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: 965671134.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: mill records
Date: Mon Aug 7 13:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom and Mike,
What Tom said is essentially correct. Tim Osborn here recalibrated
each series, as a composite, against the same NH series for the April-
Sept average north of 20N (using land only data). All this does is
rescale the series as it is simple regression (y=ax+b). Because y is
based on temps wrt xxx xxxx xxxxthis means that the axis is then wrt 61-90.
Doing this we can then add the same instrumental temp series. It also
brings the series together and the web page was just for illustrative
purposes. For Mike's series you get pretty much the same result by
subtracting 0.12 from Mike's numbers as this is the difference between
Mike's base period and 1961-90.
There is nothing sinister going on ! I'll summarise this to Rob.
Cheers
Phil
PS I seem to be stirring up loads of emails about historical data. You
are both on those emails so you can see what crap is being written and my
(time wasting for me) replies. Apologies for replying. I should know better
and keep quiet. We can all expect more of this if IPCC stays in roughly
the same form pre-Victoria. It's relatively easy to knock historical
records, so as long as it gets no worse than this we'll be fine.
Original Filename: 965750123.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "S. Fred Singer" <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjm8x@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>Dear Ray
You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert
the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can't
guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better
understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also
throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the "hockey stick'
temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.
In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and
ARCO discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.
You quote the "progressive" Business Council approvingly: "We accept the
views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and
environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address
its consequences." And from BP chairman : "the time to consider the policy
dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases
and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot
be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."
I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don't
seem to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is.
You call for the US to take leadership in stabilizing the
climate. Perhaps the government will turn to you to learn how to do
this. A far less ambitious goal would be to stabilize the atmospheric
concentration of CO2. According to the IPCC this would require an emission
reduction of 60 to 80 percent (with respect to 19xxx xxxx xxxxWORLDWIDE.
Have you ever considered the consequences of such a policy -- assuming it
could really be adopted?
Best wishes ,
Fred
**********************************
At 10:34 AM 8/1/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> WASHINGTON, DC -- In August 1997, a few months before the Kyoto
> Conference on Climate Change, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)
> helped launch a massive advertising campaign designed to prevent the
> United States from endorsing any meaningful agreement to reduce global
> carbon emissions. This group included in its ranks some of the world's most
> powerful corporations and trade associations involved with fossil
> fuels. The
> campaign effectively undermined public support of U.S. efforts to lead the
> international effort to stabilize climate.
> While the public image of the GCC was that of a unified group, there was
> dissent. John Browne, Chairman of British Petroleum, on May 19, 1997,
> announced that "the time to consider the policy dimensions of policy change
> is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is
> conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is
> taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have
> reached that point."
> BP withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition. Dupont had already left.
> The following year, Royal Dutch Shell left.
> In 1999, Ford withdrew from the GCC. A company spokesman noted,
> "Over the course of time, membership in the Global Climate Coalition has
> become something of an impediment for Ford Motor Company to
> achieving our environmental objectives."
> In rapid succession in the early months of 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco,
> and General Motors announced that they too were leaving the Coalition.
> This accelerating exodus reflected the conflict emerging within GCC ranks
> between firms that were clinging to the past and those that were planning
> for the future.
> Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont,
> joined a progressive new group, the Business Environmental Leadership
> Council, which says, "We accept the views of most scientists that enough is
> known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for
> us to take actions to address its consequences."
> Membership requires companies to have programs for reducing carbon
> emissions. BP Amoco, for example, plans to bring its carbon emissions to
> 10 percent below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of
> roughly 5 percent for industrial countries.
> Dupont has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent
> and plans to reduce them by 65 percent by 2010.
> There is a growing acceptance among the key energy players that the
> world is in the early stages of the transition from a carbon-based to a
> hydrogen-based energy economy. In February 1999, ARCO CEO
> Michael Bowlin said, "We've embarked on the beginning of the Last Days
> of the Age of Oil." He then discussed the need to convert our
> carbon-based energy economy into a hydrogen-based energy economy.
> With the organization that so effectively undermined U.S. leadership in
> Kyoto no longer a dominant player in the global climate debate, the
> stage is
> set for the United States to resume leadership of the global climate
> stabilization effort.
>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 Page:
><http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/climate.html>
>Paleoclimatology Book Web Site (1999):
>http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
9812 Doulton Court
Fairfax, VA 22032
http://www.sepp.org
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
e-fax xxx xxxx xxxx(your fax will be sent as email to my
computer)
**********
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
Thomas H. Huxley
**********
"That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!" - W. Pauli
**********
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 966015630.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Mann etal
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:40:30 +0100
Cc: jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Chris and John (and Mike for info),
I'm basically reiterating Mike's email. There seem to be two lots of
suggestions doing the rounds. Both are basically groundless.
1. Recent paleo doesn't show warming.
This basically stems back to Keith Briffa's paper in Nature in 1998
(Vol 391, ppxxx xxxx xxxx). In this it was shown that northern boreal forest
conifers don't pick up all the observed warming since about the late
1950s. It was suggested that some other factor or a combination of
factors related to human-induced pollution (e.g. nitrogen deposition,
higher levels of CO2, ozone depletion etc). Hence in a new paper
submitted to JGR recently we develop a new standardization approach
(called age banding) and produce a large-scale reconstruction
(calibrated over the period 1xxx xxxx xxxxagainst NH land north of 20N)
back to 1402. If you want a copy of this can you email Keith and he'll
send copies once he's back from holiday.
This background is to illustrate how Singer et al distort things. The
new reconstruction only runs to 1960 as did earlier ones based solely
on tree-ring density. All the other long series (Mike's, Tom Crowley's
and mine) include other proxy information (ice cores, corals,
historical records, sediments and early instrumental records as well as
tree-ring width data, which are only marginally affected). All these
series end around 1980 or in the early 1980s. We don't have paleo data
for much of the last 20 years. It would require tremendous effort and
resources to update a lot of the paleo series because they were collected
during the 1970s/early 1980s.
It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike
sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of
the millennium - and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there
is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn't record the last 20 years
of warming, as we don't have enough of the proxy series after about 1980.
http://www.co2.science.org/edit/editor.html takes the argument further
saying that as trees don't see all the warming since about 1960 the
instrumental records recently must be in error (i.e. this group believes
the trees and not the instrumental records). This piece by Idso and
Idso seems to want to have the argument whichever suits them.
2. Everyone knows it was cooler during the Little Ice Age and warmer in
the Medieval Warm Period.
All of the millennial-long reconstructions show these features, but they
are just less pronounced than people believed in the 1960s and 1970s,
when there was much less paleo data and its spatial extent was limited
to the eastern US/N.Atlantic/European and Far East areas. The issue
seems to revolve around the average temperatures we have for earlier
centuries in the millennium. I use the argument that for the instrumental
period we need sites located over much of the NH (land and marine)
regions in order to claim we have a reasonable record for the whole
hemisphere. We wouldn't dream of extending the NH series based on longer
European records and in the extreme just CET, so with the paleo data we
need records from as many regions as possible. The coverage still could
be better, but it is far better than it was 25 years ago, when the ideas
embodied in the MWP and LIA became sort of mainstream.
The typical comments I've heard, generally relate to the MWP, and say
that crops and vines were grown further north than they are now (the
vines grown in York in Viking times etc). Similarly, statements about
frost fairs and freezing of the Baltic so armies could cross etc. Frost
fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal
limit was at the old London Bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge
was rebuilt around the 1840s and the frost fairs stopped. If statements
continue to be based on historical accounts they will be easy to knock
down with all the usual phrases such as the need for contemporary
sources, reliable chroniclers and annalists, who witnessed the events
rather than through hearsay. As you all know various people in CRU
(maybe less so now) have considerable experience in dealing with this
type of data. Christian Pfister also has a lifetime of experience of
this. There is a paper coming out from the CRU conference with a
reconstruction of summer and winter temps for Holland back to about
AD 800, which shows the 20th century warmer than all others. Evidence is
sparser before 1400 but the workers at KNMI (Aryan van Engelen et al.)
take all this into account.
