2004 Emails
______________________________________________________
1306. 2004-01-02 12:52:58
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 2 12:52:58 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: A couple of other things
to: Tom Wigley
Tom,
Going through my other emails (hope you have a better spam filter) I have to write a
2pg
report to the USDoE. Have you any papers in the last year that I should be referencing? I
need to get this together over the next couple of weeks. I talked to Ricky Petty about
the new proposal and he said we should be hearing something soonish in the New Year.
DoE hadn't got a budget when I saw him in early December.
On CLIWOC, Dennis Wheeler is generally not that good, but here he hired an ex-UEA
Naval Historian who knew his way around the archives in the UK, together with 4 postgrads
(none of which it seems will finish their degrees). Digitizing was therefore cheap. Hasn't
done
either of them much good though as Clive Wilkinson is now looking for another job and
Sunderland will close Dennis' dept in the summer.
Lots of emails from Timo. His tail with the Maynard Keynes quote about changing one's
opinion when new facts come along struck a chord. If I'd been reviewing the CLIWOC
submission to the EU I wouldn't have recommended support, but I'm now nearly converted.
Whether the money (about 1M Euros) was cost effective is another matter. How do you
compare the project with one for more tree cores/ice cores/documentary data etc? Is it
worth sending probes to Mars to look for life ....
Had Emmanuel LeRoi Ladurie here in November. Still going strong and he's going to
update his book from 1971. Did remind me of Hubert with his knowledge about all years
over the last 700. He did send his latest vine harvest dates though from 1370 to 1977 !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:18 29/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Phil,
This BBC item (Wheeler, Sunderland) mentions U of E Anglia. Seems that the
project reinvents the wheel -- a wheel we found, after 5 years work, to be
more square than round. There are some reports around from the work we did
20+ years ago. I spent quite a bit of time doing hands on work on the logs
available at various places in the UK and came to the conclusion that they were
of little value pre 1850. This was based on historical insights from Martin Ingram
and my own statistical and climatological expertise.
Bottom line -- a waste of time and effort, but a great area for Lambian imagination.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1938. 2004-01-05 09:20:02
______________________________________________________
cc: alex.haxeltine@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, "mike.woodfield" , justin.goodwin@aeat.co.uk, peter.g.taylor@aeat.co.uk
date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:20:02 +0100
from: Rob Swart
subject: RE:
to: davidw@globatmo.demon.co.uk
Dear David,
Thanks for your email. To bring you up-to-date: due to internal questions
at the EEA about the new EU financial regulations and the appropriate
long-term startegy development, EEA has decided (rather unexpectedly) not
to establish new multi-year grant agreements with the five topic centres,
but for the time being to extend the current contracts by a year.
Nevertheless, my proposal to add UEA to the ETC Consortium has been
approved by the EEA and in 2004, they will contribute to a scoping study in
the area of vulnerable regions in Europe (impacts and adaptation) and
probably some support in the area of participatory integrated assessment
activities (EEA State of the Environment and Outlook Report 2005, including
the development of a "sustainable (European) emissions pathway" scenario).
AEAT continues to be a major ETC partner in the area of emissions work. As
to a possible UK national contribution, this would continue to be most
helpful for us, even more so since the EEA's new Director started a new
development diverting funds away from the ETCs towards a more centralized
EEA set of activities. This specifically implies for 2004 that the foreseen
work in the area of climate impacts/adaptation and European GHG emissions
inventory review cannot be fully implemented as planned. More staff in
Copenhagen cannot replace (at least in my view) the wide, country-supported
network of ETC institutions, but as manager of a successful ETC I may be
somewhat biased. If there would be an overlap between DEFRA
's interests and the EEA's interests in the area of climate
impacts/adaptation, integrated assessment and GHG emissions work (see
attached draft Technical Annex for the workplan), a small national
contribution may trigger a number of activities which are now likely to be
dropped. I copy this message to UEA and AEAT, so they may provide you with
some more details.
Best wishes for 2004,
Rob
(See attached file: ACC TA_2004 draft 17 November 03.doc)
Rob Swart
ETC Manager
EEA European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC)
RIVM (pb 47)
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
telephone: 31-30-2743026 fax 31-30-2744433
http://www.rivm.nl http://air-climate.eionet.eu.int
"Warrilow, David (GA)"
gsi.gov.uk> cc:
Subject: RE:
29-12-2003 17:38
Rob
I am reviewing emails that I didn't have time to deal with in the hustle
and
bustle of normal life! Is this still an issue? I assumed Tydall would have
approached me themselves? I doubt we could provide funding in any case but
willing to give moral support where appropriate.
Anyway happy New Year!
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Swart [mailto:Rob.Swart@rivm.nl]
Sent: 10 September 2003 16:42
To: Warrilow, David (GA)
Subject:
Dear David,
Long time no see. I hope that you are doing well. As you may have heard I
am currently managing the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate
(ETC/ACC) of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and it is in this role
that I would like to ask you something. The ETC is operating under a three
year contract, which is about to be renewed by another three years. I would
like to take this opportunity to make some slight changes in the current 13
members of the ETC consortium. More specifically, because of the increased
emphasis on climate change in the ETC work programme, I have discussed
possibilities to include the Tyndall Centre as one of the partners with
John Schellnhuber and Alex Haxeltine of Tyndall, and André Jol and the new
Director, Jacquie McGlade of the EEA. With generally very positive
reactions. Tyndall would primarily contribute to work in the area of
European climate state, impacts and adaptation indicators, and integrated
assessment (scenarios). Currently, the ETC/ACC has one partner from the UK,
AEAT, which institution contributes in various areas, notably on emissions
of GHGs and air pollutants. This work is related to the work of Mike
Woodfield of the UNECE Task Force on Emissions Inventories and Projections
(TFEIP), whose chairmanship of the TFEIP was supported until recently by
the UK government. AEAT will continue to be a partner for the coming
2004-2006 period. For more details on the ETC, you can check our website
(see signature below).
Let me now come to the point. The ETC/ACC contracts with the EEA also
depend on national contributions of countries in which the partners are
located. More specifically, the ETC/ACC receives support in addition to the
core EEA budget from the Netherlands (RIVM), Austria (UBA), Germany (UBA)
and Norway (NILU). Roughly, the ETC budget is about 2MEUR EEA funds plus
0.5
MkEUR national contributions from the four countries mentioned. So far, the
UK government has not supported the ETC activities. In September, I have to
prepare an offer for the next three year contract, and I was wondering if
we could discuss the possibility of a UK/DEFRA national contribution to the
work of the ETC, through the Tyndall Centre and/ot AEAT. There is no
condition in the EEA contracts as to the level of support from countries,
everything helps to implement the work plan, especially in a situation in
which the level of air pollution work continues at the same level, while
then climate work increases. Please let me know if you are willing to
consider this, and what kind of additional information you may need.
Kind regards
Rob
Rob Swart
ETC Manager
EEA European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC)
RIVM (pb 47)
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
telephone: 31-30-2743026 fax 31-30-2744433
http://www.rivm.nl http://air-climate.eionet.eu.int
____________________________________________________________________________
"Dit bericht en eventuele aangehechte bestanden zijn vertrouwelijk en
uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Ongeautoriseerde verstrekking of
bekendmaking aan en gebruik door anderen zijn niet toegestaan. Als u dit
bericht per vergissing hebt ontvangen wordt u verzocht dit onmiddellijk aan
de afzender te melden en het bericht van uw systemen te verwijderen.
De werkgever van de afzender kan niet garanderen dat de verzonden en/of
ontvangen informatie juist is en aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor
schade die eruit kan voortvloeien."
"This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information and is solely intended for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized
disclosure or actions taken in reliance on it are forbidden. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender.
The employer of the sender does not guarantee that the information sent
and/or received is correct and does not accept any liability for damages
related thereto."
"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
Its unauthorised
use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received
it in error, please
destroy all copies and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
attachments will
have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can
accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's
computer systems
may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
system and for
other lawful purposes."
____________________________________________________________________________
"Dit bericht en eventuele aangehechte bestanden zijn vertrouwelijk en
uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Ongeautoriseerde verstrekking of
bekendmaking aan en gebruik door anderen zijn niet toegestaan. Als u dit
bericht per vergissing hebt ontvangen wordt u verzocht dit onmiddellijk aan
de afzender te melden en het bericht van uw systemen te verwijderen.
De werkgever van de afzender kan niet garanderen dat de verzonden en/of
ontvangen informatie juist is en aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor
schade die eruit kan voortvloeien."
"This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information and is solely intended for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized
disclosure or actions taken in reliance on it are forbidden. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender.
The employer of the sender does not guarantee that the information sent
and/or received is correct and does not accept any liability for damages
related thereto."
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ACC TA_2004 draft 17 November 03.doc"
3399. 2004-01-06 11:28:10
______________________________________________________
cc: rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, mann@virginia.edu
date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:28:10 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
to: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones
HI Tim,
These folks are fundamentally dishonest in everything they do or say--as you have noted,
they have certainly done everything they can to promote the ridiculous assertion of an
anomalously warm 15th century.
Of course it is laughable for them to claim that their findings "are unaffected" by the
errors we've uncovered. They will try to invent some lawyeristic way out of this, but
that's about all we can expect from them. They have, and will never have, any legitimate
defense for having eliminated the majority of proxy data used by us prior to AD 1600. It
is, as you know, essentially this one action on their part that leads to their spurious
result. And that result doesn't pass cross-validation! For them to claim that they will be
publishing a *legitimate* reponse (i.e., one that passes muster in the peer-reviewed
literature) to this is baffling, because there is no legitimate response.
We hope that our formal response is accepted and published soon, and once it is, I agree w/
you that it would be perfectly appropriate to remove your own commentary. But for the time
being, I think it would be useful for you to keep it there.
Thanks for updating us on the matter,
mike
At 04:16 PM 1/6/2004 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear all,
here is the latest from McIntyre. He remains unhappy with the commentary on our website
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/ where we made your preliminary response
available - I'm beginning to wish we had left it to you guys (MBH) to post your
preliminary response!
I think our commentary and posting of your preliminary response is only necessary for
the present, while you have no published formal response. Once your formal response is
published, I'll remove our webpage - unless you feel otherwise?
Cheers
Tim
From: "Steve McIntyre"
To: "Tim Osborn"
Cc: "Ross McKitrick"
Subject: Re: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:26:13 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> >We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article in
> >Energy & Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century
> >temperatures were higher than 20th century temperatures. We only claim
> >that application of MBH methods to corrected and updated data do not
> >entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse the MBH98
> >methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our own.
>
> >We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article
in
> >Energy & Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century
> >temperatures were higher than 20th century temperatures. We only
claim
> >that application of MBH methods to corrected and updated data do not
> >entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse the
MBH98
> >methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our
own.
>
> Our point about the warm 15th century was simply that it should have
raised
> alarm bells that something might have gone wrong with your analysis.
>
> But we have seen others making use of your Figure 8 as if your were
putting
> it forward as a new reconstruction, perhaps because the labelling of
it
> with "corrected version" implied that it was a new version.
>
Dear Tim,
Your response above is very unsatisfactory. We believe that the language in
our article was clear that we were simply criticizing MBH98 and not positing
a new reconstruction of our own.
For instance, in the conclusion we state: "Without endorsing the MBH98
methodology or choice of source data, we were able to apply the MBH98
methodology to a data base with improved quality control and found that
their own method, carefully applied to their own intended source data,
yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th
century is unexceptional..."
The wording was deliberately careful--we did not, for instance, say
anything like "this shows that the 15th century was warm compared to the
late 20th century."
For additional certainty, we posted the following at our FAQ:
"Your graph seems to show that the 15th Century was warmer than today's
climate: is this what you're claiming?
a.. No. We're saying that Mann et al., based on their methodology and
corrected data, cannot claim that the 20th century is warmer than the
15th century - the nuance is a little different. To make a positive claim
that the 15th century was warmer than the late 20th century would require an
endorsement of both the methodology and the common interpretation of the
results which we are neither qualified nor inclined to offer. "
Your justification for retaining your comment, in the face of our
explicit assertions in the paper and in the Supplementary Information
that it misrepresents our position, is that others have considered
our graphic as an alternative reconstruction, rather than as a carrying
through of Mann's methods and data to their logical conclusion.
Have you considered that perhaps people make this mistake because they
learned it on your web site? The following comment of yours obviously
contributes to the dissemination of a false impression:
"Especially when the MM03 results, regarding a warm 15th century, were
also at odds with the many other reconstructions that have been published,
not just at odds with MBH98."
We have considered the observations made by MBH on
"errors" in our implementation of their method. We will be responding in
detail but, for your information, our fundamental findings are
unaffected by the issues raised in Mann's response.
Again, we believe that no useful purpose is served by your inaccurate
characterization of our position and we re-iterate our request that you
correct this situation. You are at liberty to choose sides in the
underlying debate as you wish, but you do have an obligation to present
each side's position accurately and especially when you have been given
explicit
notice and have an opportunity to remedy the matter.
Yours truly
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [3]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@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4762. 2004-01-06 21:47:51
______________________________________________________
cc: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:47:51 -0800 (PST)
from: Stephen H Schneider
subject: Re: Fwd: Dessai-Hume review
to: Suraje Dessai
Hi Suraj and Mike. Interesting idea. Do you want to wait until you know
for sure whetehr you want to hang with CP, or withdraw from there and put
it into cl ch? If you want it to be a paper--as opposed to an
editorial--I'll make you a deal: you resond to your(two was it?) critiques
as if it was an original submission to climatic change. Then I'll have it
rereviewed as a second round paper and save the 4 month or so it
typically takes in round one? If you prefer it as an editorial, I still
expect you to revise to meet reviewers objections--not to agree with them
but to raise the issues and give your views and cite other opinions (not
least mine!). SO what do you think? But, first consider your CP decision
and then formally tell me you want the 2nd draft submitted and in what
category. Chers, Steve
PS was great fun chairing the session, Suraj, because the talks and
audience--for the most part--were very good
PPS Check CL Ch website for "rules" on review papers.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Suraje Dessai wrote:
> Dear Steve,
>
> It was good to see you in Milan at COP-9. Thanks for charring the equity and
> adaptation event. Unfortunately I didn't make the dinner with Jouni and Paul B
> as there were many things I wanted to discuss with you. One of these issues,
> which we briefly talked about, is the paper me and Mike wrote for Climate
> Policy (CP) and which you were one of the reviewers. We received the other
> reviewers comments from CP which were very favorable and only had minor
> corrections. The editors of CP also made us aware of the uncertain future of
> this academic journal. It is possible that Elsevier ceases to publish this
> journal soon (this still seems to be in discussion).
>
> Since our paper is basically a state-of-the-art review on uncertainties,
> climate change and adaptation (with lots of discussion), the more time it's on
> the shelf the more it gets out of date since there are new studies/research
> coming out all the time. We were wondering if you could perhaps suggest
> another journal that could be interested in this topic and also have a quick
> turnaround? Could Climatic Change be an option since you've already reviewed
> the paper? I haven't seem many review articles in Climatic Change, but I
> suppose it could be a guest editorial reply to your own 2002 editorial. Let us
> know where you think this paper would best fit considering these latest
> developments.
>
> Wishing you a very happy new year,
> Suraje
>
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 07:49:37 -0800 (PST)
> From: Stephen H Schneider
> To: Mike Hulme
> Subject: Dessai-Hume review (fwd)
>
> Hi Mike, hope all is well. Haven't heard back about the APril review and
> my very close schedule--any decisions?
> I forward to you--spoke to Suraje already about it--my review of your
> excellent paper on uncertainties, but of course a few mostly
> narcissistic nit-picks. hOpe it is useful. Cheers, Steve
> PS pls forward to Suraje, I'v misplaced my address book
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
>
> Tel: (650)725-9978
> Fax: (650)725-4387
> shs@stanford.edu
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 07:40:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Stephen H Schneider
> To: Climate Policy
> Subject: Dessai-Hume review
>
> HI Ray, sorry to take so long with this, but I finally read it on the
> plane to COP9-just discussed my minor complaints with Suraje, so he knows
> who I am-I nearly always self-confess, as I encourage most Climatic Change
> reviewers to do, but of course I do not insist.
