xxxx. The results were good, giving me confidence that if we had a
comparable proxy data set for post-1980 (we don't!) our proxy-based
reconstruction would capture that period well. Unfortunately, the proxy
network we used has not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/
tree ring sites where there has been a "decoupling" between the long-term
relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in
recent decades....this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just
claimed. We can only call on evidence from many other proxies for
"unprecedented" states in recent years (e.g. glaciers, isotopes in tropical
ice etc..). But there are (at least) two other problems -- Keith Briffa
points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration
period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it
unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary
period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat,
but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the
verification period, the biggest "miss" was an apparently very warm year in
the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes
criticisms of the "antis" difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen
to this level of sophistication, but they are "on the
scent"). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don't have the
long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in the
(very few) proxies that we used. We tried to demonstrate that this was not
a problem of the tree ring data we used by re-running the reconstruction
with & without tree rings, and indeed the two efforts were very similar --
but we could only do this back to about 1700. Whether we have the 1000
year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on
whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been
"warm", to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up
the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is
comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs
the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is
firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).
Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in
the long-term data set used -- maybe the envelope is really much larger,
due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves....again this
would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap.
In Ch 7 we will try to discuss some of these issues, in the limited space
available. Perhaps the best thing at this stage is to simply point out the
inherent uncertainties and point the way towards how these uncertainties
can be reduced. Malcolm & I are working with Mike Mann to do just that.
I would welcome other thoughts and comments on any of this!
Ray
At 01:34 PM 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Salut mes amis,
>
>I've lost sleep fussing about the figure coupling Mann et al. (or any
>alternative climate-history time series) to the IPCC scenarios. It seems to
>me to encapsulate the whole past-future philosophical dilemma that bugs me
>on and off (Ray - don't stop reading just yet!), to provide potentially the
>most powerful peg to hang much of PAGES future on, at least in the eyes of
>funding agents, and, by the same token, to offer more hostages to fortune
>for the politically motivated and malicious. It also links closely to the
>concept of being inside or outside 'the envelope' - which begs all kinds of
>notions of definition. Given what I see as its its prime importance, I
>therefore feel the need to understand the whole thing better. I don't know
>how to help move things forward and my ideas, if they have any effect at
>all, will probably do the reverse. At least I might get more sleep having
>unloaded them, so here goes......
>
>The questions in my mind centre round the following issues. If I've got any
>one of them wrong, what follows in each section can be disregarded or (more
>kindly) set straight for my benefit.
>
>1. How can we justify bridging proxy-based reconstruction via the last bit
>of instrumental time series to future model-based scenarios.
>
>2. How can the incompatibilities and logical inconsistencies inherent in
>the past-future comparisons be reduced?
>
>3. More specifically, what forms of translation between what we know about
>the past and the scenarios developed for the future deal adequately with
>uncertainty and variability on either side of the 'contemporary hinge' in a
>way that improves comparability across the hinge.
>
>4. Which, if any, scenarios place our future in or out of 'the envelope'
>in terms of experienced climate as distinct from calculated forcing? This
>idea of an envelope is an engaging concept, easy to state in a quick and
>sexy way (therefore both attractive and dangerous); the future could leave
>us hoisted by our own petard unless it is given a lot more thought.
>
>1. I am more or less assuming that this can already be addressed from data
>available and calculations completed, by pointing to robust calibration
>over the chosen time interval and perhaps looking separately at variability
>pre 1970, if the last 3 decades really do seem to have distorted the
>response signatures for whatever reasons. I imagine developing this line of
>argument could feed into the 'detection' theme in significant ways.
>
>2 & 3. This is where life gets complicated. For the past we have biases,
>error bars that combine sources of uncertainty, and temporal variability.
>For the future we have no variability, simply a smooth, mean, monotonic
>trend to a target 'equilibrium' date. Bandwidths of uncertainty reflect
>model construction and behaviour. So we are comparing apples and oranges
>when we make any statement about the significance of the past record for
>the future on the basis of the graph. Are there ways of partially
>overcoming this by developing different interactions between past data and
>future models?