I hope this is of use and hasn't been a total waste of time.
In Victoria last month, did you discuss how the policymaker's summary will
report the millennial temperature series ? Are there any tentative
phrases you're working on a la Balance of evidence etc ? Is Chapter 12
thinking of a new sentence to supercede the above ? Any sentence on the
millennium record should be in Ch. 2.
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: 966633586.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Benjamin Santer <e782144@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: JGR paper
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ben,
Here a few main points about the paper. I've ignored minor English/wording
things I spotted.
p4 It seems better to put the other anthro forcings before the natural
get discussed. (top of page). ie Other heteorogeneous.. sentence should be
before Stratospheric aerosols.
p4 Bottom. Could reference Delworth et al to illustrate the 'perfect'
model argument. They reproduced reality 1 out of 5 attempts.
p5 Don't like phenomenology of ENSO, change to ENSO sequences ?
p6 middle. Emphasise that withe models you can look at a lot longer series.
p6 bottom. Whether the model was really 'perfect' Michaels would find
some problem.
p7 2/3rd way down. Say something about Santer et al (2000a).
p9 Don't think you need to say you got the SOI from CRU.
p10 ECHAM4 has solar, but how much does it change by. Or is it constant ?
p11 end of 2. Presumably in combining the SAT and SST you used anomalies.
Worthwhile saying.
pxxx xxxx xxxxSection 3 gets to read like a recipe. It is important, but it
might be better as an Appendix. Also I guess the amount of detail depends
on success of other submissions. I think the section needs reworking a
bit as the style changes somewhat.
Have you considered whether alpha and tau and t(ramp) can differ by a
month between the surface and 2LT.
The lag you use is 7 months. The science paper of Tom's uses 6 months.
In the later tables I wasn't clear how raw and nofilt relate to each
other. I guess all the Tables need longer captions with more
explanation. I couldn't figure out what the () numbers referred to in
the Tables.
p17 I wonder if it's possible to show in a diagram that the iterative
scheme works and you're getting to a global rather local minimum.
p19 The higher 'ratios' get nearer to my 2, but only at the high end.
p20 The last 4 numbers in Table 3 have been multiplied by 0.1 .
p23 An interesting aside would be to show in one of the Tables how
much change in the observations is due to volcanoes (ie show how
much cooling due to this there has been). People will quote this
value. It shows that 'natural' factors (solar/volcanoes) have led
to cooling as solar effects will be very small over this time.
p24 Emphasise later that models and obs all show 2LT level
changes more than surface.
p24 Say something about how good ECHAM4 is for ENSO, or refer to a paper.
pxxx xxxx xxxxAll good stuff, but it does take a time to read. Not a very
helpful comment, I know, but I'm being a referee.
p33 Does Fig 7 use the same data as in Fig 5 ? One shwing things
through time, the other as a distribution.
p35 PCM crept into the Hamburg section, so it should be said here when
the GISS section starts.
p38 Quantify the volcanic cooling. I mentioned this earlier.
p39 Not clear what independent components are wrt Smith et al (2000).
p42 Surface data has errors too.
p43 The last sentence of the acknowledgements is like a red rag to a bull
for Michaels. Even the perceptive adjective will not placate him.
Have to go home now. I think I've covered most things I noticed.
Have a good weekend !
Cheers
Phil
Original Filename: 967041809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:xxx xxxx xxxx(PDT)
Cc: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, DEASTERL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across
various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way,
"possible" still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or
very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is
probably OK--but "quite possible" conveys medium confidence better--but
then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the
guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of
disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>
> Steve, I agree with your assesement of inconclusive --- quite possible is
> much better and we use 'possible' in the US National Assessment. Surveys
> has shown that the term 'possible' is interpreted in this range by the
> public.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> on 08/23/2000 03:02:33 AM
>
>
>
> To: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter
> <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> Tom Karl/NCDC, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: THC collapse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1,
> particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels--but please
> get rid of the ridiculous "inconclusive" for the .34 to .66 subjective
> probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay
> persons--read decisionmakers--since that probability range represents
> medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like "quite
> possible" is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well
> to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
> misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of
> increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all
> less than .66 category it was in the SOD.
> I do have some concerns with the THC issue as dealt with here--echoing
> the comments of Tim Carter and Thomas Stocker. I fully agree that the
> likelihood of a complete collapse in the THC by 2100 is very remote, but
> to leave it at that is very misleading to policymakers given than there is
> both empirical and modeling evidence that such events can be triggered by
> phenomena in one century, but the occurrence of the event may be delayed
> a century or two more. Given also that the likelihood of a collapse
> depends on several uncertain parameters--CO2 stabilization level, CO2
> buildup rate, climate sensitivity, hydrological sensitivity and initial
> THC overturning rates, it is inconceivable to me that we could be 99% sure
> of anything--implied by the "exceptionally unlikely" label--given the
> plausibility of an unhappy combo of climate sensitivity, slower than
> current A/OGCMs initial THC strength and more rapid CO2 increase
> scenarios. Also, if 21st century actions could trigger 22nd century
> irreversible consequences, it would be irresponsible of us to not mention
> this possibility in a footnote at least, and not to simply let the matter
> rest with a very low likelihood of a collapse wholly within the 21st
> century. So my view is to add a footnote to this effect and be sure to
> convey the many paramenters that are uncertain which determine the
> likelihood of this event.
> Thanks again for the good work on this improtant table. Cheers, Steve
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Thomas Stocker wrote:
>
> > DEar Jerry, Tim and Ron et al
> >
> > I agree that an abrupt collapse - abrupt meaning within less than a
> decade, say
> > - has not been simulated by any climate model (3D and intermediate
> complexity)
> > in response to increasing CO2. Some models do show for longer
> integrations a
> > complete collapse that occurs within about xxx xxxx xxxxyears. If you put that
> into
> > context of the apparent stability of THC during the last 10,000 years or
> so,
> > this is pretty "abrupt".
> >
> > Following up on the discussion regarding THC collapse, I think the
> statement Ron
> > apparently added to Ch9 needs to be made more specific. In order to keep
> Ch7 and
> > Ch9 consistent, I propose to Ron the following revision:
> >
> > "It seems that the likelihood of a collapse of the THC by year 2100 is
> less
> > than previously thought in the SAR based on the AOGCM results to date."
> >
> > There is really no model basis to extend this statement beyond 2100 as
> evidenced
> > by the figures that we show in TAR. There are many models that now run up
> to
> > 2060, some up to 2100, but very few longer.
> >
> > Also I should add for your information, that we add to Ch7 a sentence:
> >
> > "Models with reduced THC appear to be more susceptible for a
> > shutdown."
> >
> > Models indicate that the THC becomes more susceptible to collapse if
> previously
> > reduced (GFDL results by Tziperman, Science 97 and JPO 99). This is
> important as
> > "collapse unlikely by 2100" should not tempt people to conclude that THC
> > collapse is hence not an issue. The contrary is true: reduction means
> > destabilisation.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > thomas
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Stocker
> > Climate and Environmental Physics stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Physics Institute, University of Bern phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > Sidlerstrasse xxx xxxx xxxx NEW fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> > 3012 Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94xxx xxxx xxxxU.S.A.
>
> Tel: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
> Fax: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
> shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
>
>
>
------
Stephen H. Schneider
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94xxx xxxx xxxxU.S.A.
Tel: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (650)xxx xxxx xxxx
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 967231160.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: cool bristlecone, etc
Date: Fri Aug 25 15:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi again Malcolm
I am forwarding the data in another message (from Tim). I am sending the whole lot for
simplicity. Please don't pass on until we hear whether the paper is accepted or not.
Remember that , although they are strongly correlated with them, these data are not
identical in the high frequency domain to the equivalent data standardised using say a
Hugershoff function. The main purpose here was to extract long-timescale variations and I
still consider the inter annual to decadal variability to be better defined using the
'traditional' approach. For a first look anyway these are fine
best wishes
Keith
At 04:14 AM 8/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
It was good to talk with you this morning. This is a reminder about
sending your Western North America banded record as you
suggested. I suspect that you are right to think that it would eventually
be best to use a customized banded set, but as a start, I think it would
be good to compare the WNW record with the mean series Graybill
and Idso used in their 1993 paper, and with the single site Campito
Mountain record. I'll start with a simple graphical comparison and
then move to comparing waveforms extracted by, for example, SSA.