>
> In short, this is an excellent review, brings lots of literature in-some
> of which even I who am at the center of this uncertainties battle-didn't
> know, so it will be a clearly valuable entry for the Climate Policy
> readership and beyond. It lays out the paradigmatic differences among
> groups fairly, and tries to be neutral in laying out pros and cons. Some
> in certain schools will think that wimpy, but it is the best summary I've
> seen of the state of the art, so my hat off to Suraje and Mike for a fair
> and balanced piece. It could be shorter and still make it's main points,
> but then some of the excellent scholarship would be lost so I vote to
> publish it about how it is now. Of course, I have a few nit-picks, mostly
> narcissistic, which I'll list below. Other than that I think it should be
> provisionally accepted right now subject to a final version that deals
> with my minor comments and other reviewers comment--presuming you get some
> of those too.
>
> P10-analogs discussion. While literature is cited about analogs to past
> adaptation, the authors need to warn the readers that global change
> forcing may be unique and no-analog impacts seem likely, so analogs,
> either to paleoclimatic states or adaptations are just the backdrop
> against which we calibrate our understanding of how the system works, but
> not necessarily analogs to the unique and transient changes now evolving.
> Also on this page, in the middle, the Pielke and Sarewitz little polemical
> sentence is quoted suggesting irrelevancy of probabilities for "climate
> adaptation policy". This is a speciesist prejudice-only humans count. For
> plants and animals, for which adaptation is much less likely, but systems
> would be damaged, for humans to decide how much they worry about this
> possibility, relative to other calls on our scarce resources,
> probabilities are essential, not irrelevant. The likelihood of 2 versus 5
> degrees is the difference between some species lost and a mass extinction
> event. Also, in a sentence below the meaningless word "accurate" is given.
> As Moss and I complained two thousand times in the TAR, words like
> accurate, definitive, certain etc are meaningless rhetoric if not defined
> versus a quantitative scale of subjective probabilities, since one
> analyst's "accuracy" might be a 95% chance of something being true, where
> another's is a 5% chance because they adhere to precaution rather than
> proof. Just unpack this a bit with caveats along the lines I call for
> here.
>
> P14; The worry that uncertainty may increase with more research is a
> certainty, in fact lots of literature--including later in this paper--show
> how climate sensitivity has grown with research. Of course it will narrow
> as nature continues to perform the warming experiment, but no need to be
> tentative-some things will grow less certain, others more as research
> progresses, depending on the maturity of the field at the point of the
> research increase and to some extent on luck. More complex systems more
> likely to have uncertainty grow at first with more research than simple
> well-constrained systems.
>
> P15
> The point that neither I nor Naki/Arnulf explicitly mentioned reflexivity"
> is a bit unfair for two reasons. (1) We were debating in a narrow
> column-SRES scenarios/storylines which were self-constructed to be "policy
> independent". Now they can criticize rightly SRES for thinking such a
> thing is meaningful, but we kept our debate in those citations to those
> issues mainly for the one-point-at-a-time principle. (2) The second reason
> is in my rebuttal to Naki/Arnulf a year later in Climatic Change (2002)
> that Suraje/Mike do cite, I explicitly address this as in the quoted
> section below (see especially the caps), though I don't use the word
> "reflexive" but rather feedback, but it means the same (quote on page 445
> of my Editorial):
>
> Moreover, Grübler and Nakicenovic (2001) also argue that probabilities in
> natural
> science are different from those in social science, since we can perform
> frequency
> experiments in the former, whereas in the latter we must make judgments.
> Grübler
> and Nakicenovic say that
> in an interdisciplinary scientific assessment, the concept of
> probabilities as used in natural sciences should not be imposed on the
> social sciences. Probability in the natural sciences is a statistical
> approach relying on repeated experiments and frequencies of measured
> outcomes, in which the system to be
> analysed can be viewed as a 'black box'. Scenarios describing possible
> future developments in society, economy, technology, policy and so on, are
> radically different. First, there are no independent observations and no
> repeated experiments:
> the future is unknown, and each future is 'path-dependent': that is, it
> results from a large series of conditionalities ('what if. . . then'
> assumptions) that need to be followed through in constructing internally
> consistent scenarios. Socio-economic variables and their alternative
> future development paths cannot be combined at will and are not freely
> interchangeable because of their inter-dependencies.
>
> However, natural scientific projections for the future still require
> judgments,
> as no frequency experiments can be made before the fact. We must still
> assume
> that our assumptions which govern the structural design of our systems
> models
> will hold in the future, often for values of dependent variables that are
> outside
> of the range of past experience. Moreover, there are conditionalities in
> natural
> science as well, and the solutions are, like Grübler and Nakicenovic
> rightly assert
> for social systems, 'path dependent' for natural systems as well as social
> systems.
> Therefore, I believe there is no in principle difference between natural
> and social
> sciences in this regard, since both require feedback mechanisms and
> contain path
> dependent systems. However, I agree there is one aspect in which social
> systems
> are harder to predict than natural systems. Although in both social and
> natural
> systems interactions among subsystems can cause alterations over time, IN
> THE CASE
> OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS, CHANGING BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES, THEMSELVES PARTIALLY
> DRIVEN BY INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM IS EVOLVING, CAN LEAD TO
> MODIFICATIONS OF POLICY CHOICES.
> While the latter property of social systems is different in kind from
> natural
> system predictions, to me both natural and social systems models involve
> the
> necessity to model feedback processes, and thus are very similar. In
> essence, we
> need a systems model that explicitly deals with the many subcomponents
> that we
> believe will influence the evolving emergent properties of a complex
> socio-natural
> system, and that when social sciences are included, the system becomes
> more
> complex in detail, but not necessarily in principle. For us simply to
> redefine the
> classical definition of risk to consequences alone, because subjective
> probabilistic
> analysis is fraught with deep uncertainties, is in essence to offer no
> advice to the
> policy community as to how it should order its investments in alternative
> actions,
> for without probabilities it is very difficult to engage in risk
> management. And if
> we in the scientific assessment business do not offer some explicit
> notions of the
> likelihood of projected events, then the users of our products - policy
> analysts and
> policy makers - must guess what we think these likelihood estimates are.
> That is
> hardly preferable in my view to a carefully worded set of subjective
> probabilistic
> estimates in which our (often low) confidence in such estimates
> accompanies any
> likelihood statements.
> .
> p16-be careful about nobody does reflexive modeling assertions. What about
> the whole integrated assessment cabal with agent-based decision making
> responding to evolving climate and mitigation costs. Nordhaus' DICE is the
> most famous example. I have been personally critical of the assumptions he
> and other neo-classical economists use in their current models, but in
> principle they are modeling human reactions to evolving climate and
> imposing policy changes that feed back on the climate and society. In fact
> I've said one gets emergent properties of coupled socio-natural systems in
> the pages of Climate Policy-particularly when abrupt changes are included.
> See:
> Mastrandrea, M. and S.H. Schneider, 2001: Integrated Assessment of Abrupt
> Climatic Changes. Climate Policy, 1, 433-449.
>
> So, to be sure feedback-reflexivity-is a major obstacle as asserted, but
> because it is hard doesn't mean there haven't been some heroic-even if
> weak-attempts and that many more will and should be forthcoming. Just tell
> the story straight.
>
> P18-Myles Allen has already started, not about to as said at bottom. Might
> also note that part of the model-data inter-comparison test will reveal
> model errors, part will reveal errors in the forcings used to drive the
> model simulations and some error will be in the instrumental data
> themselves. Thus independent tests-like looking for climate signals in
> plants and animals--also needed. See, e.g.:
>
> Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and A.
> Pounds, 2003: Fingerprints of Global Warming on Wild Animals and Plants.
> Nature, 421, 57-60.
>
>
> P24. I think the Clark /Pulwarty quote is itself misleading, since it is
> missing an essential requirement (in the Moss/Schneider guidance paper to
> IPCC on uncertainties), which is all probabilistic info-via pdfs,
> presumably, should also contain a measure of subjective confidence in the
> pdf itself. So I fully agree we should not wait for perfect information
> via a single pdf, but we can offer pdfs AND confidence assessments of them
> in the meanwhile, as better than offering no pdfs at all. Just because
> some who do not understand probabilities will also not understand
> probabilistic formulations for problems other than that of climate
> policy-how about medical or military policy. We cannot refuse to do
> probabilistic information because of ignorance outside of us, when that is
> the most honest assessment of the state of the art. What is called for in
> my view is expert popularization using gambling, health and insurance
> metaphors to make probabilistic formulations clearer to non-specialists,
> not abandonment of the most honest descriptors of the state of the art.
> Most scientists are obscure and lousy popularizers I admit, but correct
> the problem right, not by suppressing pdfs and subjective confidence
> estimation-that is my view and I don't expect the authors to necessarily
> agree with it but I do expect they will raise these issues explicitly in
> their text and give their views.
>
> P25, 1st paragraph-anthropocentrism again.
>
> P 26
> Statement "Human reflexive uncertainty is unquantifiable in probabilistic
> terms" is certainly wrong-it has been done in the economics/integrated
> assessment literature for a dozen years already. Now, is it very
> credible?--that is another thing. Some predictions-like production will
> respond to price signals--probably pretty robust, whereas others-how will
> future generations see the intrinsic value of a songbird-much tougher to
> have even medium confidence in. But ALL are quantifiable via various
> techniques: modeling, CV or decisional analytic elicitations. That is
> where the confidence assessment part comes in, for some such predictions
> will carry very low confidence and that must be said explicitly-but not
> all will and thus don't over generalize or miss the distinction between
> the possibility of quantification per se and its relative credibility-two
> different things that should be explicitly separated in the text.
>
> OK That's my nit-pick list. I look forward to seeing this in Climate
> Policy soon.
>
>
> OK Ray, LET ME KNOW IT CAME OK. i'LL ATTACH A WORD VERSION OF THE LETTER
> IF tHAT IS USEFUL TO YOU. Cheers, Steve
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
>
> Tel: (650)725-9978
> Fax: (650)725-4387
> shs@stanford.edu
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Suraje Dessai
> PhD Researcher
>
> Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
> Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: + 44 (0)1603 593911
> Fax: + 44 (0)1603 593901
> E-mail: s.dessai@uea.ac.uk
> Web: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk
> ___________________________________________________________
>
------
Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Dept. of Biological Sciences;
Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
Tel: (650)725-9978
Fax: (650)725-4387
e-mail: shs@stanford.edu
website: stephenschneider.stanford.edu
2373. 2004-01-08 09:12:10
______________________________________________________
date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:12:10 -0800
from: Global Dialogue 2004
subject: Global Dialogue 2004 Final Program
Global Dialogue 2004 Final Program [Image] Call for Papers and participation in the
dialogue The first Press Release from Global Dialogue 2004 is found at
http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/pressreleasesyears20042008.htm January 2004
Newsletter can be found at the following location:
http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/newsletters20042006.htm There are no costs in
reading our Newsletters and Press Releases. January 2004 Newsletter is showing the Final
Program of Global Dialogue 2004. It tells you how you can participate. You can read about
the Final Program in the following two locations:
http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/index.htm
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/Program.htm Global Dialogue 2004 is about all of
the issues we discussed during the previous global dialogues plus new issues related to
helping humanity in seeing how important this 21st century is to the survival of all life
on Earth. It is a difficult period of time for it implies the survival of all lifeforms on
Earth for this century. The world needs to develop a sense of direction we ought to take as
a species, to define our duties as citizens of the Earth and as the Global Community.
Workshop Sessions and Discusssion Roundtables will last from August 1 to 31. One of the
sites for the Workshop Sessions is in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. The actual
location will be made available at a later date. Other Workshop Sessions may be organized
all over the world. This Call for Papers contains all the information needed to submit a
paper to be considered for Global Dialogue 2004. We welcome proposals for individual
papers, presentations, traditional panel discussions and workshops. We encourage
non-traditional formats including photographic, poster and dramatic displays dealing with
pertinent themes, and facilitated groups. We are extending a special invitation to
community groups, community activists and others directly involved in the challenges of
community and home development. Please submit your proposals for individual papers, panels,
workshops or displays using the forms shown in the Final Program. Paper topics include all
aspects of sustainable development, Earth governance and management, plus all issues
related to the formation of new symbiotical relationships on Earth as defined in Issues
2004. Most recent issues are listed here at the end of this message. We are asking members
of the Earth Community Organization (ECO), the Global Community, and participants in Global
Dialogue 2004, to submit any of the following work: A ) Research paper(s) as per scientific
criteria described in the Call for Papers. Your paper is a publication and will appear in
the Proceedings to be published shortly after the conference in August 2004. Abstracts are
now published in the Final Program. B ) Your Vision of Earth in year 2024 C ) Results of
brain-storming exercises on issues. D ) The design of an Earth flag. A campaign to create
an Earth flag is going on right now and I call upon and encourage students from all over
the planet to participate in the design of the Earth flag. It will be their first unified
achievement. E ) Children's education is also part of the theme for this global dialogue.
There is a need to train the next generation in the skills of collaborating in the future
management of global change, which will be vital to survival. F ) Students of all levels
(school, college, technical, university) are invited to participate in Global Community
projects. They are asked to produce any creative work of their vision of what the Global
Community can accomplish ~ in the fields of zoology, biology, history, geography, social
and political sciences, agriculture, energy, earth sciences, forestry, communications,
wilderness, pollution, on the water supplies of the world, poverty, employment, social
justice, human and Earth rights, universal values, global concepts, business and economy,
availability of resources and so on. G ) Comments and recommendations on ideas proposed so
far and on research papers already submitted; we want to hear your opinion and views. H )
Positive and constructive actions in sustaining Earth. These are actions learned from the
previous Global Dialogues or new ones. Participants from all sectors of life are invited to
describe and explain actions that they have performed in their own homes, global
communities, business places or in any other places on the planet. I ) Articles for
publishing in future Newsletters and making them available on the Internet. Newsletters
will be posted on Global Dialogue website. Make sure you specify that it is an article for
the Newsletters and not a research paper. The Table of Contents of Global Dialogue 2004
January Newsletter is shown here. Participants will find all the information needed to
participate. Table of Contents Theme: Final Program of Global Dialogue 2004 1.0 Global
Dialogue 2004: Introduction and Procedure 2.0 Scheduling 3.0 How to participate 4.0
Participate in Workshop Sessions and Discussion Roundtables 5.0 Final Program 6.0 For more
information contact the Office of Global Dialogue 2004 Germain Dufour Project Officer
Global Dialogue 2004 186 Bowlsby Street, Nanaimo, BC, Canada V9R 5K1 websites Global
Dialogue 2004 Earth Community Organization (ECO), the Global Community Email addresses
gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com globaldialogue2004@shaw.ca If you no longer wish
receiving our Newsletters and Press Releases please let us know on a reply message. Let us
know your exact email address, and we will remove your name from our emailing list. Listing
of the Global Dialogue 2004 issues obtained from our press releases and newsletters [Image]
1. Protection of the global life-support systems. 2. Overpopulated planet. 3. Criteria to
obtain the Global Community Citizenship. 4. The statement of rights and responsibilities of
a person and of belonging to 'a global community' and to 'The Global Community', the Earth
Community, the human family. 5. Results of comparing the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and charters of nations around the world with the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.
6. Political systems of nations dont have to be democracies. 7. A global symbiotical
relationship between nations. 8. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). 9. Earth
resources. 10. Formation of Earth Government for the good of all. 11. Mines, and mining the
impacts. 12. The war industry, the modern evil at work. 13. Peace movement of the Earth
Community Organization (ECO). 14. Earth security. 15. Earth governance. 16. Earth Court of
Justice. 17. Foundation of the new world order. 18. Global cooperation in health issues.
19. Global community concepts. 20. Global cooperation in helping the starving world. 21.
Humanity scale of social values. 22. Upgrading the WTO and the FTAA to symbiotical
relationships. 23. Earth Government vs the United Nations. 24. Business and trade, and new
ways of doing business. 25. The Kyoto Protocol is everyone's business on Earth. 26. Earth
rights and the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. 27. Spirituality, religious beliefs and the
protection of the global life-support systems. 28. Preventive actions against the worst
polluters on the planet and those who destroy the global life-support systems. 29. Global
tax. 30. Scenarios of what might be humanity's future. 31. Vision of the Earth in year
2024. 32. Global strategies. 33. Consumerism. 34. Charter of the Earth Community. 35.