>
>My own thinking runs as follows: Take variability. Do we need to wait for
>models to capture this before building it into future scenarios? This seems
>unnecessary to me, especially since past variability will be the validation
>target for the models. Is there really no way of building past variability
>into the future projections? One approach would be to first smooth the
>past record on the same time-span as the future scenarios. This would get
>us to first base in terms of comparability, but a very dull and pretty
>useless first base in and of itself. It would, however, allow all kinds of
>calculations of inter-annual variability relative to a mean time line of
>the 'right' length. This in turn could be used in several ways, for
>example:
> - build the total range of past variability into the uncertainty
>bands of each future scenario.
> - take the 30,50 or 100 year period (depending on the scenario for
>comparison) during which
> there was the greatest net variability, or the greatest net fall
>in Temperature, or the
> greatest net increase in T. and superimpose/add this data-based
>variability on the mean
> trends.
> - take the n-greatest positive anomalies relative to the trend and
>use them to define an upper
> limit of natural variability to compare with the (to my mind)
>more realistic future scenarios.
>
>These and cleverer variants I cannot begin to think up seem to me to hold
>out the possibility of linking future projections of GHG forcing with what
>we know about natrual variability in reasonably realistic ways and perhaps
>even of redefining the 'past data-future scenario' relationship in ways
>that benefit both the paleo-community and the quality of future
>projections.
>
>4. I also think the above kinds of exercise might eventually lead us
>towards a better definition of 'the envelope' and more confidence in
>deciding what is outside and what is not. The same sort of approach can be
>taken towards projections of P/E I imagine and, more particularly, at
>regional rather than global or hemispheric level.
>
>Sorry if all this sounds stupid or obvious. I got afflicted with the 'need
>to share' bug.
>
>Frank
>
>
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html
>
Raymond S. Bradley
Professor and Head of Department
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climate System Research Center Web Site:
<<http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/climate.html>http://www.geo.umass.edu/cli
mate/climate.html
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site (1999):
<http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html>http://www.geo.umass.edu/climat
e/paleo/html
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 963250650.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Frank Oldfield <frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: the ghost of futures past
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, whitlock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Frank,
My apologies...
Sorry, no, I hadn't looked in detail at your original email to Ray,
only his response, and simply wanted to note that others have already
jumped on this bandwagon, so Ray deserves neither all the blame,
nor all the glory, depending on your perspective :)
And, as I stated, IPCC clearly considers such a plot not appropriate
for prime time--so you won't see anything like this in the TAR.
WHat I find most useful, howevever, along the lines of what you discuss, is
using empirical reconstructions as a baseline for comparison against model
simulations of both free and forced variability. A number of studies have
attempted this recently, and the results are encouraging from the point of
view that (a) the coupled models appear to be getting the internal
variability of mean global/hemispheric temperatures about right [this leads
us in the
direction of having greater faith in future scenarios from such models]
and (b) the models,forced with paleoestimates of past volcanic, solar, and
GHG radiative forcings, appear to be able to explain more than 50% of the
variance in the paleo temperature reconstructions. A paper to appear in
this Friday's "Science" by Tom Crowley describes some impressive results
along these lines.
It is agreed that hydrological change and regional temperature anomalies
superimposed on any large-scale temperature changes are of key
importance from any practical point of view. And I think this
is what we're all working towards, more regionally detailed
reconstructions of climate fields (temperature, drought, slp, etc.)
in past centuries. Clearly more high-resolution proxy evidence is
necessary, in both time and space. I make many of these very points in a
"Perspectives"
article also to appear in Science on Friday, accompanying Tom Crowley's
article.
Will appreciate any comments on it. Hope the above provides some
clarification.