My hope is that we can fairly rapidly generate a note to something like
GRL or JoC's new short format, putting a believable version of these
records out there for general use.
Please reply to the mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx address. I'm sending it
from my other address as well as a 'belt-and-braces' approach
because of recent e-mail problems. Looking forward to working on
this with you, Cheers, Malcolm
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
xxx xxxx xxxx
fax xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 968127296.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Ben Matthews" <ben@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: interactive climate science-policy website,
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:14:56 +0100
Reply-to: "Ben Matthews" <ben@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Mike,
Regarding my last mesage,
In case you wonder about my background, I have attached a 2-page version of
my CV, in rich-text format, file bjhmcv2.rtf
My experience, ranging from laboratory work with CO2 fluxes and marine
algae, through to organising events at the UN climate negotiations, combined
with a strong mathematical and linguistic background, is a somewhat unusual
combination which perhaps makes me more a "jack of all trades" than a
specialist. On the other hand, this has given me an interdisciplinary
overview which may be valuable for bridging the gap between science and
policy, appreciating dilemmas and uncertainties, and communicating these
around the world.
However, Kyoto left me very disillusioned by the apparent lack of connection
between climate science and policy -in the protocol there was not one
sentence discussing what we need to do to stabilise the climate in the long
term, based on scientific predictions. This made me wonder, what is the use
of my intricate research on air-sea CO2 exchange, if the policymakers ignore
even the most basic knowledge? I left UEA and started working at home,
developing interactive web graphics showing the link between per-capita
emissions and global climate change. Eventually, I realised that working
alone was neither effective nor sustainable, and this has led to unfortunate
personal circumstances. Now I need the stimulus of working again in a team,
in an institute, even if this requires sacrificing of my own ideas. I am not
just looking for a "job", it is more important to me, to rejoin the research
community, and feel I am making the best use of my skills. I hope you can
help, if only to discuss the possibilites.
I have also attached a zip package containing the interactive java applets
which I developed,
it's only 90K including supporting webpages and historical data.
Once unzipped (all in one directory), you have to open the file
"starthere.html" in any java-enabled web browser.
I can send a self-extracting windows version if you prefer, on the other
hand you may find it easier just to look at the website
www.chooseclimate.org/applet/
Currently, this uses only very crude formulae loosely based on IPCC SAR and
GCI's C&C, -but the presentation is unique: you can adjust the parameters
just by dragging controls with a mouse, and all the linked plots respond
instantly. It's hard to describe in words, which is why I encourage you to
have a look.
Ben
****************
Dr Ben Matthews ben@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Matthews <ben@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: 04 September 2000 13:38
Subject: Re: interactive climate science-policy website,
> Thanks for this note Ben.
>
> I would be interested in talking about your ideas at some stage,
> particularly in relation
> to our outreach strategy. We are appointing a Communications Manager very
> soon and you are
> welcome to attend the presentations as listed below:
>
> I would suggest that we arrange a meeting a little further down the line,
> once the Centre
> has started operating in its new premises after 2 October.
>
> Mike
>
> ______________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachcca21.zip"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachbjhmcv2.rtf"
Original Filename: 968367517.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: j.kohler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Tyndall RP2 proposal, final version
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 18:58:37 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: n.adger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mike
I have attached the final version of the RP2 outline proposal on the
interaction between the flexible mechanisms and the WTO trade rules.
Please jettison the previous draft.
As noted earlier, Neil and I see this project as delivering multiple
benefits to the Tyndall Centre on the basis of a limited, 'value-added'
investment, not least in terms of tying Shell International to the Centre.
We also highlight the suggestion of a workshop on common themes to
be held in a couple of years' time to link related projects across the
research programmes (though this is not covered by the current proposal).
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/
______________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachtyndall11.doc"
Original Filename: 968450529.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Griggs, Dave" <djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'TAR CLA list' <tar_cla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'TAR LA list' <tar_la@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Uncertainties again
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:02:09 +0100
Cc: 'TAR Review Editors' <tar_re@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Watson, Bob'" <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Moss, Richard'" <richard.moss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Houghton, Sir John'" <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Albritton, Dan'" <aldiroff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Swart, Rob'" <Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Leary, Neil'" <nleary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'McCarthy, Jim'" <James_j_mccarthy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Stone, John'" <john.stone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear CLAs/LAs
As you all know, in my Victoria follow-up e-mail of 2 August I presented a
summary of the agreement we reached in Victoria on a common use of
terminology to express degree of likelihood in the TAR. At that time the
word or term to be used for the central box of 33 to 66% had not been agreed
and the word "inconclusive" was proposed for that category. Since that time
there has been a lengthy discussion, including Working Groups II and III,
regarding the best word to be used in this category. To cut a long story
short the term we would now like you to use for this middle category is
"medium likelihood". I am sorry I have not been able to canvas this around
all of you but from the discussions this term was agreed by all to be the
best compromise. In particular, it clearly maintains the scale as one of
degrees of likelihood, whereas inconclusive could be confused as to whether
a degree of likelihood was being expressed or whether there was insufficient
information to conclude a likelihood. I attach a table showing what should
now be the final scale.
During the discussions it became clear that in addition to making likelihood
statements it is sometimes more appropriate to express statements in terms
of a degree of confidence, and indeed several chapters use this terminology.
As you know the Uncertainties Guidance paper by Richard Moss and Steve
Schneider recommends a scale of confidence from Very Low to Very High
confidence. WGII in particular are using this scale and so I would ask that,
if you choose to express things in terms of a level of confidence, that you
use the terms as they are laid down in the guidance paper. This in no way
affects the use of the likelihood scale where this is more appropriate. For
example, if we are highly uncertain how well a model handles a particular
process, we may have "very low confidence" in a model result which is highly
dependent on this process. If we have no other corroborating evidence we may
therefore conclude that there is insufficient information to assign a
likelihood in this case. By following the guidance paper when expressing a
level of confidence we will hopefully improve the consistency between the
two reports. Incidentally, if there are instances in the WGII report where
they are able express degrees of likelihood they are going to try and use
our scale.
Thirdly, there has been a lot of discussion about the impression which the
likelihood scale, if taken out of context, could give for low likelihood,
high consequence events, such as a disintegration of the WAIS or a shutdown
of the THC in the next 100years. Please bear in mind that policymakers must
balance likelihood and consequence in deciding whether or not to take
action. Therefore please take extra care when considering text for these
types of issues as simply expressing them as "extremely unlikely" does not
give the full picture. For example, you could say an aircraft was "extremely
unlikely" to crash on its next flight but if there was a 1% chance I would
not fly on it. While it is a true statement the right balance is only
achieved when the consequence is also brought in to put the risk in context.
I apologise for this late change to our scale but I hope you all agree that
it is an improvement. If anything is not clear about any of the above please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards
Dave
<<Agreed terminology2.doc>>
-----------------------------------------
Dr David Griggs
IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit
Hadley Centre
Met. Office
London Road
Bracknell
Berks, RG12 2SY
UK
Tel +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-----------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachAgreed terminology2.doc"
Original Filename: 968691929.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell International
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
levels.
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/
______________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachshell.doc"
Original Filename: 968705882.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Whetton <phw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: On "what to do?"
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Dear All
we heard the opinions of most LAs, namely Jens, Richard, Linda, Peter,
and Hans as well as some interesting interpretations of my email (Linda says:
" You seem to be assuming that the most desirable result is
if the SRES results have no contrasts with the IS92a results.
I don't understand your reasoning on this." I do not have any particular desire
on the new data. We said that one thing to look at was the agreement with
the old data and thus I noticed that relaxing the criteria would yield a greater
agreement). I would say that a broad range of opinions was covered, from
one where the SRES should essentially be commented upon concerning their
agreement with the old data to one in which all the old stuff should be
replaced with SRES stuff. Some people want to make the BOX more central,
others want to get rid of it.