Community rights on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. 36. A global sustainable
development. 37. Women's rights. 38. Water resources. 39. Bullying occurring at the United
Nations, and case of a predator nation. 40. Criteria to obtain one ECO, the Certified
Corporate Global Community Citizenship.
Global Dialogue 2004 Final Program
[1][cid:part1.3FFD8F69.60B7DEB0@shaw.ca]
Call for Papers and participation in the dialogue
The first Press Release from Global Dialogue 2004 is found at
[2]http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/pressreleasesyears20042008.htm
January 2004 Newsletter can be found at the following location:
[3]http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/newsletters20042006.htm
There are no costs in reading our Newsletters and Press Releases.
January 2004 Newsletter is showing the Final Program of Global Dialogue 2004. It tells you
how you can participate. You can read about the Final Program in the following two
locations:
[4]http://members.shaw.ca/globaldialogue2004/index.htm
[5]http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/Program.htm
Global Dialogue 2004 is about all of the issues we discussed during the previous global
dialogues plus new issues related to helping humanity in seeing how important this 21st
century is to the survival of all life on Earth. It is a difficult period of time for it
implies the survival of all lifeforms on Earth for this century. The world needs to
develop a sense of direction we ought to take as a species, to define our duties as
citizens of the Earth and as the Global Community.
Workshop Sessions and Discusssion Roundtables will last from August 1 to 31. One of the
sites for the Workshop Sessions is in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. The actual
location will be made available at a later date. Other Workshop Sessions may be organized
all over the world.
This [6]Call for Papers contains all the information needed to submit a paper to be
considered for Global Dialogue 2004.
We welcome proposals for individual papers, presentations, traditional panel discussions
and workshops. We encourage non-traditional formats including photographic, poster and
dramatic displays dealing with pertinent themes, and facilitated groups. We are extending a
special invitation to community groups, community activists and others directly involved in
the challenges of community and home development. Please submit your proposals for
individual papers, panels, workshops or displays using the forms shown in the[7] Final
Program.
Paper topics include all aspects of sustainable development, Earth governance and
management, plus all issues related to the formation of new symbiotical relationships on
Earth as defined in [8]Issues 2004. Most recent issues are listed here at the end of this
message.
We are asking members of the Earth Community Organization (ECO), the Global Community, and
participants in Global Dialogue 2004, to submit any of the following work:
A ) Research paper(s) as per scientific criteria described in the Call for Papers. Your
paper is a publication and will appear in the Proceedings to be published shortly after the
conference in August 2004. Abstracts are now [9]published in the Final Program.
B ) Your Vision of Earth in year 2024
C ) Results of brain-storming exercises on [10]issues.
D ) The design of an Earth flag. A campaign to create an Earth flag is going on right now
and I call upon and encourage students from all over the planet to participate in the
design of the Earth flag. It will be their first unified achievement.
E ) Children's education is also part of the theme for this global dialogue. There is a
need to train the next generation in the skills of collaborating in the future management
of global change, which will be vital to survival.
F ) Students of all levels (school, college, technical, university) are invited to
participate in Global Community projects. They are asked to produce any creative work of
their vision of what the Global Community can accomplish ~ in the fields of zoology,
biology, history, geography, social and political sciences, agriculture, energy, earth
sciences, forestry, communications, wilderness, pollution, on the water supplies of the
world, poverty, employment, social justice, human and Earth rights, universal values,
global concepts, business and economy, availability of resources and so on.
G ) Comments and recommendations on ideas proposed so far and on research papers already
submitted; we want to hear your opinion and views.
H ) Positive and constructive actions in sustaining Earth. These are actions learned from
the previous Global Dialogues or new ones. Participants from all sectors of life are
invited to describe and explain actions that they have performed in their own homes, global
communities, business places or in any other places on the planet.
I ) Articles for publishing in future Newsletters and making them available on the
Internet. Newsletters will be posted on [11]Global Dialogue website. Make sure you specify
that it is an article for the Newsletters and not a research paper.
The Table of Contents of Global Dialogue 2004 [12]January Newsletter is shown here.
Participants will find all the information needed to participate.
Table of Contents
Theme: Final Program of Global Dialogue 2004
1.0 Global Dialogue 2004: Introduction and Procedure
2.0 Scheduling
3.0 How to participate
4.0 Participate in Workshop Sessions and Discussion Roundtables
5.0 Final Program
6.0 For more information contact the Office of Global Dialogue 2004
Germain Dufour
Project Officer
Global Dialogue 2004
186 Bowlsby Street, Nanaimo, BC, Canada V9R 5K1
websites
[13]Global Dialogue 2004
[14]Earth Community Organization (ECO), the Global Community
Email addresses
[15]gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com
[16]globaldialogue2004@shaw.ca
If you no longer wish receiving our Newsletters and Press Releases please let us know on a
reply message. Let us know your exact email address, and we will remove your name from our
emailing list.
Listing of the Global Dialogue 2004 issues obtained from our press releases and newsletters
[17][cid:part2.3FFD8F69.60B7DEB0@shaw.ca]
1. Protection of the global life-support systems.
2. Overpopulated planet.
3. Criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship.
4. The statement of rights and responsibilities of a person and of belonging to 'a
global community' and to 'The Global Community', the Earth Community, the human family.
5. Results of comparing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and charters of
nations around the world with the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.
6. Political systems of nations dont have to be democracies.
7. A global symbiotical relationship between nations.
8. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
9. Earth resources.
10. Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.
11. Mines, and mining the impacts.
12. The war industry, the modern evil at work.
13. Peace movement of the Earth Community Organization (ECO).
14. Earth security.
15. Earth governance.
16. Earth Court of Justice.
17. Foundation of the new world order.
18. Global cooperation in health issues.
19. Global community concepts.
20. Global cooperation in helping the starving world.
21. Humanity scale of social values.
22. Upgrading the WTO and the FTAA to symbiotical relationships.
23. Earth Government vs the United Nations.
24. Business and trade, and new ways of doing business.
25. The Kyoto Protocol is everyone's business on Earth.
26. Earth rights and the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.
27. Spirituality, religious beliefs and the protection of the global life-support
systems.
28. Preventive actions against the worst polluters on the planet and those who destroy
the global life-support systems.
29. Global tax.
30. Scenarios of what might be humanity's future.
31. Vision of the Earth in year 2024.
32. Global strategies.
33. Consumerism.
34. Charter of the Earth Community.
35. Community rights on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.
36. A global sustainable development.
37. Women's rights.
38. Water resources.
39. Bullying occurring at the United Nations, and case of a predator nation.
40. Criteria to obtain one ECO, the Certified Corporate Global Community Citizenship.
Embedded Content: CWINDOWSTEMPnsmailAF.gif: 00000001,3b15d744,00000000,00000000 Embedded
Content: CWINDOWSTEMPnsmail45.gif: 00000001,79707aee,00000000,00000000
828. 2004-01-08 14:52:25
______________________________________________________
date: Thu Jan 8 14:52:25 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: papers
to: Tom Wigley
Tom,
I added the text and deleted some elsewhere to get it to fit.
I put them in a new section. I'll leave the other one
until next year - hopefully there will be one !
Cheers
Phil
At 07:24 08/01/2004 -0700, you wrote:
OK Phil -- I was going to remind you to add a bit of text about these papers, but you
seem to
have done so. (I thought it might need a separate 'detection' subheading.)
Ben and I are about to submit another paper about trop ht changes to Nature that acks
the
DOE grant. But this is food for next year.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++
Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
I'll finalise the report by putting in the first three of the four below. They
all acknowledge
the project. It appears as though the 4th should have - it has the right project
title, but a
NOAA grant number. Anyway there isn't space for an additional reference in this
restricted
format. Still leaves 14 papers that have come out since last Jan or are about to and 4
in the review stage. This doesn't count the EOS things with Mike Mann. All 14 are
peer-review.
Unless I here from you I'll put the report in tomorrow. I've reduced some of the
text in
places to add in a little on your three papers, plus another that I was involved with
and
completely forgot. Luckily got an email last night with the page numbers.
Cheers
Phil
Smith, R.L., Wigley, T.M.L. and Santer, B.D., 2003: A bivariate time series approach to
anthropogenic trend detection in hemispheric mean temperatures. Journal of Climate 16,
12281240.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Meehl, G.A., Wehner, M.F., Mears, C., Schabel, M., Wentz,
F.J., Ammann, C., Arblaster, J., Bettge, T., Washington, W.M., Taylor, K.E., Boyle,
J.S., Bruggemann, W., and Doutriaux, C., 2003: Influence of satellite data uncertainties
on the detection of externally-forced climate change. Science 300, 12801284.
Santer, B.D., Wehner, M.F., Wigley, T.M.L., Sausen, R., Meehl, G.A., Taylor, K.E.,
Ammann, C., Arblaster, J., Washington, W.M., Boyle, J.S. and Bruggemann, W., 2003:
Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes.
Science 301, 479483.
Santer, B.D., Sausen, R., Wigley, T.M.L., Boyle, J.S., AchutaRao, K., Doutriaux, C.,
Hansen, J.E., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Ruedy, R., Schmidt, G. and Taylor, K.E., 2003:
Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses and
observations: Decadal changes. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D1), 4002,
doi:10.1029/2002JD002258.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
313. 2004-01-08 15:45:51
______________________________________________________
cc: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:45:51 +0000
from: Rick Battarbee
subject: Re: timing of proposals
to: Keith Alverson
Hi Keith,
Yes it is - we now have a leaked version of the text for the palaeoclimate
project in the EU 3rd call. The meeting on Thursday will include those in
the EU community who want to include a longer time-scale in the proposal,
so if one objective were to mesh the EU and NSF programmes, this plus the
nature of the ESH priorities would be very relevant to the debate on how to
design "HOLCLIM". Eystein is putting the agenda together, but I'm sure he
would be very happy for you to outline the PAGES - NSF dimension.
See you next week
Rick
At 16:30 08/01/04 +0100, you wrote:
>Rick,
>
> Is the proposal deadline for some kind of Holclim-PAGES proposal we have
> been discussing in October? Our US funding manager, Dave Verardo, has had
> some contacts with EC folks (including Dr. Anver Ghazi, Head of the
> Global Change Unit at the European Commission) and tells me (see
> below) that there is an EU proposal deadline is about the same as the US
> Earth System History deadline that PAGES renewal proposal will be
> submitted for. Thus it may be worth linking up the proposals in some way,
> for example selling the PAGES NSF proposal in the EU Holclim proposal as
> a source of substantial matching funding which can serve to increase the
> value of the EU funding, and of course vice versa in the PAGES proposal I
> will submit to Dave. Just trying to think strategically a bit. If it
> seems interesting to you, we can perhaps discuss this at our meeting on
> the 15th.
>
>Keith
>
>>
>>By the way, the EC has now included paleoclimate research in their Work
>>Programme for the 3rd call on Global Change and Ecosystems. The US and the
>>EC have been talking about this at least since the spring. The idea has been
>>bubbling up in Europe and now they have included it for certain. The new
>>timing for ESH in Oct of each year and coincides perfectly with the EC
>>timeline with both countries making decisions at about the same time in the
>>early spring. This was not for certain at the AGU meeting (when I spoke to
>>the PAGES Ex Com) but apparently it is now. This is a good thing for
>>paleoclimate science research and will help ease co-funding decissions and
>>coordination, I hope.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>David J. Verardo Director, Paleoclimate Program
>>Division of Atmospheric Sciences (Room 775)
>>National Science Foundation
>>4201 Wilson Blvd.
>>Arlington, VA 22203
>>phone: 703-292-8527
>>fax: 703-292-9023
>>email: dverardo@nsf.gov
>>http://www.nsf.gov
>
>--
>Keith Alverson
>Executive Director, IGBP-PAGES, www.pages-igbp.org
>President, IAMAS International Commission on Climate, www.iamas.org
>Editor, EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union,
>http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos.html
>
>PAGES International Project Office
>Sulgeneckstrasse 38
>3007, Bern, Switzerland
>Tel: +41 31 312 3133
>Fax: +41 31 312 3168
>Mobile: +41 079 705 6536
Professor R.W. Battarbee
Environmental Change Research Centre
University College London
26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7582, Fax +44 (0)20 7679 7565
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/ecrc/
4889. 2004-01-09 13:58:20
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 9 13:58:20 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: greetings and paper
to: Neil Ward
Dear Neil,
Happy New Year ! and it has been a long time ! The papers from the Galway meeting
came out (Santer et al in 1993 ref in the proc. and then Clim. Dyn 95, vol 12, 77-100.
I'm partly out of this sort of thing now. Detection is all in the U/A now and all optimal.
The latest IPCC (2001) would be a good place to look through (the D&A chapter)
Other good reviews are Barnett et al (1999) in BAMS 80, 2631-2659.
Also Thorne et al (2003) in Clim Dyn. 21 , 573-591. Peter did his PhD here and now
he's at the HC working for Chris/Simon etc.
You can call if you want, but although this week was supposed to be relaxing (it
hasn't)
the next two are full with meetings. Reviewing KNMI next week and in Geneva the week
after for something to do with GCOS. Here both Fridays the next two weeks. Final week
of Jan should be here most of the time except 26/30th.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:26 08/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Greetings from IRI! Am pleased some discussions here have provided me
opportunity to contact you and say hello - and see if my distant memory
is at all accurate - somehow i recall you presenting in the mid/late 90s
an analysis of the spatial pattern of observed trends in the 20th
Century, and the degree to which they matched the spatial pattern of
trends in global change projections - i think it was at the climate
statistics meeting in Galway in 1996? If i'm right, would be interested
if there is anything published - and maybe if you are around, would be
interesting to touch base on the phone and chat a little about such
work.
Hope all is going well and look forward to catching up after a few years
indeed!
All the best,
Neil
--
Dr. Neil Ward
Director, Decision Systems Research
International Research Institute for Climate Prediction
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
101 Monell Bldg., LDEO
61 Route 9W
Palisades, NY 10964-8000
Phone: 845-680-4446 Fax: 845-680-4865
Email: nward@iri.columbia.edu
Internet: [1]http://iri.columbia.edu
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1097. 2004-01-12 09:09:11
______________________________________________________
date: Mon Jan 12 09:09:11 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Temperature reconstruction for the last millenium
to: Jorge Sánchez Sesma
Dear Jorge,
I addition to the comments I sent last week about people's preconceptions of the MWP
and to a lesser extent the LIA, here are a few more on the paper.
1. Greenland isn't inhospitable now nor in the 10th/11th centuries. The Inuit were there
the
whole time. Inhospitable to Europeans maybe, not to humans in general.
2. The Goudie (1992) reference to trees growing north of where they do now in the 10-12th
centuries needs to realise that trees will live happily north of where they are for the
rest
of their lives provided they have reached a certain size. In other words the warmth they
needed
only applies to a 30 year period when they germinated.
3. Vineyards were still here in England during the 17th century - see below. They are here
now - 7 times more than in 1086.
4. It is best to see what the data says rather than put forward pre-conceptions. I suspect
you
have more faith in ECS than MBH because it is more in line with what you expect.
5. Up to p4 in your paper, the only data that have been calibrated against instrumental
data
is the MBH series. All others are anecdotal.
6. ECS is calibrated also, but against MBH - not against the instrumental data ! So, you
can't say that MBH is wrong then use a data series developed by calibration against it.
The
reason for the differences between MBH and ECS has been discussed in the literature. ECS
is more likely to be summer responsive and the sites are in mid-to-high latitudes compared
to MBH. I'm attaching a paper that you might find relevant. It relates to possible changes
in the seasonal cycle.
7. The main problem with the paper, though, is that the ice-core acidity series you use is
a forcing series (i.e indicative of volcanic activity) and not a response series (i.e
temperature
in its simplest form). Your calibration is based on a low-frequency relationship. There
will
be few degrees of freedom after the smoothing.
8. MRBHK have done a lot more to the borehole record than Huang et al (2000) like.
Also it too is calibrated against MBH. It isn't just an interpolation of the original
data.
9. You can't choose ECS just because it has more variability than MBH.
10. Finally, just because a warming began 400 years ago doesn't mean that it is all due
to the same cause. It was obviously natural until the 20th century, but this doesn't
preclude it being human-induced during the last century.