cheers,
mike
At 06:59 PM 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Mike,
>
>Not sure if your reply implied you were taking my points seriously or not -
>I'm not even sure if Ray sent them on to you or you just received his
>reply! My reactions to the graphs on the website are that the temperature
>one does not address my points (but it does not aim to and I fully agree
>that if the projections are sufficiently reliable it hardly needs to!),
>that P/E is likely to be much more important than temperature per se and
>that the historical sea-level curve is not really acceptable - very much
>more high resolution work needs to be done on that before we have any real
>sense of past variability on decadal to century timescales.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frank
>
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html
>
>
>
>At 06:59 PM 7/10/00 +0200, Frank Oldfield wrote:
>Hi Mike,
>
>Not sure if your reply implied you were taking my points seriously or not -
>I'm not even sure if Ray sent them on to you or you just received his
>reply! My reactions to the graphs on the website are that the temperature
>one does not address my points (but it does not aim to and I fully agree
>that if the projections are sufficiently reliable it hardly needs to!),
>that P/E is likely to be much more important than temperature per se and
>that the historical sea-level curve is not really acceptable - very much
>more high resolution work needs to be done on that before we have any real
>sense of past variability on decadal to century timescales.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frank
>
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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: 965139790.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: glossy
Date: Tue Aug 1 10:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith
I've sent you a few slides taken by Hakan Grudd as promised . I think these should be supplemented by a bit of a colourful timeseries - part of a chronology. It could be a piece of the Tornetrask series (northern Sweden) from where the pictures are taken - but I think a section of the 3-region average (Tornetrask,Yamal, Taimyr) possibly showing the 563 A.D. would be better. So I am sending a couple post script files and a suggested colour scheme. What do you think? I suggest a one hundred year section of the average series , showing annual values. Note that in these Figures , A.D. 536 is marked by a filled triange. Just showing the initiation of a dramatic cooling in A.D. 536 and the widespread cold summers of the 540's (a major vocano? if perhaps not as David Keys makes out in his recent book), or a comet ( as Mike Baille says in his?) , is quite appealing.
Keith
Original Filename: 965416206.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: climate reconstructions
Date: Fri Aug 4 15:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Fortunat
I am pleased to hear from you. I have still not been in touch about the data I showed you
in Vienna! As for your question - of course I will send the series you mention - but it is
only an average of three regional tree-ring chronologies ( Northern Sweden, Yamal,Taimyr)
and not calibrated in terms of temperature. Nevertheless, it is representative of summer
warmth over a large Russian region, We have recently submitted a paper describing a
different standardization approach ( for preserving low frequency variance) applied to a
big high-latitude network of tree-density data. This yields regional (up to 600-year)
calibrated reconstructions and a hemispheric curve - all representing april-sept season. I
have asked my colleague Tim Osborn here to send the data and a copy of the papers to you, I
am on the verge of leaving for 2 weeks so if you need more information contact him.
As for other areas of the world - Phil Jones has an alternative Hemisphere curve and there
are some southern hemisphere chronologies ( temp. sensitive). There are short precip
reconstructions for several spots - but systematic Palmer Drought Indices for the U.S. from
about 1700. I will be happy to talk on the phone about all these in two weeks.
best wishes
Keith
At 11:01 AM 7/19/00 +0200, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
How are you? Hope everything is going well.
I am writing because I am interested in your climate reconstruction for
the last millennium.
The Etheridge ice core data of CO2 indicate that CO2 was below average
in the 17th and 18th centuries by a few ppm. Very few (1-2 points) of
ice core C13 data (Francey tellus, 99) suggest that this drawdown was
caused by additional terrestrial carbon storage (Joos et al, GRL, 99;
Trudinger, Tellus, 99). We try to investigate this suggestion using the
Lund-Potsdam-Jena dynamical global vegetation model (LPJ-DGVM).
A diploma student of mine, Philippe Bruegger, has used the Mann et al
annual mean temperature patterns (2 EOFs only) in combination with the
Etheridge CO2 record to drive the LPJ model. Instead of absorbing
carbon, the model is releasing carbon due to a reduced CO2 fertilization
effect in the model that outweights any climatic effects. Thus, the
model results is clearly not compatible with the ice core results.
Obviously, the study is hampered by the limitation of the climate
reconstruction (as well as by the few C13 ice core data). Instead of
changes in monthly values of Temp and precip (and cloud cover) changes
in ANNUAL mean temperature were used to force LPJ.
Could you or Phil Jones provide alternative forcing fields that focus
e.g. more on summer temperature? Any info about precipitation?
I would also appreciate very much to obtain reprints of your most recent
articles, namely the article in Quaternary Science Rev. 2000.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Regards, Fortunat
--
NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER;
Fortunat Joos, Climate and Environmental Physics
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Internet:
[1]http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/
References
1. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/