Given this, I would like to add my own opinion developed through the weekend.
First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather
unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed
material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions).
I realize that chapter 9
is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the
fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point
that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science
(which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results.
The softened condition that the models
themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese
model for example is very different from the published one which gave results
not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model
was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very
little rules and almost
anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the
IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable
that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.
Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.
Going to the problem at hand, I have a proposal that is in between the
two extreme positions. I think the SRES runs should be included and
highlighted in the chapter, but should not be the only source of our
conclusions, partially also for the reasons I state above (I seem to
remember that in Chapter 9 the SRES results were only a small section
in the whole chapter in which it was said that they essentially confirmed
previous findings). Also let me say
that, as it currently stands, the box is essentially meaningless, because
it simply repeats what is already said in the executive summary.
With these premises here is my proposal:
1) We leave 10.3 more or less as it is, a discussion of published science
on model behavior, uncertainty, some climate change runs.
Perhaps we shorten it or something like that. I am not in favor of
presenting Giorgi and Francisco-type plots for the SRES runs for the simple
reason that they do not convey effectively what readers want. Proof is that we
had all the plots there and we were accused of not having any results in
the chapter !! I think people want something more direct, i.e. plots similar
to the +/- one we had proposed in the BOX.
2) We make the BOX only with SRES results, i.e. the BOX becomes a
summary presentation of the SRES projections. In this way we accomplish
several objectives: we highlight the SRES results in a way that is of direct
impact (after all this is what working group II people are really interested
in); we can explicitly state that the results are preliminary and sort
of differentiate them from the more IPCC-proper chapter material (of course
we are not going to say so); we
have a natural place for the BOX (end of 10.3), do not need to rewrite
the whole thing and just need to make the proper connections with the
rest of the chapter. All and all I think this is a feasible and clean
solution. The rest of the material in the old box (sections a and c) was
really just general material repetitive of what we were saying in various
other part of the chapter.
3) In the executive summary we summarize what we believe are the
confident patterns from the combination of old and new runs.
As to what should the SRES box look like. I hear people liked a lot
our +/- plot, so we do the same types of plots, both for precip and
temperature, one for the A2 and one for B2 scenarios, plus one or
two paragraphs explaining the plots. This will portray agreement not
only across models but also across what are now considered plausible
scenarios. We can easily fit 4 plots in a page
and if need be fit the 1-2 paragraphs on another page (I do not see
anything wrong with a 1.5 page box).
For precipitation I think the old criteria are fine. For temperature this
is what I propose. In the precip plots we had 4 sub-categories, (+, -
large change, small change) plus the inconclusive, or whatever we
decided to call it. Similarly, we could do 4 categories here
1) Amplification positive, 2) Amplification negative (i.e. less than
the global average), 3) strong amplification (> 50%), 4) small amplification
(between 25 and 50 %). I cannot visualize it at the moment, but I think
this will work to figures analogous to the precip ones. Correct me if I
am wrong.
To the two technical issues:
1) Do we soften our requirement, i.e. from n-1 to n-2 model agreement?
I do not feel strongly about it but am more in favor of not softening
the criterion. We are looking for confidence and model agreement
and should have stringent requirements on it.
2) Do we include the outliers in the analysis? I say yes, not having
time for more detailed analysis as to why they should not be included.
In Chapter 9 they are presented as bracketing the answers not as being wrong.
This is the problem of not having published research on this. perhaps a paper
would have excluded them on scientific grounds, but can we at this point?
I am not sure we can have solid enough foundations to legitimate it.
Besides, I have done analysis without them as well and things did not change
almost at all.
To the operational issues:
1) I agree there is no time for a paper to be delivered before the
Sept. 26 deadline. After the deadline however, and with some calm, I
think we should have a paper on it.
2) Meeting or conference call. I myself am not keen on a meeting of the
Europeans. Jens is not back until the end of the week, which means the
meeting would have to be during the last week before deadline. With all
that is still left to do on the chapter and other internal committments I have,
I certainly could do without spending 2 days to do this (which is always the
minimum it takes me to get anywhere and back)and I cannot do it
over the weekend since I am not here.
It sounds like we would have to contact people by phone
anyways (see Peter and Linda's messages), so why not a conference call
directly?
>From the technical viewpoint Linda seems to be the best person to
organize this. As soon as Jens is back perhaps? (Jens if you can read this
can you let us know when this is possible?).
3) We just got the MPI data and the full CCC ones (I guess some was lost in
the previous run). We need to incorporate these so we have all models
available. I and Bruce will interact on this.
4) I agree we should contact the TSU about it, but I also think we should have
a proposal on it with less spread than current to present them.
Last but not least, please work on your section revisions (especially those
who have nothing to do with the BOX) so at least we get that out of the way.
Cheers, Filippo
################################################################
# Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head, #
# Physics of Weather and Climate Section #
# The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics #
# P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mailxxx xxxx xxxx#
# 34100 Trieste, ITALY #
# Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx #
# Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx49 (or xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx #
# email: giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx #
################################################################
Original Filename: 968774000.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Whetton <phw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: more on "what to do"
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:53:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Dear All
I think I heard replies to my last proposal from most of you. I have also
had a phone conversation with Linda. So let me try to summarize the
situation
1) From the replies I got, it sounds like at least the basic idea of my
proposal is viable. In particular I read an at least semi-consensus, and
certainly some strong individual positions, that the SRES material , since
it is unpublished (and remember unreviewed until now), should not be
presented as our sole or even primary source of conclusions. Now, I share
that position and in fact quite strongly. Presenting such material breaks
the proclaimed IPCC rules. Now the rules have been softened for this case,
but remember that there are people around who are paid to find faults in
the IPCC process and the last thing I want to do is being accused of
having broken the rules. I think the TSU people are too optimistic and
casual in the way they change the rules during the process and expect
people to accept that this "just" happens. Remember what happened to Ben
Santer after the SAR. Besides, I myself think that material for a document
as important as the TAR cannot be drawn from last-minute barely quality
checked and un-peered reviewed material (people have barely looked at the
MPI run that was completed last friday !!). It is up the the IPCC to
better plan these things and avoid the mess. Be it as it may, unless
somebody is strongly against this position, I will assume that we can
proceed from this basis.
2) Having said the above, it is also clear the we can present the IPCC data
in some format. Chapter 9 is doing it (remember also in their case the SRES
stuff is only a minor component of the chapter) so we can and I think we
should because it is relevant and important material,
but with the proper caveats clearly up front, i.e. that whatever
we present is a preliminary analysis that has not undergone a publication
process. It would be certainly strange and confusing to have the SRES
discussed in Chapter 9 but not in our chapter in some form. Besides we went
through a significant effort to get it and process it. I myself think
that the SRES information is important to provide. It is
just unfortunate, but not surprising, that it came around too late.
3) So the question is at this point how do we present the SRES. I suggested
not to incorporate it within the text of 10.3, since 10.3 is our assessment of
published research which has undergone peer and government review. I stand
strongly by that suggestion. Obviously 10.3 might need a bit of rewriting
to make it flow better with possibly different conclusions but not more than
that. I then suggested to make the Box an SRES Box including the +/- format
figures (I thought we needed 4, i.e. two for each scenario, but Linda pointed
out we really need only 2, one for precip and one for temperature each
including the two scenariost). Now
this offers several advantages: we can say right up front that this is from
a preliminary analysis; we can separate it cleanly from the rest of the
"official " text; it gives direct info in a format that people seem to like.
Two very legitimate comments were made on this. Peter said, if we give
this more palatable format (the +/- figures)
only for SRES data would it not implicitly give it
too much attention? Linda said: why not present similar plots for the
IS92 data? The obvious action which would address both of these concerns is
to present similar plots for the IS92 data. This is certainly an option.
The only problem I see is that I think the clear separation of published and
unpublished results would be lost if we put it in the BOX. The alternative
is to do those figures and put them in 10.3, leaving the SRES for the BOX.
This could be a good option, although it might require significant effort.