One small point, on p3 line 7 of the first para of Background, sea should be sea ice. It
took me
a while to realise what you must mean here.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Jorge,
I will look through the paper when I am away from CRU either next week or the week
after. I see you mention vineyards as far north as York in the MWP. This has very little
to do with climate change - there is a vineyard near there today. Here is some text I
wrote
a while ago about two anecdotes, the Thames freezing and vines in York.
1) River Thames freeze-overs (and sometimes frost fairs) only occurred 22 times between
1408 and 1814 [Lamb, 1977] when the old London Bridge constricted flow through its multiple
piers and restricted the tide with a weir. After the Bridge was replaced in the 1830s the
tide came further upstream and freezes no longer occurred, despite a number of
exceptionally cold winters. 1962/3, for example, was the third coldest in the Central
England Temperature (CET) record [the longest instrumental record anywhere in the world
extending back to 1659, Manley, 1974; Parker et al., 1992], yet the river only froze
upstream of the present tidal limit at Teddington. The CET record clearly indicates that
Thames (London) 'frost fairs' provide a biased account of British climate changes (let
alone larger-scale changes, see Figure 2c) in past centuries.
2) Monks in Medieval England grew vines as wine was required for the sacrament. With
careful husbandry vines can be grown today and indeed vineyards are found as far north as
southern Yorkshire. There are a considerably greater number of active vineyards in England
and Wales today (roughly 350) than recorded during Medieval times (52 in the Domesday Book
of AD 1086), exposing as distinctly curious the claims sometimes made that evidence of vine
growing in Medieval England provides evidence of unusual warmth at that time. Vine growing
persisted in England throughout the millennium. The process of making sparkling wine was
developed in London (by Christopher Merret) in the 17th century, fully 30 years before it
began in the Champagne region of France. Thus, the oft-cited example of past vine growing
in England thus reflects little, if any, on the relative climate changes in the region
since Medieval times.
Also, vine growing was mainly at monasteries. Because the Romans and the Normans came
from the south they brought vines with them. The population that was here at the time of
the invasions were Celts when the Romans came and Anglo-Saxons and Celts when the
Normans came. Neither of these two peoples drank wine and this is also a factor in why
vine growing was never popular.
Most of the above comes from the web site of the English vine growing association.
Vineyards
have produced wine throughout the millennium. As most of the monasteries were
destroyed by Henry the 8th in 16th century most of the vineyards fell into disrepair.
There
were vineyards around London in the 17th century.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:36 05/01/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Dear Dr Jones:
You will find attached a very crude draft of a paper about Global
Temperature reconstruction. This reconstruction have a notable coincidence
with recent publication (Esper, Cook and Shweingruber 2002).
I would like to know your oppinion and suggestions to improve the text
before to be sent this paper to Science.
I would like to emphasize that I continue to be interested to visit CRU and
stablish a formal collaboration in this subject.
My best regards,
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma
Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua
Subcoordinación de Hidrometeorología
Paseo Cuauhnahuac No. 8532, Col. Progreso
Jiutepec, Morelos
62550, México
telefono: 52+(777)329-3600 x 879
fax 52+(777)3293683
email: jsanchez@tlaloc.imta.mx
pagina: [1]http://nimbus.imta.mx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. 2004-01-12 10:10:13
______________________________________________________
date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:10:13 -0000
from: "LICC"
subject: LICC - Word for the Week - Like master, unlike servant
to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
LICC word for the week
Like master, unlike servant
Obadiah was in charge of (Ahabs) palace. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the Lord.) 1
Kings 18:3
Few of us would envy Obadiah, working in a position of responsibility for a godless,
corrupt and ruthless master.
But the majority of Christians today are similarly working for ungodly employers some
basically honest and just, others corrupt and tyrannical. Should they resign, and retreat
into the comparative safety of Christian employment? Or believing that the salt should be
applied to the food, the lamp placed on a stand should they stay where they are and try to
make a difference?
How did Obadiah handle the challenge?
First of all, he maintained his faith. How easy it is, in a godless environment, to lose
the freshness of our relationship with God, and gradually slip into habits of gossip,
complaining and offensive talk, while God seems less and less relevant to our real-life
situations.
But Obadiah also took advantage of the opportunities offered to him by his job, hiding and
feeding a hundred prophets during Jezebels persecutions. Our jobs may seem to offer little
scope for heroism. But all of us have opportunities to live a distinctively Christian life
in the way we behave towards our colleagues, in our conscientiousness and integrity. And
many of us, as we attain to positions of responsibility, have real opportunities to change
things to encourage and support younger colleagues, to review investment policies and sales
methods, to initiate and support policies that promote justice.
The time came when Obadiah recognised that he must stand up and be counted, and he agreed
to act as messenger for Elijah, whom Ahab perceived as his greatest enemy. The time may
come for us, too, when the Lord convinces us that we must make a stand on an issue of
principle, to challenge or identify ourselves with those who are challenging corruption,
mismanagement and discrimination, or the inequities of the worlds economic systems.
How we do this is another matter. But we all have an opportunity of making a difference
where we are today and in the year ahead.
Helen Parry
How easy it is, in a godless environment, to lose the freshness of our relationship with
God
making a difference where we are
GOD BLESS AMERICA? LICC hosts an evening mini-series in January on the world's only
superpower:
** TONIGHT ** Jan 12: American Dream, Global Nightmare? with Matthew Bishop (of the
Economist) What are the stories, values and passions that motivate America and Americans?
How should the rest of us engage with the American Dream? Do Christians have a unique
perspective on America and its place in the world?
January 19: A Chosen People? with Clifford Longley (writer, journalist and broadcaster)
9/11 has given a new urgency to some of the most crucial topics of the 21st century. What
makes America so strong and yet so vulnerable? Why do the British and Americans so often
stand shoulder to shoulder? What are the real roots of their common history..?
For further details go to [1]http://www.licc.org.uk/events/event.php/id/73 To book please
call LICC on 020 73 999 555 or send an email to [2]mail@licc.org.uk
MANAGING THE FUTURE: THE CHALLENGES TO SOCIETY AND BUSINESS FROM SCIENCE, ETHICS AND
RELIGIOUS BELIEF An all-day conference at the Royal Society of Arts, 8 John Adam Street,
London WC2 organized by the John Ray Initiative with the support of the John Templeton
Foundation, the Shell Foundation and with the London Institute for Contemporary
Christianity. Beginning at 10am on Tuesday, 24th February, £15 each, including lunch. Email
[3]claire.ashton@jri.org.uk to book a place. Further details will become available in the
New Year on [4]www.jri.org.uk or [5]www.licc.org.uk
The London Institute for Contemporary Christianity
St Peter's, Vere St, London, W1G 0DQ (t) 020 7399 9555 (e) mail@licc.org.uk Visit
[6]www.licc.org.uk for articles and events listings.
If you have received this email indirectly and would like to subscribe to our mailing list
please send a request to [7]mail@licc.org.uk. To be removed please reply to
[8]mail@licc.org.uk with the subject "unsubscribe".
Embedded Content: wftw146.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,7544c561
1622. 2004-01-12 11:58:25
______________________________________________________
date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:58:25 -0000
from: "Alex Haxeltine"
subject: VERY URGENT: Nominations for IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
to: "tim osborn" , , "Keith Briffa" , "Phil Jones" , "mike hulme" , , "Emma Tompkins" , "Neil Adger" , , "John Turnpenny" , "John Schellnhuber" , , "frans berkhout" , , , "sari kovats" , "tom downing" , , , , "Jonathan Koehler" , "rachel warren" , "Terry Barker \(DAE\)" , , "simon shackley"
Dear Colleague,
You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person working closely
with the Tyndall Centre who may be interested in being involved in the next IPCC assessment
report.
If you would like to be nominated then you need to urgently complete a nomination form and
return it to the IPCC by the 16th January at the very very latest.
However, we would very strongly advise that you return your completed form to the defra
contact, Ross Jones, by 12am on the 14th january.
The letter from defra is attached: this provides a link to where the nomination form can be
downloaded. It is not a lot of work but basically requires details from your CV and an
indication of where you would wish to contribute:
1) To help with this please find a further attachment (Possible IPCC authors from
Tyndall.rtf) that provides a summary of where each of you might contribute and in what
capacity. This list is purely indicative and it is entirely up to you, of course, how you
fill the form in (although nominating yourself for more than two chapters is maybe not a
good idea in most cases).
2) The person nominating you will be the UK IPCC focal point, so you fill the form in as
the person being nominated.
3) Then send the form back to Ross Jones at defra directly, and NOT to me or anyone else in
Tyndall (Ross Jones' email address is included in the attached letter).
4) If you have already completed a nomination form and sent it to Ross Jones at defra then
you can of course disregard this email.
5) If you do NOT want to be nominated to take part in the next IPCC assessment report then
you do not need to tkae any action on this email.
6) If you know of someone else in your institution/UK network who you strongly feel should
be nominated, then simply get them to fill in the form as well and return it by the same
deadline.
Best of luck,
Alex Haxletine
Dr Alexander Haxeltine
International Science Co-ordinator
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Tel: +44 1603 593902
Fax: +44 1603 593901
Website: [1]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk
> >Subject: Nominations for IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:37:28 -0000
> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
> >
> >Dear All,
> >
> >The IPCC is requesting governments to make nominations for Coordinating Lead
> >Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Expert Reviewers or Review
> >Editors for the different chapters of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of
> >the IPCC.
> >
> >Please see letter attached outlining the tasks and responsibilities of the
> >above roles and the department's policy for supporting contributors to the
> >IPCC.
> >
> >If you wish to be nominated for one of the above roles please see guidelines
> >on how to do so in the letter attached. All nominations need to be sent to
> >me electronically or via the post by 16th January 2004 at the very latest.
> >
> >Please forward this email on to anyone else who you think my be interested
> >in being involved in the preparation of the AR4.
> >
> >Kind regards
> >Ross Jones
> >Global Atmosphere Division
> >Defra Area 3/A1
> >Ashdown House
> >123 Victoria St.
> >London SW1E 6DE
> >
> >Tel: 0207 082 8161
> >Fax: 0207 082 8151
> >Email: [2]ross.jones@defra.gsi.gov.uk
> > <>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
> >
> >This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
> >Its unauthorised
> >use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received
> >it in error, please
> >destroy all copies and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
> >attachments will
> >have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can
> >accept no
> >responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's
> >computer systems
> >may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
> >system and for
> >other lawful purposes."
> >
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\IPCC
LET.doc.dot" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\Possible IPCC authors from Tyndall.rtf"
2026. 2004-01-12 12:20:38
______________________________________________________
date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:20:38 -0000
from: "Elaine Jones"
subject: of interest
to: "andrew dlugolecki" , "Mike Hulme"
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Phil Doran
To: [2]H2NET-L@cclrclsv.RL.AC.UK
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:24 AM
You might find this article on growing investor concerns regarding the unknown risks -
owing to lack of company disclosure - they face regarding climate change. This is an area
receiving ever more attention. Clearly, as the price of Carbon Emissions is internalised
through such systems as the European emissions system due to be introduced in 2005 the
price structure moves in favour of cleaner energy conversion technologies. This effect can
only be reinforced as investors begin to consider the (thus far unknown) `environmental'
risks they may face, ultimately raising the cost of capital for `offending' companies.
This article came out at the end of last year and carries some interesting messages.
UNITED NATIONS - State treasurers and pensions funds that help oversee $1 trillion in
assets last week urged U.S. regulators and business leaders to force corporations to give
investors more information on the financial risks from global climate change.
Eight U.S. state and city treasurers and comptrollers and the leaders of two large labor
pension funds issued a "call for action" at a day-long Institutional Investor Summit on
Climate Risk held at U.N. headquarters. Executives from top Wall Street banks and fund
management firms also attended the meeting. The plan basically asks the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission to impose tighter disclosure, reporting and risk assessment
requirements on corporations so that public pension funds can assess more accurately the
potential financial risk to their shareholdings from climate change.
The pension funds said a broad swath of industries could be vulnerable to new global
warming regulations or possible future legal action. As an example, fund officials said any
new regulation capping emissions of carbon dioxide by industrial firms could increase their
costs substantially as they would have to use cleaner and more expensive fuels.
In light of financial scandals at firms like Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc., which have
blindsided investors, "what we want is no surprises," said Nappier, who as the Connecticut
treasurer helps oversee $19 billion. "We have certainly had enough of the unexpected, and
this time we want to know up front and early on, we want to know what exposure is down the
road and what damage is being done to our investments and to our economy," she said.
'THE DATA IS PILING UP'
"Most of Wall Street today seems to ignore climate risk and feels more comfortable
pretending that global warming will not affect their portfolios," said Leon Panetta, former
director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. "The data is piling up and the trends
are clear. In 2003, it is irresponsible for any major investor or fiduciary to ignore the
risks of global warming," Panetta said, suggesting the lawyers who filed the first lawsuits
against tobacco and asbestos firms were now looking at global warming. "How long will it
take before someone takes a swing at an oil company or a power company?" he asked.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, now vice chairman of Metropolitan West Financial,
attended the summit. He noted a recent report that China was drafting ambitious fuel
economy standards for cars and trucks, to cut down on fuel use. We could be in a situation
where they are providing cars to markets through the years that greatly exceed the
environment standards that we (in the United States) are used to building toward," Gore
said. "We will be behind the curve in every way."
Pressed on whether the public pension funds would divest companies that did not comply with
their demands, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said: "Divesting is the last thing
you want to do .... Once you divest you no longer have an influence over the company."
However, he added: "You might have to divest at the end of a process and say 'this company
is beyond the pale'."
Phil Doran
Partner
Core Technology Ventures LLP
Hegewiese 4c
61389 Schmitten
Germany
T: +49 (0)6084 950012
F: +49 (0)6084 950070
Mobile:
German: +49 (0)178 3928766
U.K. +44 (0)7736 528516
Email: [3]phil@coretecventures.com
Web: [4]www.coretecventures.com
Regulated by the Financial Services Authority
NOTICE - This electronic mail message is intended only for the person or entity named in
the addressee field. This message contains information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the addressee thereof or the person responsible for its delivery, please
notify us immediately by telephone (+44 (0)20 75345170) and permanently delete all copies
(including electronic copies) of this message that you may have. Any dissemination or
copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or
endorsed by Core Technology Ventures LLP unless otherwise indicated by an authorised
representative.
1156. 2004-01-12 16:12:55
______________________________________________________
date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:12:55 +0200
from: Timothy Carter
subject: Re: ruosteenoja manuscript
to: Mike Hulme
Dear Mike,
Happy 2004 to you too!
Yes, the report is downloadable from the DDC at:
http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/asres/scatter_plots/scatterplots_home.html
and the scatters are available online. The report is also being printed - I
have the proofs on my desk right now.
There was a delay due to interpretation of the 2 SD ellipses showing
multi-decadal nat. variability. It appears that one cannot simply compare
the scatter points with the 2 * SD range to establish stat. significance.
One should also multiply the 2 * SD by SQRT 2, to account for the fact that
the modelled baseline and the modelled future are BOTH affected by natural
variability. This statistical point was brought up by a reviewer of the
current report, and the wording has been adjusted in this report though the
plots have not been revised. The "error" is also included in a number of
our previous publications. Note that it was missed by about 20 other
reviewers of this and previous reports!! It doesn't really affect the major
conclusions that might be drawn from the earlier documents, but it ain't
right all the same!
Best regards,
Tim
At 15:41 12.1.2004, you wrote:
>Tim,
>
>Just come across an old (December 2002) manuscript from Ruosteenoja,
>Carter, Jylha and Tuomenvirta on future climate in world regions.
>
>I guess you must have sent me this; has it appeared in print or on the web
>in its final form? It would be useful for one of my students.
>
>Many thanks and best wishes for the New Year!
>
>Mike
879. 2004-01-13 16:31:12
______________________________________________________
cc: ,
date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:31:12 +0000
from: "Philip Newton"
subject: Re: RAPID: Assessment of Joint AO Outline Bids
to: , , , , , , , , , "Eric W Wolff" , , , , , ,
Hi Eric (and listeners),
In case of any misunderstanding, five RAPID SC members are on the
joint committee, who will effectively have delegated responsibility
for recommendations on outline bids that could ultimately lead to
awards of up to £1M of RAPID monies.
I feel I should provide more background explanation...