All and all, I am still in favor of an SRES-only box with a clear statement
up front that gets us off the hook in case of problems (you can see it
as a sort of disclaimer I guess).
So let's come to the next point: we need to decide on this and soon. The
best way appears to be a conference call. Linda suggested thursday, which
is fine with me. It now looks like Richard cannot organize this. So Linda
I am afraid you are left with the organization of it. The call
would have to be during European-South African afternoon - US morning
and I am afraid I am not sure what time in Australia. problems is: Jens can
you make it? I think Jens is the person in the group most strongly opposed
to presenting SRES data, so it important he is in the conference call. It
is also critical that Peter participates, given he has been the main
player in all this. Now here is my proposal:
Conference call on thursday 3 p.m. Trieste-Hamburg time, which means 4 p.m. Cape
town time, 2 p.m. Bracknell time, 9 a.m. Boulder time, 8 a.m. Fairbanks time
and ??? Australia time. Linda is this feasible for you to organize?
Is this ok for all? Conbin, are you available at all?
items of discussion:
Question 1): Do we do an SRES BOX with +/- figures?
Question 2): What are the technical details (n-1 vs. n-2 model agreement,
inclusion of outliers, threshold for large vs. small vs. no
change both for precip change and temperature amplification
factor).
Question 3): Do we do similar figures for IS92 data which would either replace
the current figures on IS92 in the text (I think this would be
perfectly acceptable since it is simply a way to present
in a different way published results).
Question 4): How do we incorporate the SRES results within the current
executive summary
I hope that by thursday I will have all data to do all relevant figures.
I need to get CCC control and MPI-DMI data from Bruce and dig out the old
IS92 data. If not by thursday then hopefully by friday. Once I have the
data I can easily directly calculate all the thresholds necessary for
doing the relevant figures. I will then circulate all the material to you.
Needless to say that any data based on SRES that is circulated among us
should NOT go any further (except for the chapter of course) until we decide
what to do with it (a paper or something like that).
In the mean time, I will never tire to keep asking you to please work on
the section revisions and let's get those out of the way.
Cheers, Filippo
################################################################
# Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head, #
# Physics of Weather and Climate Section #
# The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics #
# P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mailxxx xxxx xxxx#
# 34100 Trieste, ITALY #
# Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx #
# Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx49 (or xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx #
# email: giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx #
################################################################
Original Filename: 968941827.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Whetton, Peter" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'Hans von Storch' <Hans.von.Storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Whetton, Peter" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: n-1 / n-2
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:30:27 +1100
Dear all,
It could be viewed that using n-1 for 9 models where we used n-1 for five
models before is an implicit change in the stringency of our criterion.
When we had five models, agreement (0/5, 1/5, 4/5 or 5/5) could be expected
37% of the time just by chance (ignoring the near zero case). With nine
models the equivalent figure for n-1 is only 3.5%, and it is still much
lower for n-2 (18%)... (assuming that my somewhat rusty probability
calculations are correct). It really depends on what we had understood the
purpose of the criterion to be. I am not certain how much this was
discussed.
Also, I would prefer Friday night as well if it means that more information
will be available.
Cheers
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans von Storch [mailto:Hans.von.Storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2000 19:48
To: Congbin Fu; GIORGI FILIPPO; Bruce Hewitson; Mike Hulme; Jens
Christensen; Linda Mearns; Richard Jones; Hans von Storch; Peter Whetton
Subject: n-1 / n-2
Dear friends,
I have already indicated that I favour the n-1 version. Obviously, this
choice is arbitrary, but it was made BEFORE we did the analysis. By
changing the criterion AFTER we have seen the data, we may be targeted
by critics for biased rules. Using material, which is unpublished and
unreviewed is already a bit shacky (Hans Oerlemans is unwilling to
participate in the IPCC process because of a similar incident in the
1995 report!).
Hans
--
Hans von Storch
Institute of Hydrophysics
GKSS Research Center, Max-Planck-Strasse 1, PO Box,
WWW: http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/
e-mail: storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx and storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/ 4xxx xxxx xxxx, fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/ 4xxx xxxx xxxx
privat fax: xxx xxxx xxxx/ 4xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 969308584.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <wsh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: TAR
Date: Mon Sep 18 16:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page.
I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot
produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single
month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are
talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends
say in Fig 2.9 for the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod require 16 years to have data
and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are
24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence
trend calculation.
I would expect this to be random across the globe.
Cheers
Phil
Warwick,
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn't
produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send
me the cells, months and year of the two cells you've found ? If I
have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1).
As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these
two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6).
I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of
this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have
the names of stations that you've compared Olenek and Verhojansk with
I would appreciate that.
Cheers
Phil
At 05:13 AM 9/14/00 +1000, you wrote:
>Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
>Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells
>in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point
>anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map
>showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was
>due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in
>a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page
>detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian
>region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid
>points.
>[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger
>anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
>This must be explained.
>[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek
>and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with
>no stations, like cancer.
>[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from
>the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its
>western neighbour.
>
>I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3
> happening.
>Best regards,
>Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)
>
Original Filename: 969618170.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: old stuff
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Tom,
The difference between the Campito Mountain record and, for example, the one
from the Polar Urals that you mention, is that there is no meaningful
correlation between the Campito record and local temperature, whereas there is a
strong correlation in the Polar Urals case. I give references to the work
reporting this phenomenon at the end of this message, but I'm afraid I'm missing
the references to the technical comments that are being responded to in the last
two. If you examine my Fig 1 closely you will see that the Campito record and
Keith's reconstruction from wood density are extraordinarily similar until 1850.
After that they differ not only in the lack of long-term trend in Keith's
record, but in every other respect - the decadal-scale correlation breaks down.
I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a
direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect,
it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no
meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring
records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend. It
is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin),
above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have
lost most of their bark - 'stripbark' trees. As luck would have it, these are
precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most
of the Holocene. I am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of
decadal-scale growth season temperature variability. I am equally confident
that, after that date, they are recording something else.
I'm split between Harvard Forest and UMASS these days, and my copy of your paper
is not with me today. I'd be interested to know what the name of the site for
the LaMarche central Colorado record was.
Cheers, Malcolm
Reference List
1. Graybill, Donald A., and Sherwood B. Idso. 1993. Detecting the
Aerial Fertilization Effects of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment in Tree-Ring
Chronologies. Global Bioeochemical Cycles 7, no. 1: 81-95.
2. LaMarche , V. C., D. A. Graybill, H. C. Fritts, and M. R. Rose.
1984. Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Tree Ring Evidence for Growth
Enhancement in Natural Vegetation. Science 225: 1019-21.
3. ---1986. Carbon Dioxide Enhancement of Tree Growth At High
Elevations. Science 231: 859-60.
4. ---1986. Technical Comments: Carbon Dioxide Enhancement of Tree
Growth At High Elevations. Science 231: 860.
Quoting tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> Dear Malcolm and Keith,
>
> as I discuss in my Ambio paper the "anomalous" late 19th century warming
> also occurs in a LaMarche tree ring record from central Colorado, the
> Urals
> record of Briffa, and the east China phenological temperature record of
> Zhu.
>
> Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850,
> with
> 1/3 to 1/2 of their full retreat occurring before the warming that
> commenced about 1920.
>
> The Overpeck et al Arctic synthesis also discusses warming before 1920 -
> that record matches very closely the Mann et al reconstruction in other
> details back to 1600.
>
> Unpublished work by us on coral trends also suggests slight warming
> between
> about 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> So, are you sure that some CO2 fertilization is responsible for this?
> May
> we not actually be seeing a warming?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Dept. of Oceanography
> Texas A&M University
> College Station, TX 77xxx xxxx xxxx
> xxx xxxx xxxx
> xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
> xxx xxxx xxxx(alternate fax)
>
>
>
Original Filename: 969640598.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, roeckner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ktaylor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, boyle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sailes1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, doutriau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Status of our JGR paper
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear All,
I just wanted to keep you informed about the status of our draft JGR paper.
First, thanks to all of you for your comments - they were very helpful. I am now
in the process of revising the paper, and hope to have a new draft ready by Oct.