Basically, new Norwegian conflict of interest rules at their
strictest disallow anyone from the same country as eligible
scientists! (So on their committees they now exclude all Norwegians).
For the purposes of this venture, they were happy with people who are
not eligible to bid (whether for funds or as collaborators).
Basically, this pretty much rules out all but those on the RAPID SC
who have been asked to participate (e.g. people like Simon, Richard
and Bill are named collaborators on some bids).
As about 60% of the bids are palaeo related, a special case was made
for Sandy, on the grounds that neither he nor anyone from Edinburgh is
involved in any of the outline bids. You were also considered for the
palaeo exception, but the fact that Rob Mulvaney from BAS is a co-I on
one bid, doing ice-core work, put you behind Sandy.
On the more general issue, we have a committee of 8, of which 5 are
RAPID SC members (60% of members), for a joint pot of money to which
RAPID has contributed less than 40% of the money. On top of this, we
should remember that the Dutch and Norwegians were happy for the
science focus of the call to map completely on the RAPID Science Plan.
Personally, I think that adds up to a good deal for RAPID and for
NERC.
I am happy for us to have a discussion of such issues at the RAPID SC
meeting, where there is an item scheduled for an update on the joint
venture.This might be more efficient than multiple e-mail exchanges?
Best Wishes,
Phil
>>> Eric W Wolff 01/13/04 04:10pm >>>
Hi Andy,
Of course it's nice to have an unexpected free day, though I am a
little mystefied why I would be one of those disallowed from the
second day, as I am certainly not knowingly represented on any AOs. I
am a little concerned that a large sum of RAPID money has been taken
so effectively out of any control of the RAPID SC, but I won't pursue
it.
Anyway, I will not need accommodation in that case.
Best regards
Eric
<<< "Andy Parsons" 1/13 2:49p >>>
Dear SC member,
As you know, following the RAPID Steering Committee meeting on 11th
February, in London, there will be a further meeting on 12th
February,
also in London, to consider the outline bids arising from the
Anglo-Dutch-Norwegian joint call for proposals (attached, for info).
This e-mail is to let you know that you will NOT be required for the
12th February meeting.
The composition of the committee was heavily dictated by the very
strict rules on conflict of interest of the Norwegian Research
Council, and we have had to be flexible with those rules even to
enable a handful of RAPID SC members. The reason for the delay in
letting you know has been due to negotiations on this issue.
Essentially, present responsibility for representing RAPID's science
interests in the joint venture will be through Lloyd Keigwin, Sandy
Tudhope, Bob Dickson, Peter Lemke and Mike Hulme. Phil Newton and
Meric/Christine will play the usual management roles. These five
will
be joined on the outline-bid committee by Henk Dijkstra (formerly
Utrecht, now Colorado), Bert Rudels (Finland) and Goran Bjork
(Sweden).
You will be provided with more information about the joint venture
through the RAPID SC meeting/papers.
If you have not yet contacted me with accommodation requirements for
10th/11th February, please could you do so as soon as possible.
Best Wishes,
Andy
Dr. Andy Parsons
Science Programmes Officer
Natural Environment Research Council
Polaris House
North Star Avenue
Swindon SN2 1EU
Tel +44 (0)1793 411679
Fax +44 (0)1793 411545
andy.parsons@nerc.ac.uk
3049. 2004-01-14 10:35:15
______________________________________________________
date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:35:15 -0000
from: "Curran, James"
subject: RE: "Bad Scientists"
to: 'Mike Hulme'
Well, good luck in your discussions !
I think it is important to counter these ill-informed and prejudiced commentators but I
agree that it is wearing, time-consuming and distracting. Probably only the high profile
and potentially most damaging should be tackled. Maybe DEFRA would consider a bit of
additional funding specifically to undertake the task since these activities may gradually
undermine their entire approach and strategy?
James
Professor James Curran
Environmental Futures
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Corporate Office
Erskine Court, Castle Business Park
STIRLING FK9 4TR Scotland
Tel 01786 457700
Fax 01786 446885
The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the use
of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any other is
not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by
return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hulme [mailto:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2004 10:21
To: Curran, James
Cc: a.minns@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: "Bad Scientists"
James,
Thanks for this. Unfortunately Wogan isn't the only one! Melanie Phillips in the Daily
Mail (it would be!) wrote an even more vitriolic attack on climate science, and Sir
David King in particular, just this week. And then just last night on Radio4, the
Climate Wars programme drew attention to a controversy that has blown up over the warmth
of the last millennium with powerful USA vested interests. This is one where we have
taken a stand and several senior climate scientists, myself included, have resigned from
the disputed journal.
We will certainly consider your suggestion; how much energy we - Tyndall - puts into
these types of responses is a tricky Q for us; one person could almost be employed
full-time. But it is also an issue I intend to raise at the new climate science-policy
forum DEFRA are convening later in January with Hadley, Tyndall, UKCIP, etc.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Mike
At 09:30 14/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
I'm sure you don't listen to it and it must be a pure accident that I quite often hear
it on the way to work - but do you ever come across the Terry Wogan programme on Radio 2
in the mornings ? I believe it has the biggest radio audience in the UK - several
million perhaps.
Terry Wogan doesn't have a particularly good environmental record in his personal life -
something about planting trees in Caithness as a tax avoidance measure some years ago ?
Anyway, he has a real down on climate change, especially just now, and makes repeated
disparaging remarks. Yesterday (13/1/04) he actually made some comment about it being
promoted by "bad scientists".
Rather than just complaining to the BBC, I wondered if you might consider inviting him
to the Tyndall Centre to try and persuade him how well researched and serious the issue
is and hopefully getting him to talk some sense on his show.
Best wishes, James
Professor James Curran
Environmental Futures
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Corporate Office
Erskine Court, Castle Business Park
STIRLING FK9 4TR Scotland
Tel 01786 457700
Fax 01786 446885
The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the
use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the information in it by any
other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk
388. 2004-01-16 09:34:24
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 09:34:24 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Prof Tom Wigley-transfer to infinitie contract
to: "Janice Darch"
Janice,
I'm still waiting to hear from Wanda Ferrell at DoE in the US. I had an email exchange
with her on Monday and she said she would let me know about the next 3 years in a
week or so. Nothing yet.
Phil
At 15:29 14/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Personnel has indicate that Tom is now eligible to be transferred to an
infinities contract. Are funds secure enough for us do that?
Janice
____________________________
Dr. J.P. Darch
Research Administrator
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
U.K.
Tel : 44 (0)1603 592994
Fax : 44 (0)1603 593035
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4997. 2004-01-16 10:27:37
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 10:27:37 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: 1. Scottish temperature data 2. NAOI
to: "Max Beran"
Dear Max,
It was Marc Becker who was Project Officer from SEPA for the work on the Scottish
and NI work. He would be pleased so thank for adding it all in. He will be happy for the
data
to be used as often as possible, so go ahead with using it. Paper was accepted earlier
this week - email from IJC. I guess I'll get proofs in a month or so, so expect it to be
out
by the summer. Email later if you want to check page numbers etc, as they often send
these before it comes out.
As for the NAO, the paper is attached. This discusses various indices as does the
book - which is the thing to get on the subject. It is AGU's best selling Geophysical
Monograph by the way. Much of my take on the subject is in the paper, so if you've
not got it it should make good reading. Important in my mind is the phenomenon itself,
how we measure it and then how it impacts temperature and precip patterns. Much of what
I see if that it does change but also its influence changes and the two are independent of
each other. The influence doesn't change because data are poorer before 1950. They aren't.
They may be before 1850, but the influence is clearly weaker between 1920-60 - just
at the same time as there was a weaker influence of ENSO and less strong and maybe
fewer El Ninos.
So there is a lot of variability and just saying it is decadal variability doesn't mean
that we
can forget about it ! Also putting this in a box doesn't mean we know what is causing it.
My view is that we will never know. Is the influence stronger now because of anthro
effects -
who knows, it is a possibility but no more than that.
I also think that there is too much emphasis on the NAO (and SOI) and other factors
become more important at times. There is some modelling work with volcanoes which
says that the aerosols impact the stratosphere which then feeds back on the troposphere
causing the NAO to be more positive in the winters after eruptions. Maybe the 3 large
eruptions in recent decades and the lack of eruptions between 1920 and 1960 is a factor.
Again who knows.
I don't think of David Stephenson as the leading authority on the NAO in the UK. I
don't
think we have one - we all know bits.
There seems nothing special about recent trends in the instrumental record. There does
if the paleo stuff is used - but here you come back to changes in the influence.
Finally, you can explain much more of CET, EWP if you develop an index based
on Plymouth and Lerwick. The NAO is a fundamental mode of variability, but is it
nothing more than a measure of westerly wind strength?
Cheers
Phil
At 11:15 13/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
Dear Phil
1. Thanks again for sendng me the Scottish temperature index series. I used the
post-1861, winter-season, mainland data to illustrate my talk to the Royal Met Soc's
Scottish Group last Friday. I think the talk was appreciated though I might have been a
bit heavy on the statistics as there were some heavy eyelids in those bits. I'll try to
rectify when I repeat the talk to the North-East group in the Spring.
Anyway, among the audience was a SEPA person; I think his name was Becker but I might
have misremembered. He seemed "over the moon" (so perhaps his name was Beckham, not
Becker) that I had used the data which I guess he has had a hand in funding the
compilation of. As you requested I gave you verbal and slide-embedded acknowledgment,
and IJC-in-press as a reference.
Having done all the preparatory work for these talks, I'm now ready to put together
Part 2 of my Weather article on Record Breaking (part 1 was in August 2002). This is to
be on record breaking under non-stationary conditions. I'd like to use the same run of
data for this article especially as there is a strong user interest in Scottish Winter
data. Articles have appeared on the ski industry and on the longevity (or shortevity) of
snow patches. I don't suppose for a moment my article will appear before your IJC peer
review process but I'll check before submission. It certainly doesn't sound like SEPA
are going to mind.
2. I wonder if I can steal half an hour of your precious consultancy time to ask you
about another matter entirely. What is your take on the NAO? A couple of things I've
done recently on floods, wind and temperature, show numerically just how much apparently
secular change the NAOI can swallow. But I find myself rather at odds with others
(perhaps with you too) on how to view this.
The way I see it is that the NAO is a reflection of large-scale, long-term, almost
certainly nonlinear interplay between atmospheric and oceanic dynamics, and even
land-surface hydrological processes. I imagine water of varying salinities sloshing
around in various compartments, building up to thresholds, spilling over, to
neighbouring compartments horizontally and vertically, creating shifts in the average
position of Atlantic/Arctic ocean circulation patterns and through them, on modes of the
atmospheric general circulation. We don't have much of a clue about any of the details
and perhaps never will, but we may assume that something like this is what is in place -
needs to be in place to explain the dominant fraction of the spectral energy in the NAOI
time series that is present at multi-decadal periods. The NAOI, as I see it, is an
imperfect window into the NAO which happens to work reasonably successfully in winter
when other more immediately energetic factors are relatively unimportant.
So, after that lengthy preamble, when I see that NAOI hugely out-correlates and
out-explains year number in a regression, I interpret this as evidence for multi-decadal
background, natural fluctuations fooling us into thinking that there is more secular
(and hence anthropogenic) control on weather than there really is. I am aware that
others do not. In particular Stephenson, who I take to be the number-one authority on
the subject in the UK, hardly mentions the long-term dynamics and talks as if the NAO
was itself being pushed around by the same, even mightier forces, that are pushing
around other climatic elements. One sees it in papers and IPCC report where it is
supposed that global warming will affect NAOI to the same degree as it does temperature;
also in the literature on extending the NAOI back in time on the basis of local
variables. Then there are the many references to the recent strong positive mode but
this is very unconvincing as anything special when you look at the entire time series
with its zero trend. Anyway, aren't we supposed to be due for weaker meridional flows as
the zonal contrast builds up? Much of this strikes me as topsy-turvy when, in my
version of the world, NAO (doubtless among other powerful prime movers) stands upstream
of local weather manifestations such as storminess, CET or EWP.
Would you mind emailing me an electronic version of your Geophysical Monograph 134
article.
Thanks
Max
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 December 2003 14:34
To: Max Beran
Subject: RE: CRU half-degree temperature series v CET
Dear Max,
At this very moment I'm modifying a paper submitted to IJC about Scottish and
N. Irish
temps. The paper will go back to IJC (accepted subject to minor mods) and the
report will
go to SNIFFER, part of SEPA.
What you want I'll attach. First the 3 monthly temp series in abs deg C *10,
then the
figures. These are those I altered re Armagh/NI in September, so haven't checked
these
are OK yet for resubmission. Finally the paper which I've just altered, which
should make all
clear.
Data go to 2002. Met Office should be updating series at some time in future
years.
Anything more yet on CET ?
Have a good Christmas and New Year break - I guess it's all break for you now !
Cheers
Phil
At 14:15 17/12/2003 +0000, you wrote:
Dear Phil
I'm due to give a talk on record breaking to the Scottish Group of the Royal Met Soc
in January and was looking around for a suitable Scottish data set to use as an
example. I could use the TS2.0 data especially as Tim Mitchell seems to have
softened his line on the legitimacy of using those data in time series mode.
However I note from this earlier email that you have a Scottish equivalent to the
CET which is presumably homogenised in the temporal sense so might prefer to use
that rather than creating my own from TS2.0 with its foibles.
Any chance you can point me to it - I will naturally acknowledge?
Max Beran
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 01 May 2003 09:59
To: Max Beran; david.parker@metoffice.com
Cc: mark.new@geography.oxford.ac.uk; t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk
Subject: RE: CRU half-degree temperature series v CET
Max,
David makes a good point re the NAO and the SST change around our coasts. Also
the
NAO influence is weaker in the 1920-1950 period.
Tim Osborn has a paper in ASL (the RMS online journal) which looks at the
circulation
influence on CET and EWR. Email Tim if you can't find this on the RMS web site. He
has
a pdf version, I do also but I can't find it.
In CRU we were given loads of papers by Manley's widow around 1980 but these
are just
papers. Durham have a diagram of Manley's given to them by Jean Grove about 5 years
ago.
I'm not sure whether his working papers will be in Cambridge - nor any idea who
would
know if they still exist. Dick Grove might be a starting point.
I am doing some work on Scottish series. Over the 1901-2000 period the gradient
is to
slightly less warming than CET towards the NW, so the Scottish Islands warm less
that
CET, with Scottish lowland/upland sites warming only marginally less than CET.
Period
is different though.
Also, as we've said before CRU05 and TS2.0 were not designed for climate change
studies.
Tim will be making this clear in the next version of Mitchell et al. (2003).
I could send you monthly series for De Bilt and Armagh if you're interested in.
The Dutch
series goes back to the 1700s and Armagh to 1860. Both have had considerable work
done
on them in recent years.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:46 30/04/03 +0100, Max Beran wrote:
Dear David
Thanks for those initial reactions.
I'm aware (and have a copy) of your "official" paper but the internal Met Office
report contains the sort of detail that is more a propos an unpicking exercise as
this.
Your interpretation of the CET/NAOI offset hadn't occurred to me though I'm not sure
how convincing it is. It seems to rest on a rather too simple transport of warming
from whatever phenomenon lies behind the dynamics of the North Atlantic pressure
gradient through to central England via one mighty step whose only mediator is the
ocean surface temperature.
My knowledge of urban warming is perfunctory and largely gathered since getting into
this exercise. I had been brought up on the notion that urban warming was a property
of winter, of nighttime, and of major metropolises. I now gather that it is vastly
more complicated, far reaching, and a wide variety of temporal patterns of warming
can arise, seasonally and diurnally, depending on development type, location and
baseline climatology.
You express surprise about the steepness of the spatial gradient of trend. Is it the
direction of the gradient or its magnitude that is surprising? I've just been
reading a paper by Julian Mayes in Geog Journal, Vol 166, pp125-138 about SE to NW
regional gradients - he shows a diagram (Figure 8c) that is entirly compatible with
that sort of number, it could possibly accommodate a larger one.
Do you have any inside info on Manley's precise procedures beyond what he reports in
his QJ papers? In other words can you save me the fag of going over to Cambridge?
I look forward to more.