10th. After several discussions with Tom, I have decided to repeat the
volcano/ENSO signal separation for the observed data and for the GSOP
experiment.
The reason for this is that there was a conceptual flaw in what I had done
previously. The flaw related to the determination of the "pre-eruption"
reference temperature, used as a baseline for estimating the maximum
volcanically-induced cooling. Let's call this baseline temperature "TBASE".
Previously, I was estimating TBASE for Pinatubo and El Chichon from either the
raw or Gauss-filtered temperature data at time t=0 (the eruption month).
If I was calculating TBASE from the filtered data, the estimate of TBASE was
biased by "contamination" from post-eruption cooling. In other words, since I
was using a 13-term Gaussian filter, temperature values from t=0 + 6 months were
influencing TBASE, likely leading to an underestimate of the true TBASE value.
I've now modified the program so that TBASE is not computed from the filtered
data; instead, it is an average of the temperature anomalies in the MREF months
prior to the eruption. There is some sensitivity to the choice of MREF (I've
been experiment with values ranging from xxx xxxx xxxxmonths), which again underscores
the uncertainties inherent in separating ENSO and volcanic signals.
The maximum volcanically-induced cooling is still estimated using filtered data,
but now I'm using a 5-term binomial filter rather than the 13-term Gaussian.
These changes require repeating most of the analyses in the paper. Preliminary
results indicate that the revised estimation of TBASE increases the ratio of the
Chichon/Pinatubo maximum coolings, and brings this closer to the ratio of the
Chichon/Pinatubo radiative forcings.
Tom has also made a number of useful suggestions regarding reorganization and
shortening of various sections of the manuscript. Hopefully the next iteration
will be a little shorter than the current version of the paper!
I will be out of my office next week, but should be back by October 2nd.
With best regards, and thanks again for all your help,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-264
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 969652057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Status of our JGR paper
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: roeckner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ktaylor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, boyle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sailes1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, doutriau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
***************
Ben (or, really, everybody else),
I don't know whether you have all seen the paper analyzing the observed
data that Ben and I sent to J. Climate ?? This is where the JGR paper
began, and it is useful to compare both papers. In the J. Climate paper
we assessed the best fits using a subjective balance of raw and lowpass
filtered results. The reason for this was because of the difficulty of
setting up an automated procedure -- which is the problem that Ben is
currently having to deal with. In the next iteration of the JGR paper,
the reason for moving to a more automated procedure will be explained.
Both the subjective and automated procedures have their advantages and
disadvantages. The latter procedure, of course, is in no way
'objective'. Many subjective choices have to be made in setting up the
procedure. This is why the word 'automated' is used above, rather than
'objective'.
If you have not seen the J. Climate paper, let me know and I will send
you a copy. There is a companion paper that has been accepted by GRL
that I will send at the same time.
Cheers, Tom.
***************
Ben Santer wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I just wanted to keep you informed about the status of our draft JGR paper.
> First, thanks to all of you for your comments - they were very helpful. I am now
> in the process of revising the paper, and hope to have a new draft ready by Oct.
> 10th. After several discussions with Tom, I have decided to repeat the
> volcano/ENSO signal separation for the observed data and for the GSOP
> experiment.
>
> The reason for this is that there was a conceptual flaw in what I had done
> previously. The flaw related to the determination of the "pre-eruption"
> reference temperature, used as a baseline for estimating the maximum
> volcanically-induced cooling. Let's call this baseline temperature "TBASE".
> Previously, I was estimating TBASE for Pinatubo and El Chichon from either the
> raw or Gauss-filtered temperature data at time t=0 (the eruption month).
> If I was calculating TBASE from the filtered data, the estimate of TBASE was
> biased by "contamination" from post-eruption cooling. In other words, since I
> was using a 13-term Gaussian filter, temperature values from t=0 + 6 months were
> influencing TBASE, likely leading to an underestimate of the true TBASE value.
> I've now modified the program so that TBASE is not computed from the filtered
> data; instead, it is an average of the temperature anomalies in the MREF months
> prior to the eruption. There is some sensitivity to the choice of MREF (I've
> been experiment with values ranging from xxx xxxx xxxxmonths), which again underscores
> the uncertainties inherent in separating ENSO and volcanic signals.
>
> The maximum volcanically-induced cooling is still estimated using filtered data,
> but now I'm using a 5-term binomial filter rather than the 13-term Gaussian.
>
> These changes require repeating most of the analyses in the paper. Preliminary
> results indicate that the revised estimation of TBASE increases the ratio of the
> Chichon/Pinatubo maximum coolings, and brings this closer to the ratio of the
> Chichon/Pinatubo radiative forcings.
>
> Tom has also made a number of useful suggestions regarding reorganization and
> shortening of various sections of the manuscript. Hopefully the next iteration
> will be a little shorter than the current version of the paper!
>
> I will be out of my office next week, but should be back by October 2nd.
>
> With best regards, and thanks again for all your help,
>
> Ben
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-264
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
ACACIA Program Director
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: 969652335.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: OOPS. RETURN EMAIL GLITCHES IN ORIGINAL
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: my visit
>Cc: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@uea, p.jones@uea
>Bcc: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000922092400.007ed450@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>References: <3.0.6.32.20000919101130.00aad100@xxxxxxxxx.xxxginia.
edu> <3.0.6.32.20000919135642.008114b0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>HI Tim,
>
>Very busy, so just a short response for the time being.
>
>Regarding our MBH98 and GRL99 datasets, I'm pretty sure that Scott put those
>on anonymous ftp for you some months ago. So you *should* already have had
access to all the data we used. In fact, it was only a few select series of
Malcolm's that weren't made available from the get-go. So data has never
>been an issue for us. I'm happy to hear that it is not an issue for
you/keith/phil and that you are ready to make your density data available...
>
>A few points of clarification might help here:
>
>The revised method (based on ridge regression) is currently in development
as far as paleoreconstruction is concerned (we have a paper to be submitted
on application to the instrumental record only). We intend to test it on
synthetic proxy datasets (as described in my previous email) before
applying it to actual proxy data, so your visit, unfortunately, occurs at a
time that is too premature for comparison with results from this method.
Rather, we were hoping
>you shared some of the interest along the lines of
developmental/methodological
>issues.
>
>Comparison between warm-season reconstructions would be fine, but you should
>be aware of the extreme caveats with regard to our seasonal
reconstructions, as spelled out in detail in our "Earth Interactions"
article. We don't do nearly as well for warm-season or cold-season as for
annual-mean, and we believe this is consistent w/ the mix of seasonal
information contained in the multiproxy dataset. Obviously, things are
somewhat different for the more seasonally homogeneous density chronology
dataset. So to us, this comparison might not
>seem as worthwhile as it would for you all, but we can do it if all provisos
>and caveats are fully recognized and embraced from the start...
>
>The idea of testing wavelet methods of distinguish contributions on
different timescales sounds like it is of interest to all of us, and
perhaps we can
>move in that direction during your visit.
>
>In any case, we'll have more than enough to do, talk about, investigate,
and no need to necessarily hammer it all out beforehand.
>
>Comments from others (Scott, Phil, Keith?) welcome,
>
>mike
>
>At 09:24 AM 9/22/00 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
>>At 10:11 19/09/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>>>I will put you up at the "Red Roof Inn" for the 10 nights...
>>>Will have reservations made for you for the night of the 10th through 19th,
>>>checking out morning of the 20th...
>>
>>That sounds great. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>I've talked over various ideas with Keith and Phil (and I'm cc'ing this to
>>them as well as to Scott), and I've now made some slightly firmer/clearer
>>suggestions, combining your ideas and ours.
>>
>>(1) We're still keen to spend part of the time on reconstruction method
>>issues, since that is one of the specifics that our current funded project
>>needs to address. To avoid being too retrospective, we could do something
>>that combined both your Nature98 and your revised methods:
>>
>>(a) compare your summer/warm season reconstructions (old & new methods)
>>with our reconstructions of Apr-Sep temperature from tree-ring densities
>>(regional/hemispheric averages and spatial comparisons).