Max
-----Original Message-----
From: david.parker@metoffice.com [[3]mailto:david.parker@metoffice.com]
Sent: 30 April 2003 11:11
To: Max Beran
Cc: Phil Jones; mark.new@geography.oxford.ac.uk; t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk;
chris.folland@metoffice.com; richenda.connell@ukcip.org.uk;
jim.briden@environmental-change.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: FW: CRU half-degree temperature series v CET
Max
I read your interesting attachment on CET and have some preliminary comments:
The definitive "Parker et al" is in Internat J Climatol 12, 317-342 (1992).
Urban warming may be greatest in summer because a) Retention of solar heat by
building fabric is greater and b) it is, in general, less windy.
We have made preliminary analyses of daily CET anomalies on windy vs calm days.
Warming is not significantly greater on the latter, as would be the case if there
were marked urban warming. However there is, as expected, considerable noise in the
anomalies, making detection of small effects difficult by this method.
A positive offset of 1951-2000 CET relative to a regression against NAO based on
1901-50 is to be expected as the ocean has warmed.
The trend difference exceeding 0.5 deg C / century between SE and NE England in
TS2.0 seems surprisingly large.
We will get back to you again in due course
Regards
David Parker
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2255. 2004-01-16 12:14:52
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 12:14:52 2004
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Tim Mitchell
to: Wilkinson_Paul,kovats_Sari
Paul, Sari,
This is to let you both know that Tim Mitchell will be leaving UEA employment after 29 February 2004 (he is taking a career change into the Christian ministry). I therefore propose that the outstanding part-time salary for UEA on the Co-op, be used by Franziska Matthies. Franziska's current p-t contract with UEA ends on 31 March, although she has a p-t contract also with a German organisation. She - and we - are very keen to retain her skills and enthusiasm within the Tyndall Centre and given the input she has already made to the Co-op and UEA/LSHTM collaboration, this seems the most logical solution.
Franziska however is not an expert on climate data so I will be appointing someone else to take over this aspect of Tim's work and this person will be expected to contribute to any climate data/scenario needs that the Co-op have. I will let you know in due course who I have managed to appoint to this position (from some of my other contracts).
LSHTM may well get an official request for permission to replace Tim with Franziska which I hope you will speedily grant!
Many thanks,
Mike
4643. 2004-01-16 13:19:18
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 13:19:18 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Another thought
to: Stephen H Schneider
Steve,
I didn't want to inflame the situation any further, but Christian Pfister is clearly
guilty
of hypocracy. He says Mike should make all available (data and programs), but he doesn't
do this when asked for the raw data and methods he uses to develop his long Swiss
and Central European series.
I'll be with you in whatever you decide, but you might consider contacting a few others
(e.g Tom Wigley, Mike MacCracken) and Kluwer with respect to any legal ramifications.
You are in California and anything goes there.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2333. 2004-01-16 13:25:59
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
to: mann@virginia.edu
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar , christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'" , 'Katarina Kivel' ,
N.W.Arnell@soton.ac.uk, frtca@fy.chalmers.se, d.camuffo@isac.cnr.it, scohen@sdri.ubc.ca,
pmfearn@inpa.gov.br, jfoley@facstaff.wisc.edu, pgleick@pipeline.com,
harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, ahs@ansto.gov.au, Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, rwk@ucar.edu,
rik.leemans@rivm.nl, diana.liverman@eci.ox.ac.uk, mccarl@tamu.edu, lindam@atd.ucar.edu,
rmoss@usgcrp.gov, ogilvie@spot.colorado.edu, barrie.pittock@dar.csiro.au,
pollard@essc.psu.edu, nj.rosenberg@pnl.gov, crosenzweig@giss.nasa.gov,
j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, santer1@llnl.gov, h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk,
F.I.Woodward@sheffield.ac.uk, gyohe@wesleyan.edu, leonid@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca,
shs@stanford.edu
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don't get bombarded by MM. Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn't give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
Göteborg University
412 96 Göteborg
Sweden
ph: ++46 31 772 31 32
[1]www.frt.fy.chalmers.se
[2]www.miljo.chalmers.se/cei
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4288. 2004-01-16 14:12:04
______________________________________________________
date: Fri Jan 16 14:12:04 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: FWD: 2003RG000143 Decision Letter
to: "Michael E. Mann"
Mike,
Great. Merging should be OK. Your alterations should only be in a few sections. You'll
be able to make other changes after we've merged everything in the areas that I work on.
So note these as you go along. Merging the responses will be straightforward.
So later I can make one big pdf of the revised submission, can you get Scott to
produce
.ps and .pdf of all four figures that you're doing.
What about a Figure on the PDO? I think this is still a bit premature - is there
something
to compare or are they too different (in the sense that the real series is still not that
accepted).
We needn't do everything and a figure would add more space.
Amazing that Rev 1 hadn't read SB !!
Cheers
Phil
At 08:59 16/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
This sounds good--I'll get working on those sections/figures you mention below, and then
we can merge changes--I'll also draft my responses to various comments, which you can
merge w/ your own. All my changes will be in yellow highlighting.
I'm mostly arround through mid feb (other than Jan 28-Feb 1) so shouldn't be a problem
to get this done.
talk to you soon,
mike
At 01:56 PM 1/16/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Hoped to have got this email to you earlier, but CC and a couple of other pressing
things
came along.
I'm away from Sunday till Thursday inc. What are your movements over the next few
weeks?
I'll be here from Jan 27 onwards and next Friday. I'll try and get a version to you
after my
week in Geneva. I'll have the laptop and hopefully we won't get worked as hard as we
were
in Holland this week.
I'll be working with the submitted double-spaced draft. I think I'll be able to do
most things.
I'm leaving you though with those on corals, boreholes and Esper et al. So, if you want
to
make a start on these ... I won't be able to chase up the additional references whilst
in
Geneva, but will do that when I get back. So, I plan to do all other comments,
including those
on bias, SB etc. I'll highlight all the paras where I make changes etc.
As for the Figures, 2,6 and 7 seem unscathed. When I'm back I'll work on colours
for 4.
This leaves you with 1, 3, 5 and 8. For Fig 1 just need to make it clearer. You will
be
changing 3 and 5 anyway. For 8 an inset seems like a good idea - especially if we can
get
the cover. I was surprised 7 got no comments - I'm still a little worried by this.
Gavin's
comments will help here.
I think we have got away quite well - 2 signed reviews and 2 others that were good.
I will
play up to this in the response to Tom Torgerson. As for size I'll try and reduce
repetition a
little, but won't go overboard. I think we've got away with it !!!! - this was my one
big fear.
I plan to add in a sentence or two at the beginning of section 2 saying we
emphasize
weaknesses as this is where the issues are. I've an idea what to write.
As for MM, I think a couple of sentences are all that is required - something along
the lines
of the points I made to CC, simple averaging gets the same result etc, therefore MM is
wrong. Anyway you'll see it all.
Does all this sound OK ? Hopefully Scott will be helpful and can find the time for
the Feb 17
date. I think we can do all by email - but we can always call after about Feb 5 if it
will speed
things up.
I have to also do the EUG as well - deadline for submission has been extended to Jan
27
as usual !
If you ever do want to call the number is below. Home is +44 1953 605643 - in most
nights
except Tues/Weds.
I'll be checking email whilst in Geneva but won't be able to see attachments.
Cheers
Phil
PS Just got the marked copy from Kim Cobb - doesn't appear much more than in
the review. Will acknowledge her and Dave by name.
At 12:25 14/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
This sounds good--there are clearly places where I'll need to take a lead role in the
revisions--the comments on the Cobb et al coral stuff, the comments on the Mann and
Jones, Esper et al, and borehole stuff (which I'll try both to update and address the
reviewers concerns). And I'll take the responsibility for updating all figures that I
had a lead role on (i.e. Fig 3, 5, 8). I plan to redo the Mann and Jones 1981-1995 w/out
using persistence of disappearing series, to insure it doesn't make a difference.
Perhaps we're a bit too focused on Soon/Baliunas and the terms LIA and MWP--the
reviewers seem to thinkw we've gone a bit overboard here. perhaps, and should also try
to make slightly more general statements about inappropriate methods as reviewer
suggests--here I'd like to comment briefly also on the McIntyre & McCormick paper,
since reviewer B raises the issue.
So I'll wait for a revised version from you, and then try to add in my own revisions,
focusing on these things, and anything else you bring to my attention.
Enjoy Geneva!
mike
At 05:05 PM 1/14/2004 +0000, f028 wrote:
Mike,
I'll pick up a copy on Friday and take with my laptop
to Geneva on Sunday. I should be able to isolate which responses I
will need help on.
Still not looked through in detail but the preliminary sentences
for each reviewer seem favourable.
If there are any issues re Scott's figures can you get in touch with
him.
More on Friday.
Cheers
Phil
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4445. 2004-01-17 07:55:24
______________________________________________________
cc: druid@ldeo.columbia.edu, druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:55:24 -0500
from: Edward Cook
subject: RE: Seminar
to: "Art Johnson"
Hi Art,
Sorry for the lack of response to your emails. Been over the top as
usual on things. I go off to Tasmania and New Zealand on Jan 20 and
return on Feb 15. Bhutan was a bit strange this time. I was sick most
of the time, but we did get some useful stuff done nonetheless.
>Hi Ed,
>
>I hope your trip to Bhutan went well. We did OK in Chile but encountered
>some glitches. I am emailing about a three things to see if you are
>interested:
>
>1) What does Gordon know about the big white spruce in the Mackenzie R.
>basin of the northern NWT? I am going to be in Alberta this summer and it is
>one plane ride and a few hundred $ from those big spruce. If I can get the
>cores, are you interested in collaborating on their measurement and
>analysis? If I can track down the person that told us that some of the trees
>were 600 y old, we might be able to find some of them. There are many spruce
>pilings in town that were probably cut in the 50's-70's and some of those
>might have been pretty old trees given their size. What is the availability
>of climate data? Inuvik probably has records back into the 50's when they
>rebuilt the town. Dick Jagels is interested in those trees too, as we are
>led to believe that they need 24 hr photoperiods when they are seedlings.
>Could this be a race of trees that respond to differences in growing-season
>sunlight?
I am cc'ing this email to Gordon and Rosanne. I think that they would
be interested in what you describe. They also know what climate data
are available. I recall that Aklavik has a older record that was
discontinued a few years back. It may be possible to merge Aklavik
with Inuvik temperature records to cover most of the 20th century.
>
>2) The Forest Service has an RFP out for projects in the "northern forest"
>I think this is defined as mostly Vermont and New Hampshire since it is a
>Senate-funded program sponsored by senators from those states. The "threat"
>(their term) of global warming to forest health is one of the themes that
>Chris Eagar is in charge of. We have been working with Vermont northern
>hardwood data collected by Post and Curtis in the 1950's and redone by us in
>the early 90's. There is a very nice multiple regression model that shows
>clearly that temperature (altitude/latitude) and soil moisture are very good
>predictors of site index (height at 75 yrs. e.g. productivity potential).
>Nutrients do not explain any additional variance. This model would suggest
>that warming would improve productivity, not decrease it. I am wondering if
>a dendroclimatological analysis of maple, beech and ash and yellow birch
>would show a response of growth to summer temperatures? I think we have all
>the cores from our 1990 study, and it would be an easy matter to get more. I
>stll owe the Forest Service a couple of papers from the 90-91 work which
>they funded, but I am actually working on them now, and could have them done
>by the March 30 deadline for the full proposal, if not for the Feb. 13
>preproposal deadline. I'm sure I could talk to Chris to see if our ideas are
>viable, and if we would be penalized for not publishing the Vermont stuff in
>a timely manner.
This sounds interesting. Are you measuring up all of the tree cores?
I wouldn't have the resources to do that without some technician
support, but I could participate in some dendroclimatic analyses of
the data with you.
>
>3) We are running cellulose O reasonably well at this time, and are still
>interested in seeing if cellulose O is useful in determining whether the
>temperature signal in mideval wood is similar to that of the past century,
>and if there is an isotopic signature in the Little Ice Age wood that
>indicates it was cold. What do you think about the availability of wood
>samples from dated rings from those periods? Is any of the Esper wood
>available? When we talked after your seminar, it seemed to me that the
>Scandanavian wood collection might be useful.
I did ask Keith Briffa about this stuff. He is tied in closely with
much of the work that has been done in Fennoscandia and even over to
the Polar Urals. He also said that there has been some isotopic work
done on wood, but he wasn't sure about results. I suggest that you
contact Keith directly (k.briffa@uea.ac.uk) and maybe he can direct
you to sources of wood for your proposed study. It is interesting, if
a bit chancy in my estimation.
Cheers,
Ed
>
>
>What do you think?
>
>Art
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Cook [mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu]
>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 2:28 PM
>To: Art Johnson
>Subject: RE: Seminar
>
>
>Hi Art,
>
>I will be driving down to your digs on Friday, Oct 17 to give the
>seminar I promised. When is it scheduled so I know how early I
>definitely have to leave. I need directions to get there as well, as
>I have never been to Penn before. Also, it would be useful to have a
>place to stay Friday night, I suppose. My wife is off to CT to
>celebrate a 50th birthday with a friend that weekend, so there is no
>point in zipping back in any case.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>--
>==================================
>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>Doherty Senior Scholar and
>Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>Palisades, New York 10964 USA
>Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
>Phone: 845-365-8618
>Fax: 845-365-8152
>==================================
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
1602. 2004-01-17 16:32:20
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford
date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:32:20 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: J. Climate paper
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , Briffa Keith
Malcolm/Tim/Keith,
As I go over the comments of the reviewers on our manuscript, I realize that one thing we
clearly have to establish is the degree of potential overlap between the data used by
MBH98 and the Briffa et al MXD network.
At some level the data are clearly different--the gridding and standardization method
applied to the MXD data underlying the Briffa et al network, if nothing else, is completely
distinct from anything used by MBH98.
On the other hand, MBH98 did use a certain number of density series. SEe the attached MBH98
data list (I believe the ITRDB data with an "x" in the title are density data).
Can we clarify which data may be in common between the two datasets?
Thanks in advance for the help,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\mbh98datasummary.txt"
4734. 2004-01-19 08:25:24
______________________________________________________
cc: mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:25:24 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: J. Climate reviews
to: Tim Osborn , Scott Rutherford , Bradley Raymond , Hughes Malcolm , Jones Phil , Briffa Keith
Dear Tim,
Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.
I'm in full agreement w/ everything you say below, and had many of the same precise
thoughts as I've begun to work through this and make preliminary revisions before sending
on to Scott.
I agree that SB03 doesn't deserve mention at all, and upon greater thought, that we do
indeed need to discuss MM03 in proper context, and address the issues of purported errors
in the dataset (there are no real errors, w/ one or two potential minor exceptions, as
noted in your Climatic Change response). It will help *a lot* if the Clim. Chng paper is
provisionally accepted before we finalize the J. Climate paper. I'm tentatively operating
under this assumption, as I add some text on the issue. You as you say, Scott is already
performing an experiment where the MBH98 network is only used through 1971, so that
infilled proxy values (really, the only potentially legitimate complaint by MM03) are not
used at all. Also, Scott is doing a "late verification" experiment to address the concerns
of reviewer #1, and we're grudgingly going to calculate r^2 values for verification too
(although I think we all agree that this is a very limited metric of reconstructive
fidelity--but a concession to the reviewer, who is clearly trying to be helpful in his/her
comments)...
The Pauling et al paper is relevant where we discuss pseudoproxy experiments, etc. so I've
added that reference as well as a Gonzalez-Rouco et al reference, and a few other relevant
recently published refs (Jones et al JGR paper '03, Mann and Jones, GRL paper '03)...
I'm finding that lots and lots of text of redundant or largely irrelevant text can be
eliminated as we work through this, so we should be able to get it to an acceptable length
(I think we can move Figure 2 to a "supplementary information" format to help out w/ length
too).
Hope to have something to send on to Scott shortly, then we can send to you guys, and
everyone else can make comments, additional revisions, etc. I think we should be able to
turn this around pretty quickly
Thanks again for your quick response. More soon,
mike
At 11:34 AM 1/19/2004 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Scott and Mike,
thanks for forwarding the reviews - and thanks, Mike, for proposing that you and Scott
take the first stab at revising/responding. In the meantime, here are some (random)
comments:
(1) Do not cite S&B03. Justify this to the editor by citing the exchange in EOS -
especially the second EOF piece, which I believe is more damming to them than the first!
(2) For M&M03 it's a little harder, since their work relates directly to the MBH data
set used here, and because a response is not yet in the peer-reviewed literature. If
your response is accepted by Climatic Change before the Rutherford et al. paper is
revised, that will help. Yet, as I understand it, the point you make in your response
is not that the data "problems" pointed out by M&M03 are *all* incorrect/misleading
(though some/many may be), but that the NH temperature results are *unaffected* by them,
even if a few are indeed in error. If so, might we need to correct the few errors that
M&M03 did find, state that we have been done this in the paper, and then show the
revised RegEM results (presumably almost as they are now?). Please correct me if I'm
wrong about M&M03, or if the work/time involved in re-running RegEM with very slightly
revised multi-proxy input is prohibitive.
(3) As Mike says, the 2nd review still needs to be dealt with, despite being rather
unfocussed. I would say that (in response to the final paragraph of reviewer B) that a
detailed paper *is* necessary that dots the 'i's and crosses the 't's - not to
re-inforce the conventional wisdom but to demonstrate that the "conventional wisdom" is
relatively insensitive to methodological choices. By the way, the Pauling et al. paper
is from Andreas Pauling and others at Heinz Wanner's group rather than Hamburg. The
Pauling et al. paper does look at seasonality, but contributes little to the issue in my
opinion. Nevertheless, we might cite it anyway, as a concession to the reviewer - while
avoiding some of their other requests.
I'll probably send more comments after I've talked with Keith and Phil (Phil is away at
present).
Cheers
Tim
At 20:07 16/01/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
The first review is insightful and helpful, the 2nd review provides relatively little
insight. It promotes a number of myths, and plays gratuitous homage to the work of the
Hamburg group (a hint as to where the reviewer might be from!). However, where
reasonable points are raised by this reviewer, too they should be dealt with too.
I don't think the paper can be split up, but it can probably be shortened a bit. I
propose Scott and I take the first stab at revising and responding to reviewer comments,
and then send it on to the others. Scott and I had discussed plan to make the matlab
codes and data used available in a website mentioned in the paper, to avoid any possible
criticisms of availability. Is there any problem in posting the version of the MXD data
set used publiclly (Tim, Keith?), and any other thoughts on this?
Please feel free to send any comments, while Scott and I begin to work on the revised
version...
Thanks,
mike
I At 02:25 PM 1/16/2004 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
Attached are the reviews from the Journal of Climate manuscript. One generally good, one
generally weird.
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Natural Sciences
Roger Williams University
e-mail: srutherford@rwu.edu
phone: (401) 254-3208
snail mail:
One Ferry Road
Bristol, RI 02809
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [3]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@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2533. 2004-01-19 11:34:01
______________________________________________________
date: Mon Jan 19 11:34:01 2004
from: Tim Osborn
subject: Re: J. Climate reviews
to: "Michael E. Mann" , Scott Rutherford , Bradley Raymond , Hughes Malcolm , Jones Phil , Briffa Keith , mann@virginia.edu
Hi Scott and Mike,
thanks for forwarding the reviews - and thanks, Mike, for proposing that you and Scott take
the first stab at revising/responding. In the meantime, here are some (random) comments:
(1) Do not cite S&B03. Justify this to the editor by citing the exchange in EOS -
especially the second EOF piece, which I believe is more damming to them than the first!
(2) For M&M03 it's a little harder, since their work relates directly to the MBH data set
used here, and because a response is not yet in the peer-reviewed literature. If your
response is accepted by Climatic Change before the Rutherford et al. paper is revised, that
will help. Yet, as I understand it, the point you make in your response is not that the
data "problems" pointed out by M&M03 are *all* incorrect/misleading (though some/many may
be), but that the NH temperature results are *unaffected* by them, even if a few are indeed
in error. If so, might we need to correct the few errors that M&M03 did find, state that
we have been done this in the paper, and then show the revised RegEM results (presumably
almost as they are now?). Please correct me if I'm wrong about M&M03, or if the work/time
involved in re-running RegEM with very slightly revised multi-proxy input is prohibitive.
(3) As Mike says, the 2nd review still needs to be dealt with, despite being rather
unfocussed. I would say that (in response to the final paragraph of reviewer B) that a
detailed paper *is* necessary that dots the 'i's and crosses the 't's - not to re-inforce
the conventional wisdom but to demonstrate that the "conventional wisdom" is relatively
insensitive to methodological choices. By the way, the Pauling et al. paper is from
Andreas Pauling and others at Heinz Wanner's group rather than Hamburg. The Pauling et al.
paper does look at seasonality, but contributes little to the issue in my opinion.
Nevertheless, we might cite it anyway, as a concession to the reviewer - while avoiding
some of their other requests.
I'll probably send more comments after I've talked with Keith and Phil (Phil is away at
present).
Cheers
Tim
At 20:07 16/01/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
The first review is insightful and helpful, the 2nd review provides relatively little
insight. It promotes a number of myths, and plays gratuitous homage to the work of the
Hamburg group (a hint as to where the reviewer might be from!). However, where
reasonable points are raised by this reviewer, too they should be dealt with too.
I don't think the paper can be split up, but it can probably be shortened a bit. I
propose Scott and I take the first stab at revising and responding to reviewer comments,
and then send it on to the others. Scott and I had discussed plan to make the matlab
codes and data used available in a website mentioned in the paper, to avoid any possible
criticisms of availability. Is there any problem in posting the version of the MXD data
set used publiclly (Tim, Keith?), and any other thoughts on this?
Please feel free to send any comments, while Scott and I begin to work on the revised
version...
Thanks,
mike
I At 02:25 PM 1/16/2004 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
Attached are the reviews from the Journal of Climate manuscript. One generally good, one
generally weird.
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Natural Sciences
Roger Williams University
e-mail: srutherford@rwu.edu
phone: (401) 254-3208
snail mail:
One Ferry Road
Bristol, RI 02809
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4290. 2004-01-19 13:42:37
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:42:37 -0700
from: "Malcolm Hughes"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , Briffa Keith , "Michael E. Mann"
Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
my understanding that we had decided not to use these
reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
2770. 2004-01-19 14:37:39
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:37:39 -0700
from: "Malcolm Hughes"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , Briffa Keith , "Michael E. Mann"
Hi Mike - I'd forgotten the connection with the BJ93 paper. I'm
working at home today (university closed for MLK day), so it
will be tomorrow before I can check a couple of things. Both the
Fritts and Shao gridded reconstructions from ring width (and the
density based one attributed to them) were gridded
recosntructions based on many chronologies. When reading the
supmat today, I assumed that these were what was used. From
what you say I assume that Ray and Phil must have made some
regional means out of these rather than using the gridpoints
directly?
Anyway, we shouldn't include the two Western North America
series in question (Dendro ring widths air temp 39N
111W 1602 Fritts & Shao 1992) or (Western North America
Dendro density air temp 39N 111W 1600 ") in
anything we do now or in the future if we are also including the
original chronologies on which they were based in our screening
(as we did).
Apart from this (i.e. the trd.dat series is entirely based on Keith's
reconstruction using density data) the only Briffa/Schweingruber
data explicitly used were 20 from the ITRDB (with the 'x' suffix,
plus the Fennoscandia and Polar(northern) Urals, i.e. 22 series.
CHeers, Malcolm
.
..
On 19 Jan 2004 at 15:59, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> series (5) is 'trd.dat', a Bradley & Jones (93) series.BJ93 was of
> course the nucleus of the MBH98 network, which was constructed by
> adding other indicators to that initial dataset. Of course, that does
> imply some redundancy, since many of the BJ93 series were composites
> of other data, etc. I might have gotten the reference from BJ93 for
> trd.dat wrong (Fritts and Shao is for correct for trw.dat, but perhaps
> not trd.dat, right?). I don't have BJ93 w/ me? What reference does it
> give for trd.dat? Scott should fix this in the revised MBH98 data
> list:
>
> ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/PROXY/
> mbh98dat asummary.txt
>
> In any case, this hardly constitutes "considerably more overlap". This
> represents 1 series/indicator out of 415 series/112 indicators used.
>
> So, in total, there are 24 density series used out of a total of 415
> proxy indicators, in the MBH98 network. Its fair to say this comprises
> a "very small fraction" of the network, but of course we must be
> careful to point out that the two networks are therefore not entirely
> independent. I will modify the wording in the paper accordingly.
>
> One final question, was each of the 24 density series in question
> actually used in the Briffa et al MXD network (Tim/Keith?).
>
> Thanks all for the feedback,
>
> mike
>
> At 01:42 PM 1/19/2004 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
> Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
> 1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that met
> the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper) 2)
> Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith) 3) Northern
> Urals reconstruction (from Keith) 4) 1 density series for China
> (Hughes data) and one from India (also Hughes data) - neither
> included in Keith's data set, I think. 5) To my great surprise I
> find that you used the Briffa gridded temperature reconstruction
> from W. N. America (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of course
> I should have picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the
> proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had
> decided not to use these reconstructions, as the data on which
> they were based were in the ITRDB, and had been subject to that
> screening process. So depending on whether you used the long or
> the shorter versions of these, there will have been a considerable
> number of density series included , some of them twice. It means
> that there is considerably more overlap between the two data sets,
> in North America, than I have been telling people. I stand
> corrected. Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes Professor of
> Dendrochronology Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of
> Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229
> ____________________________________________________________
> __
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434) 982-2137
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
1244. 2004-01-19 15:59:36
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:59:36 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , Briffa Keith
Malcolm,
series (5) is 'trd.dat', a Bradley & Jones (93) series. BJ93 was of course the nucleus of
the MBH98 network, which was constructed by adding other indicators to that initial
dataset. Of course, that does imply some redundancy, since many of the BJ93 series were
composites of other data, etc. I might have gotten the reference from BJ93 for trd.dat
wrong (Fritts and Shao is for correct for trw.dat, but perhaps not trd.dat, right?). I
don't have BJ93 w/ me? What reference does it give for trd.dat? Scott should fix this in
the revised MBH98 data list:
[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/PROXY/mbh98datasummary.t
xt
In any case, this hardly constitutes "considerably more overlap". This represents 1
series/indicator out of 415 series/112 indicators used.
So, in total, there are 24 density series used out of a total of 415 proxy indicators, in
the MBH98 network. Its fair to say this comprises a "very small fraction" of the network,
but of course we must be careful to point out that the two networks are therefore not
entirely independent. I will modify the wording in the paper accordingly.
One final question, was each of the 24 density series in question actually used in the
Briffa et al MXD network (Tim/Keith?).
Thanks all for the feedback,
mike
At 01:42 PM 1/19/2004 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
my understanding that we had decided not to use these
reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3865. 2004-01-19 16:34:02
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:34:02 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , Briffa Keith
Thanks Malcolm,
Fair enough--in future work, we can eliminate the redundant predictors, such as trd.dat
(which is just, as you say, a single regional mean as estimated by Ray and Phil backn in
'93). But for the purposes of this paper, the network should be the MBH98 network, so we
need to keep these. Of course, keeping them or eliminating them doesn't even make a dent in
the 3rd decimal place, I can assure you. Will go w/ the number 22. So 22/415 = 5% of our
predictors were in common w/ the MXD network--we can call that "nearly independent", but
note the small number of common predictors.
A revised draft of the J. Clim for all to comment on should be available soon...
Thanks again,
mike
At 02:37 PM 1/19/2004 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
Hi Mike - I'd forgotten the connection with the BJ93 paper. I'm
working at home today (university closed for MLK day), so it
will be tomorrow before I can check a couple of things. Both the
Fritts and Shao gridded reconstructions from ring width (and the
density based one attributed to them) were gridded
recosntructions based on many chronologies. When reading the
supmat today, I assumed that these were what was used. From
what you say I assume that Ray and Phil must have made some
regional means out of these rather than using the gridpoints
directly?
Anyway, we shouldn't include the two Western North America
series in question (Dendro ring widths air temp 39N
111W 1602 Fritts & Shao 1992) or (Western North America
Dendro density air temp 39N 111W 1600 ") in
anything we do now or in the future if we are also including the
original chronologies on which they were based in our screening
(as we did).
Apart from this (i.e. the trd.dat series is entirely based on Keith's
reconstruction using density data) the only Briffa/Schweingruber
data explicitly used were 20 from the ITRDB (with the 'x' suffix,
plus the Fennoscandia and Polar(northern) Urals, i.e. 22 series.
CHeers, Malcolm
.
..
On 19 Jan 2004 at 15:59, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> series (5) is 'trd.dat', a Bradley & Jones (93) series.BJ93 was of
> course the nucleus of the MBH98 network, which was constructed by
> adding other indicators to that initial dataset. Of course, that does
> imply some redundancy, since many of the BJ93 series were composites
> of other data, etc. I might have gotten the reference from BJ93 for
> trd.dat wrong (Fritts and Shao is for correct for trw.dat, but perhaps
> not trd.dat, right?). I don't have BJ93 w/ me? What reference does it
> give for trd.dat? Scott should fix this in the revised MBH98 data
> list:
>
> [1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/PROXY/
> mbh98dat asummary.txt
>
> In any case, this hardly constitutes "considerably more overlap". This
> represents 1 series/indicator out of 415 series/112 indicators used.
>
> So, in total, there are 24 density series used out of a total of 415
> proxy indicators, in the MBH98 network. Its fair to say this comprises
> a "very small fraction" of the network, but of course we must be
> careful to point out that the two networks are therefore not entirely
> independent. I will modify the wording in the paper accordingly.
>
> One final question, was each of the 24 density series in question
> actually used in the Briffa et al MXD network (Tim/Keith?).
>
> Thanks all for the feedback,
>
> mike
>
> At 01:42 PM 1/19/2004 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
> Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
> 1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that met
> the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper) 2)
> Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith) 3) Northern
> Urals reconstruction (from Keith) 4) 1 density series for China
> (Hughes data) and one from India (also Hughes data) - neither
> included in Keith's data set, I think. 5) To my great surprise I
> find that you used the Briffa gridded temperature reconstruction
> from W. N. America (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of course
> I should have picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the
> proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had
> decided not to use these reconstructions, as the data on which
> they were based were in the ITRDB, and had been subject to that
> screening process. So depending on whether you used the long or
> the shorter versions of these, there will have been a considerable
> number of density series included , some of them twice. It means
> that there is considerably more overlap between the two data sets,
> in North America, than I have been telling people. I stand
> corrected. Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes Professor of
> Dendrochronology Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of
> Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229
> ____________________________________________________________
> __
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434) 982-2137
> [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
1979. 2004-01-19 17:18:02
______________________________________________________
date: Mon Jan 19 17:18:02 2004
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: IEP Strategy Conference
to: "Peter Hedges"
Dear Peter,
Many thanks for this. You've put a lot of work into this and I look forward to the
conference. My only apology is that I now have to leave by mid-morning (after the first
breakout) on the Friday in order to get back to London for a meeting at DEFRA in the
afternoon on the Gulf Stream collapse, which I really can't miss. This means I will
unfortunately miss the wash-up session with the SAT on the Friday afternoon, but maybe I
can leave any key observations with you or Peter before I leave.
See you on Thursday,
Mike
At 17:33 16/01/2004 +0000, you wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached the "running order" for the IEP Strategy Conference next week that
you may find helpful as it provides some detail on the breakout session and the
questions we will be asking the delegates. I hope you are all still able to make it!
As a reminder, the objectives for the conference are:
* To develop the IEP Strategic Framework as a guide for future investment
* To discuss specific programme developments, including the international dimension of
the IEP research portfolio, and the issue of inclusive society
* To promote collaboration between the different IEP funded activities, and to explore
ways of maximising the research outputs of the Programme.
The event is also intended to help create an IEP community , and also to have a
celebratory element to mark the launch of the first tranche of IEP consortia.
The primary role we see for SAT members at the conference is first to provide input to
the discussions alongside the other delegates, and secondly to help us assimilate the
outputs from the meeting at the informal SAT meeting at the send of the second day. We
agreed at the last SAT meeting that members would do their best to make sure that
discussion didn't "dry up" and I hope that you will be able to bring some of your own
ideas to stimulate the discussion in the different breakout groups. I've assigned you to
research theme breakouts (hopefully!) in areas you will be comfortable in - I've also
attached a spreadsheet showing the current allocation of delegates to breakout groups so
that you can see who you will be working with.