>>
>>(b) In (a), we would be comparing reconstructions based on different
>>palaeodata *and* different statistical reconstruction methods. So a better
>>approach would be to use your (old & new) methods with our tree-ring
>>density data set to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperature fields, and then
>>compare with our reconstructions. This would be a good way of comparing
>>methods.
>>
>>(c) We could exchange data/methods to continue comparisons after the end of
>>my visit. We would be keen, for example, to obtain your Nature98 & GRL99
>>datasets and software to play around with after my return. In exchange, we
>>can provide you with our tree-ring density data set and the reconstructions
>>that we have produced from it. Of course, such subsequent work would
>>continue to be collaborative, keeping each other informed/involved with the
>>work.
>>
>>(d) If the tree-ring density data provided useful "added value" to your
>>reconstructions (perhaps at the higher frequencies and providing finer
>>spatial detail?), then we could use an appropriate method (perhaps your new
>>revised one) to produce a new reconstruction using all palaeodata. Such a
>>reconstruction might prove to be an important and well-used product.
>>
>>(2) Of your two specific suggestions I quite strongly prefer the first.
>>The reason is that, again, our project specifically requires comparison of
>>palaeo and model data and the development of appropriate methods to do
>>this. Your first suggestion would take us along those lines. There are
>>two related strands here. The first is to use the model outputs to assess
>>the reliability of the reconstructions (i.e., following the ideas you laid
>>out in your e-mail), which is certainly of interest. The second is to use
>>the reconstructions to evaluate the model simulations of "natural"
>>variability. We've done some comparisons with the HadCM2 and HadCM3
>>simulations - I shall brings papers/results along. What we need to develop
>>further are ways of incorporating the paleo biases/errors in such
>>comparisons. We have begun this, but when I visit we might be able to come
>>up with better methods and apply them to Hadley Centre and/or GFDL
>>comparisons.
>>
>>Your second suggestion, while interesting, is less appealing at this stage,
>>principally because we won't have time to do everything. As it happens,
>>Keith and I have just submitted a paper (to that well-known(!) journal
>>"Dendrochronologia") about timescale-dependent calibration of tree-ring
>>data - I shall bring a copy with me. My feeling is that the quantity of
>>data overlap available for calibration would be a strongly limiting factor
>>in most timescale-dependent approaches, whether they use wavelets or some
>>other filtering-type approach. What interests me more would be the
>>application of wavelets to the full palaeorecords to facilitate in the
>>definition of timescale-dependent coherent patterns (PCs?), rather than
>>just to the calibration period. Anyway, we can talk these ideas over even
>>if there's no time to begin any work yet.
>>
>>I think that a chance to exchange preprints, data, and discuss ongoing
>>developments of our work and yours will, in itself, prove to be a useful
>>outcome of my visit.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
>>University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
>>UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
Original Filename: 969891412.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Mon Sep 25 10:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mike
I know Tim has communicated with you about plans for his visit to Virginia. We have discussed ideas here and I ,for one, am excited about the prospects of joint work. Thank you for agreeing to his visit and for taking the trouble to arrange things .
The purpose of this brief message is simply to reiterate what we said in our brief discussions in Venice - namely that it is our intention to work with you rather than in any sense of competition. Our motivation for wanting to do some of the detailed comparisons between the results of our work and your own is to understand the sources of uncertainty in both. We are also committed to doing some of this work by the terms of our current NERC grant. We wish to involve you as much as possible , get your advice , and solicit criticisms of our approach -especially in relation to the Palaeo-model comparisons .
Our EC proposal was not funded , but we wish to follow it up with another to PRESCIENT (a NERC Thematic Programme of research along the same lines), and again we would be happy to collaborate with you. Better two way communication between here and there would be a major help.
It is my feeling that the relatively short time Tim has with you , might be best spent getting to grips with the finer details of your "old" and "new" approaches, including the details and results of your other work that is only partly described in the publications ( seasonal runs, different data sets etc.) and , most importantly, discussing approaches and philosophies for data-model comparison work. That way he could come away with some concrete plans , and the means of fulfilling them, on his return. Any time you can spare to discuss and liaise along these lines would be much appreciated. He has discussed the specifics of your suggestions and I am happy with the approach and prioritization he has expressed.
While he is with you , we can always exchange emails if any issues need wider discussion.
very best wishes
Keith
Original Filename: 969912361.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Keith et al,
Thanks for your message.
This sounds fine. I do have to warn that with a full teaching courseload
this semester, my own free time will necessarily be somewhat limited. Thus,
Scott's involvement here will be key.
Scott has been dealing w/ the new methodology and analyses, and hence my
concern w/ any plans that expect new analyses w/ our old methodology. The
code is not especially user friendly, though Tim is welcome to use it.
Scott will be able to devote a decent share of his time to these activities
during Tim's visit, though this will necessarily have to be split with time
devoted to activities that Scott is explicitly supported for by our NOAA
grant (ie, the development of a synthetic proxy network from model data,
and wavelet-based calibration methods, as detailed in my previous email).
So I'm sure we'll be able to find common ground. Tim will have free access
to our data and codes, and can make the comparisons indicated below. We of
course appreciate your willingness to make available to us the tree ring
density data.
It may be interesting to do a (highly preliminary!) analysis of both proxy
datasets with our expectation maximization ridge regression scheme, and
that would certainly fit in well w/ both our agendas (your NERC grant, and
our NOAA grant).
Hopefully, our 4-processor Dell server (running Linux) will be back up and
running, so Scott can use our Sun server, while Tim will have the Dell
server to himself if he needs it.
I hope the above all sounds good.
Best regards,
mike
At 10:16 AM 9/25/00 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>Dear Mike
> I know Tim has communicated with you about plans for his visit
>to Virginia. We have discussed ideas here and I ,for one, am excited about
>the prospects of joint work. Thank you for agreeing to his visit and for
>taking the trouble to arrange things .
>The purpose of this brief message is simply to reiterate what we said in
>our brief discussions in Venice - namely that it is our intention to work
>with you rather than in any sense of competition. Our motivation for
>wanting to do some of the detailed comparisons between the results of our
>work and your own is to understand the sources of uncertainty in both. We
>are also committed to doing some of this work by the terms of our current
>NERC grant. We wish to involve you as much as possible , get your advice
>, and solicit criticisms of our approach -especially in relation to the
>Palaeo-model comparisons .
> Our EC proposal was not funded , but we wish to follow it up with another
>to PRESCIENT (a NERC Thematic Programme of research along the same lines),
>and again we would be happy to collaborate with you. Better two way
>communication between here and there would be a major help.
> It is my feeling that the relatively short time Tim has with you ,
>might be best spent getting to grips with the finer details of your "old"
>and "new" approaches, including the details and results of your other work
>that is only partly described in the publications ( seasonal
>runs, different data sets etc.) and , most importantly, discussing
>approaches and philosophies for data-model comparison work. That way he
>could come away with some concrete plans , and the means of fulfilling
>them, on his return. Any time you can spare to discuss and liaise along
>these lines would be much appreciated. He has discussed the specifics of
>your suggestions and I am happy with the approach and prioritization he has
>expressed.
>While he is with you , we can always exchange emails if any issues need
>wider discussion.
>very best wishes
>Keith
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
Original Filename: 970663670.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: John Daly <daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chick Keller <cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks References
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:47:50 +1000
Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: VINCENT GRAY <vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Onar
Original Filename: 970664328.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Myles Allen <M.R.Allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Observed temperature for IPCC power spectra
Date: Wed Oct 4 08:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Curtis Covey <covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Myles and Curt,
Attached are the NH and SH averages from the new variance corrected
analyses (HadCRUTv). When the paper comes out in JGR (probably early next
year) you'll see that variance correction is only possible from 1870.
So in these files I've patched on the 1xxx xxxx xxxxdata on the front so they
are the same length. This early data is the same as the original
version (HadCRUT). For the global series I still think the best way
of producing this is by averaging the two hemispheres. HadCRUT is what
you all probably have - it is on the CRU web page. Again I would
produce the globe by averaging the hemispheres so what Chris Folland has
for the globe may differ slightly as the HadC produce this as one domain.