The aims of the sessions are as follows:
Day 1
Session 1 - in small groups, to discuss how the IEP strategic framework is populated by
current research activities
Session 2 - in larger, research theme-based groups, to discuss new opportunities for
research to fill perceived gaps in the framework
Session 3 - in larger, mixed groups, to discuss research opportunities that cut across
research themes and opportunities for the integration of research outputs, again cutting
across the research themes
Dinner with Ian Gibson MP as the after dinner speaker.
Day 2
Session 4 - to discuss the inclusive society agenda in more depth in mixed groups
following a presentation by Professor Alan Marsh
Session 5 - to discuss the international development agenda in more depth in mixed
groups following a presentation by Philip O'Neil from DFID.
The last session is the one where I feel we have most "risk" of problems. The discussion
groups have been based on a number of the UN Millennium Development Challenges, some of
which may fairly difficult to discuss from an IEP (and more broadly EPSRC) perspective.
The subjects of the groups are listed below (they are in shorthand in the breakout
groups list) - please give me a ring next week if you need any further information.
Session 5 Breakout Sessions
Eradicate Poverty & Hunger
Reduce Mortality & Combat Disease
Ensure Environmental Sustainability 1
Ensure Environmental Sustainability 2
Ensure Environmental Sustainability 3
Global Partnerships for Development
Finally, we've split you up for the dinner so that one SAT member and one Associate
Programme Manager is on each table - I hope this is OK with you.
I'm in the office of Tuesday and Wednesday of next week if you have any questions. I'm
really looking forward to the event - it will be my first real chance in a long time to
concentrate on where the Programme should be going in the future.
Many thanks, as always for your time and support.
Best regards
Peter
Dr Peter Hedges
Programme Manager, Infrastructure & Environment
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council
************************************************************
EPSRC
Polaris House
North Star Avenue
Swindon
SN2 1ET
Tel: 01793 444176
Fax: 01793 444456
**********************************************************************
Internet communications are not secure and therefore EPSRC does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the EPSRC unless
specifically stated.
All EPSRC staff can be contacted using Email addresses with the following format:
firstname.lastname@epsrc.ac.uk
**********************************************************************
5203. 2004-01-20 07:58:56
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@virginia.edu
date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:58:56 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: Keith Briffa , "Malcolm Hughes" , "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn
Thanks Keith,
I agree w/ this--I think the Vaganov chronologies were pretty heavily standardized, and the
other issues you raise are important. In the future, we would (and will) be a bit more
circumspect about the use of some of these data.
In the present case, however, I think we are forced to use the exact same network.
Re, the omission of some results. I think we can probably keep them. Simply by cleaning up
the text, removing redundancy, etc. I've shortened and tightened the manuscript
considerably, and I think I've improved the logical flow a bit in the process. So my
feeling is that we will not have to split this up, but I'll leave this to all of you to
decide after you see the revised draft from Scott and me...
Thanks,
mike
At 09:45 AM 1/20/2004 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:
Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these constituent sets , and I don't
have anything to add other than agreeing that as a general principal , where possible,
original chronologies should be used in preference to reconstructed temperature series (
the latter having been already optimized using simple or multiple regression to fit the
target temperature series ). This applies not only to our western US reconstructions
(which it should be stressed are based on very flexible curve fitting in the
standardisation - and inevitably can show little variance on time scales longer than a
decade or so) but also to the Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which
was based on ring width and density data , but standardised to try to preserve
centennial variability - though the density series had by far the largest regression
coefficients). There is though a question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network
(presumably provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring width can
get high in central and eastern parts of the network , so even though these are
different variables , it might not be strictly true to think of them as truly
independent (statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the Schweingruber
network ( there may also be a standardisation issue here , as the density chronologies
were standardised with Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in
the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be based on "Corridor
Standardisation" - which likely preserves less low frequency? ) .
These remarks are simply for clarification and discussion , and I too will wait on your
response draft , though I would throw in the pot the fact that omitting the time
dependent stuff would simplify the message at his stage.
cheers
Keith
At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
my understanding that we had decided not to use these
reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4420. 2004-01-20 12:27:56
______________________________________________________
cc: Scott Rutherford
date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:27:56 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann"
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" , Keith Briffa , "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn
ok--thanks a bunch for the clarification Malcolm,
mike
At 10:27 AM 1/20/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>Mike - you are right that we should probably leave the network
>uncahnged for this mss. In fact, however, as Keith indicated, the
>Vaganov data probably retained a fair amount of low frequency
>because of the use of the corridor method (i.e. were not "heavily
>standardized"). CHeers, Malcolm
>On 20 Jan 2004 at 7:58, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
> > Thanks Keith,
> >
> > I agree w/ this--I think the Vaganov chronologies were pretty heavily
> > standardized, and the other issues you raise are important. In the
> > future, we would (and will) be a bit more circumspect about the use of
> > some of these data.
> >
> > In the present case, however, I think we are forced to use the exact
> > same network.
> >
> > Re, the omission of some results. I think we can probably keep them.
> > Simply by cleaning up the text, removing redundancy, etc. I've
> > shortened and tightened the manuscript considerably, and I think I've
> > improved the logical flow a bit in the process. So my feeling is that
> > we will not have to split this up, but I'll leave this to all of you
> > to decide after you see the revised draft from Scott and me...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > At 09:45 AM 1/20/2004 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:
> > Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these
> > constituent sets , and I don't have anything to add other than
> > agreeing that as a general principal , where possible, original
> > chronologies should be used in preference to reconstructed
> > temperature series ( the latter having been already optimized
> > using simple or multiple regression to fit the target temperature
> > series ). This applies not only to our western US reconstructions
> > (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible curve
> > fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
> > variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to
> > the Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was
> > based on ring width and density data , but standardised to try to
> > preserve centennial variability - though the density series had by
> > far the largest regression coefficients). There is though a
> > question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network (presumably
> > provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring
> > width can get high in central and eastern parts of the network ,
> > so even though these are different variables , it might not be
> > strictly true to think of them as truly independent
> > (statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the
> > Schweingruber network ( there may also be a standardisation issue
> > here , as the density chronologies were standardised with
> > Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in
> > the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be
> > based on "Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less
> > low frequency? ) . These remarks are simply for clarification and
> > discussion , and I too will wait on your response draft , though I
> > would throw in the pot the fact that omitting the time dependent
> > stuff would simplify the message at his stage. cheers Keith
> >
> > At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
> > Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
> > 1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
> > met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
> > 2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
> > 3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
> > 4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
> > (also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I
> > think. 5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa
> > gridded temperature reconstruction from W. N. America
> > (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have
> > picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the proofs of the
> > Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had decided not to
> > use these reconstructions, as the data on which they were based
> > were in the ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process.
> > So depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
> > of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
> > series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
> > considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
> > America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
> > Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes Professor of Dendrochronology
> > Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
> > 85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229
> >
> > --
> > Professor Keith Briffa,
> > Climatic Research Unit
> > University of East Anglia
> > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> >
> > Phone: +44-1603-593909
> > Fax: +44-1603-507784
> >
> > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > __
> > Professor Michael E. Mann
> > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > University of Virginia
> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434) 982-2137
> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>Malcolm Hughes
>Professor of Dendrochronology
>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>520-621-6470
>fax 520-621-8229
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2390. 2004-01-20 15:09:15
______________________________________________________
date: Tue Jan 20 15:09:15 2004
from: Keith Briffa
subject: ms#2978
to: kivel@stanford.edu
Steve
I have been through this carefully and the substantive content is genuinely fine . The
essence of what Mann and co-workers say is that the purported auditors of their work
(McIntyre and McKitrick- MM ) have failed to demonstrate anything other than if you use a
different selection of predictors you can arrive at a different reconstruction , albeit one
with no verifiable fidelity. Though this is patently obvious , in the context of the undue
interpretation many people are placing on the MM paper , a useful scientific purpose is
served by making it clear that this is what MM have done. Mann and colleagues must to some
extent infer the exact details but they provide sufficient evidence of how MM likely came
to their result. This is a point worth clarifying and from your point of view worth
printing .
The manuscript is compact , and the content valid in as much as I can judge. One could get
into semantics as to whether MM actually put their series forward as evidence of global
warmth in the 15th century (as stated in the first paragraph of this manuscript) but this
is to miss the point , which is that this is a convincing refutation of any implication
that MM have in any way disproved the reconstruction of Mann et al . Beside suggesting
some rephrasing at the bottom of page 2 and middle page 4 as suggested , I recommend
publishing as is.
suggested rewording ...
Page 2
6 lines up from bottom -
instead of "produces their spurious reconstructed 15th warmth century which is.."
"produces the spurious warmth reconstructed by them during the 15th century:
warming which is.."
Half way down page 4
replace "for the reconstruction over the"
with
"over the independent validation period (1854-1901) corresponding to their calibration of
the reconstruction for the period ". Remove the word "interval" after 1500.
Page 7
replace " associated of ours upon "
with
"associate , upon".
Two thirds down page 4
"It was completely incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provided
statistically reliable evidence of anomalous warmth prior in the 15th..."
could be
"It is incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provides statistically
reliable evidence of anomalous warmth in the 15th..".
Northern Hemisphere and Table should start with capitals
Finally, the references need checking to confirm that all in the reference list are cited
in the text (I suspect they are not).
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[2]/
1295. 2004-01-21 11:59:56
______________________________________________________
date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:59:56 +0000
from: Nick Brooks
subject: Brief report back on Catastrophes meeting
to: , Ian Harris , , Mike Leeder , Tim Jickells , Ute , Sue Turner , d023 , Roger Few , Nick Drake , Kevin White
Dear all
I've just returned from a very wet and green Sahara, having attended a
meeting on "Rapid and Catastrophic Environmental Changes in the Holocene and
Human Response", organised by Suzanne Leroy at Brunel and sponsored by the
following bodies:
IGCP 490 (The role of Holocene environmental catastrophes human history
ICSU DARK NATURE - RAPID NATURAL CHANGE AND HUMAN RESPONSES
IUGS - GEOIND Geoindicators Initiative
INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research)
(IGCP is the International Geological Correlation Programme; ICSU is the
International Council for Science - not sure where the "U" comes in!)
The meeting dealt with a variety of topics including palaeoclimatic proxies
(emphasising pollen records), climate modelling, palaeofloods, climate and
solar variability, dust, indicators of geological hazards, coastal
upwelling, tsunami detection, earthquakes, desertification, archaeology and
human migration, and the role of environmental change in cultural
development.
The meeting emphasised processes relevant to northwestern Africa, but also
dealt with wider issues. Several participants had links with UEA through CRU
and Tyndall; Michel Crucifix from the Hadley Centre gave an interesting
presentation on modelling vegetation climate interactions in the Sahel.
Martin Williams of desertification fame was also there, along with Francoise
Gasse, Henry Hooghiemstra and others looking at palaeoclimatic proxies.
Francoise gave an interesting talk on correlations between solar variability
and African lake levels, which may be of interest to some of you.
The geoindicators element was interesting and relevant to the vulnerability,
hazard and risk work going on in units such as Tyndall, and I gave an extra
impromptu presentation on vulnerability and risk within this context.
I have a book of extended abstracts if anyone wants to have a look at it,
and have requested a couple more for the Tyndall library - the abstracts are
quite detailed. Some of these will be published as full papers in a special
issue of the Journal of the Geological Society of London.
There will be some more meetings following on from this one, culminating in
a "Catastrophes Congress" in Egypt in 2007. If anyone wants some more
information, drop me a line and/or take a look at the following websites:
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/geo/igcp490/igcp490home.html (IGCP)
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/ges/ICSU-DN/ICSU-DN.htm (ICSU)
http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/ (INQUA)
http://www.lgt.lt/geoin/ (Geoindicators)
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/ges/igcp490/maur2004.htm (Conference page)
I'm sending this to Tyndall and to a few others who may be interested - feel
free to forward to colleagues if you think there is anything here or
interest to them.
Cheers
Nick
--
Dr Nick Brooks
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 593904
Fax: +44 1603 593901
Email: nick.brooks@uea.ac.uk
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/welcome.htm (personal site)
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk (Tyndall Centre site)
http://www.uea.ac.uk/sahara (Saharan Studies Programme)
--
3775. 2004-01-22 11:09:28
______________________________________________________
cc: "Wright, Ken (GA)" , "Jones, Ross (GA)"
date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:09:28 -0000
from: "Ellisdon, Chris (GA)"
subject: IPPC Nomination Forms Fourth Assessment Report
to: "'myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk'" , "'k.briffa@uea.ac.uk'" , "'simon.brown@metoffice.com'" , "'matthew.colllins@metoffice.com'" , "'bill.collins@metoffice.com'" , "'Peter.cox@metoffice.com'" , "'r.derwent@btopenworld.com'" , "'p.m.forster@rdg.ac.uk'" , "'Jonathan.Gregory@metoffice.com'" , "'Dave.griggs@metoffice.com'" , "'jim.haywood@metoffice.com'" , "'e.j.Highwood@reading.ac.uk'" , "'rcah@bas.ac.uk'" , "'tim.johns@metoffice.com'" , "'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'" , "'richard.jones@metoffice.com'" , "'John.f.mitchell@metoffice.com'" , "'James.murphy@metoffice.com'" , "'t.osborn@uea.ac.uk'" , "'david.parker@metoffice.com'" , "'vicky.pope@metoffice.com'" , "'s.raper@uea.ac.uk'" , "'nick.rayner@metoffice.com'" , "'h.roscoe@bas.ac.uk'" , "'David.Sexton@metoffice.com'" , "'peter.stott@metoffice.com'" , "'Simon.tett@metoffice.com'" , "'J.Turner@bas.ac.uk'" , "'ewwo@bas.ac.uk'" , "'plw@pol.ac.uk'" , "'n.adger@uea.ac.uk'" , "'n.w.arnell@soton.ac.uk'" , "'richard.betts@metoffice.com'" , "'p.convey@bas.ac.uk'" , "'r.few@uea.ac.uk'" , "'jim.hall@bristol.ac.uk'" , "'c.hope@jims.cam.ac.uk'" , "'jo.hossell@adas.co.uk'" , "'sari.kovats@lshtm.ac.uk'" , "'Bo.Lim@undp.org'" , "'jrm@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'mdm@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'j.f.morton@gre.ac.uk'" , "'l.peck@bas.ac.uk'" , "'nsr@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk'" , "'ts111@cam.ac.uk'" , "'c.d.thomas@leeds.ac.uk'" , "'d.s.thomas@shef.ac.uk'" , "'e.tompkins@uea.ac.uk'" , "'j.twigg@ucl.ac.uk'" , "'a.watkinson@uea.ac.uk'" , "'Ken.Gregory@tesco.net'" , "'j.koehler@econ.cam.ac.uk'" , "'simon.shackley@umist.ac.uk'" , "'jcki@bas.ac.uk'" , "'Jason.lowe@metoffice.com'" , "'rjn@soton.ac.uk'" , "'a.rodger@bas.ac.uk'" , "'d.b.stephenson@reading.ac.uk'" , "'d.vaughan@bas.ac.uk'" , "'d.viner@uea.ac.uk'" , "'richard.wood@metoffice.com'" , "'hbal@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'terry.barker@econ.cam.ac.uk'" , "'t.g.cannon@greenwich.ac.uk'" , "'jonathan.cobb@bnfl.com'" , "'andlug@hotmail.com'" , "'john.firth@severntrent.co.uk'" , "'michael.grubb@ic.ac.uk'" , "'geoff.levermore@umist.ac.uk'" , "'csu@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'r.warren@uea.ac.uk'" , "'dgg@ceh.ac.uk'" , "'D.S.Lee@mmu.ac.uk'"
Dear Nominees,
Your nomination forms for the Fourth Asssessment period have now been
submitted to the IPCC for their consideration.
As soon as we receive any information on your applications, you will be
notified immediately.
Regards
Chris Ellisdon
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. Its unauthorised
use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received it in error, please
destroy all copies and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will
have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems
may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for
other lawful purposes.
2771. 2004-01-22 13:26:29
______________________________________________________
cc: "V McGregor"
date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:26:29 -0000
from: "shimon awerbuch"
subject: RE: Tyndall/CMI Symposium Summary
to: "John Shepherd" , , , , , ,