The way the variance correction is achieved is by reducing the high-freq
variance of each grid-box series. This means that when I update the series
for 2000 some values for the last few years (1995-9) will be altered
slightly.
I don't know much about Chapter 2, but I don't recollect there being
any power spectrum diagrams. Probably left for the detection chapter.
Do make sure the axes and units are well explained. Don't leave anything
for the skeptics to cling to !
Cheers
Phil
At 05:16 PM 10/3/00 +0100, Myles Allen wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>If you could send me the latest version that chapter 2 are using, that
>would be great -- I certainly won't pass it on nor use it for anything
>else. Subtle differences in processing do make a difference to the visual
>appearence of the plot, and even though these differences are inside the
>noise indicated by the error bar, you can bet potential critics will
>ignore that.
>
>Do you show a power spectrum of global temperatures in chapter 2, and if
>so, how was it computed? It would certainly be tidy to make sure both are
>processed in the same way.
>
>Myles
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Myles R. Allen Phone (RAL): xxx xxxx xxxx
>Space Science & Technology Department Ph (Oxford): xxx xxxx xxxx
>Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX e-mail: m.r.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>United Kingdom http://www.climate-dynamics.rl.ac.uk/
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Phil Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Curt, Myles and anyone else,
>> As the data on the web site has an end date of 1994, I suspect you
>> may have an earlier version of the surface data (different form of
>> gridding and maybe a few other differences in data usage), so I suggest
>> you use the latest one, which can be got from the CRU web site.
>> If this relates to IPCC work, then Chapter 2 on the Observations is
>> going to go with a variance corrected version (corrects for changing
>> station numbers within individual grid boxes), but the effect of this
>> on the hemispheric and global temp series is small.
>> If anyone wants this new version (HadCRUTv) then I can send the hemispheric
>> and global series by email. The 'normal' version (HadCRUT) is on the
>> CRU website. This naming and the variance correction procedures are
>> discussed in a paper which has been accepted by JGR. It will not be out for
>> a while, as I've not yet sent the camera ready columns to the AGU.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> At 03:45 PM 10/2/xxx xxxx xxxx, Curtis Covey wrote:
>> > Myles Allen wrote: Dear Curt, Can you give me the ancestry of the "ObsJ"
>> >global mean temperature series
>> > We need the source, start date (I think I can work it
>> >out by matching bumps, but it would be better to be sure) and how it's
>> >been detrended for the figure caption.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> sent you, the data is
>> >>>the "Jones" set used by the IPCC for its Second (1995)
>> >>> It's
>> >>> processed this particular data that
>> >>> don't remember exactly who gave it to me: either Phil
>> >>> should invite Phil's latest
>> >>>(including error bars) now that I'm updating our Web
>> >>>site http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip/powerspec.html. See attached
>> >>>PostScript graphic. Regards,
>> >>>Curt
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachtseries_obsJ.ps"
>> 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: 970842624.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,eavaganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: intas
Date: Fri Oct 6 10:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Stepan and Eugene
I have asked INTAS for an extension on the report period. Stepan some problem has now arisen regarding your final payment . I have asked Janet to sort this out and contact you directly.
I have to give an up to date report on chronology development and tree-line changes at the PAGES meeting in Avignon on October xxx xxxx xxxxand I would really appreciate some Figures that demonstrate the latest state-of-the-art in the Yamal and Taimyr (and any other good Russian evidence ) . The focus of the meeting is High-resolution variability of the Holocene , and the long records and evidence of tree-line changes is particularly valuable. Later there will be some large review papers (with many authors) summarising the information from high latitudes, mid latitudes, the tropics etc. The form of these papers is not yet decided but you would be contributing authors. I am also (with Ray Bradley,Julie Cole and Malcolm Hughes) writing a Chapter on the last 10000 years (with a major emphasis on the last 1000) for the PAGES Synthesis book and I intend to include a summary Figure that includes your work - I hope this is O.K
Malcolm has just asked for a letter of support from me for a project he is submitting to NSF , in which I believe you are both involved. I have sent it to him. I am still exploring when we can resubmit our own proposal to the EC, and I will write an application to The Leverhulme trust before the end of this year. I am still discussing the Holocene ADVANCE-10K issue and I will be in touch about your papers.
best wishes
Keith
Original Filename: 971129284.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Yamal treeline figures
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:08:04 +0500
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Keith,
Stepan Shiyatov tell me that you need some figures concerning
Yamal chronology and tree line dynamics to show somewhere in
France.
Attached are archived files contained some figures.
File MAP - the map of region of research. Red dots - subfossil
wood sites, green marks - recent northern border of larch along
river valleys.
File FIGURES - in Excel format, contains several figures.
Sheet "Values-10" - data on northernmost position of trees and
number of trees dated for corresponding year (decadal step)
Sheet "Treeline" - dynamics of treeline in Yamal during last 7000
years reconstructed using about 1000 subfossil wood remains.
Recent treeline position is about 67
Original Filename: 971992541.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: JGR paper
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
I am just having to go so I will think about the "should we?" . The answer to the "can we?"
is yes. I have spoken to the person organising the editorial review and she has promised me
she will get it to us in the next week or so. If we can get it back immediattely she says
we can make the December issue. Therefore it is possible to do the edits if it means very
little change to the text. I have also confirmed that we will pay 1500 dollars for the
colour and they say they are working on these now. I really want to get this into the 2000
so I can include it in the RAE. Ed is here now and has some great looking extended PDSI
reconstructions (1000 years) for the western US.
I am suspicious as to whether the negative trend in Mike's Hockey stick prior to the 20th
century is not at least partly the result of a trend in the long high elevation western US
trees he uses . Malcolm sent me some figures for the HIHOL meeting and in this work he cuts
off the juvenile growth sections of the long tree data but does no detrending on the
remainder. This might leave a linear age trend in these data. I remember that Mike in his
long reconstruction , stated that the pc representing the western US stuff was essential
for getting a verifiable result. Interesting , but only a diversion. We can discuss the JGR
and other stuff in Avignon. Hope your weekend was a god one. I tend to agree a
bout the NAO meeting- you could use the money (and perhaps time) to better effect.
At 04:24 PM 10/19/00 +0100, you wrote:
Keith,
have you had to produce the camera-ready copy for the age-banded JGR paper
yet? If not, then is it possible to make some minor changes to it? For the
comparison with the Mann et al. reconstruction, I had previously just taken
their land&marine full northern hemisphere mean annual temperature time series
and re-calibrated it against the instrumental land north of 20N Apr-Sep mean
temperature time series. Well, I have not taken the Mann et al. spatial
temperature field reconstructions, and computed a land north of 20N area mean.
I still have to re-calibrate it against the instrumental series because it is
an annual rather than Apr-Sep mean. After doing all this, you'll be pleased
to know that the final figure is only slightly different (the Mann et al.
curve is very slightly more of an outlier during the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod, and is
cooler and closer to observations post-1950, but not much different
elsewhere). What does change, however, are the correlations. The
correlations with instrumental data are slightly worse (from 0.76 to 0.73, and
from 0.92 to 0.89 decadal), but I'm not sure that we show these anyway. But
the cross-correlations between the Mann et al. and the other reconstructions
(which we do show) are all stronger than previously - which now seems a little
unfair on them.
Cross-correlations between unfiltered series:
Mann versus: Jones, Briffa (ABD), Briffa (Torn+Tai+Yam)
before: 0.47, 0.36, 0.33
now: 0.50, 0.37, 0.34
Cross-correlations between 50-yr smoothed series:
Mann versus: Jones, Briffa (ABD), Briffa (T+T+Y), Overpeck, Crowley
before: 0.78, 0.43, 0.50, 0.86, 0.76
now: 0.81, 0.51, 0.55, 0.86, 0.78
I don't have a copy of the paper in front of me, but the 'before' values
should match those in one of the tables. Some of the 50-yr smoothed new
values are noticeably stronger.
Can we make these changes still, or is it too late? And do you think we
should?
Cheers
Tim